Not happy With Mackie/Loud Tech

[RJH_MUSIC]

Maybe it is just me, but I have to went a little. A month ago i started a post about creating a new Operating System for the d8b that would run on current day hardware and at the same time started a project to built a separate power supply for the console. You can follow both of those posts. I have to say a huge thank you to the folks who continue to pour their heart out trying to make both of those projects be fruitful. I for one am committed to seeing both projects end successfully mainly due to the fact that the d8b is still one of the best digital mixers out there and has the best bang for the buck.

What really tweaks my melon is the lack of participation or help from either Mackie Technologies or Loud Industries in this. They abandoned one of the best pieces of hardware ever made and don't seem to care. If you look at the number of views to the thread on the 5.1 Crack alone, you notice that 31,661 views. Even if most of us viewed the thread on average of 2 times, that still leave over 15,000 customers who would probably like me jump at the chance to buy a brand new d8b(2) if one was ever introduced. Especially now when parts are starting to dwindle from the internet , or worse that what you buy is either not functional or badly beaten up. I was astonished to recently buy some parts from the web only to find out when they contain rust, mildew and blight on them. I fear that the d8b will certainly die a horrible death in the next few years if we don't keep it alive.

SO, calling all Mackie Program / Software Engineers - Please help keep this dream alive and jump in t any time.

[Phil.c]

Us oldies who have had the D8B from the start are well aware of the dropping of support many many years ago, Mackie/Loud moved on to other project and just wiped their hands of everything to do with the desk and HDR.
You are doing a fine job with the new OS, but, I can tell you that Mackie will not be interested in the slightest which is a shame

[Crash]

Having been involved with the d8b from day 1, Mackie figured that it would have a 5 year life span. The fact it went beyond that was nice but their just isn't any money in it for them trying to keep this old tech alive or updated. The digital studio console market is pretty small in the scheme of things unfortunately.

When Bob Tudor passed away, a lot of d8b/dxb future development passed on as well. In reality, the dxb is the d8b 2. That was Bob's baby with Sane Wave and that team and it was definitely a passion project in terms of OS development beyond the initial release. If you go on the dxb FB group page and look up Bob's old posts, you can see it. He worked with an Italian fellow named Augusto Grado with some of those OS updates. He might be a resource that is useful for you but he seems very sporadic in terms of activity and communication.

It hurt my heart the day I boxed up the d8b and HDR for the dxb/protools rig. Having been there and been part of it, I was emotionally invested with that setup. But, as the track counts kept growing over the years and the work starting outpacing the d8b rig, it was time to make a change. I still have the d8b/HDR setup boxed up...just in case.

I stay on here to help when I can and watch what folks are doing with their d8b rigs. I wish you the best in your OS development endeavors but like Phil said, don't expect interest from Mackie in a product that was bright and shiny in the late 90's. I can't think of any other company that would jump on that wagon either. Tech has moved too far along in my opinion for it to make sense for them.

That's my $1.50 worth of opinion on it.

Just for kicks, what are you looking for in a d8b2? What features would you want that it the current rig won't do?

[RJH_MUSIC]

Well, Good thought, pretty much nothing more than what it does now, just smaller cpu, USB and thunderbolt support or even USB c. Oh and I would to take the big out BFC. That cable is a pain in the a@#. Throw in Bluetooth for wireless keyboard and mouse. The reason I would like to build which I'm attempting to do and much smaller and updatable CPU is so that when a video card blows you don't have to scour the Internet trying to find one that will work with the d8b. As a lot of us are finding out the hard way there's only a handful that do now the rest are throwing money away. I guess the whole reason for trying to hack the OS is to get it to run on a current day Machine with a current day motherboard and peripherals. Other than that its functionality is perfect. The only thing close to it right now that will accept 48 inputs While handling both audio and midi As well as DSP functions is Euphonics S5 fusion. That's actually what I would buy if I had $35,000 laying around. If you want to do that with an avid S6 you're talking about better than $250,000. Maybe I'm just uninformed or stupid but everything I have checked in the digital mixer with DSP realm and mitty can't get past 16 or 24 Channels that don't come close to 48 actually actually 56.

[Y-my-R]

[Removed by Author]

[Phil.c]

I remember on the Mackie forum some time after D8B production had ended, a guy came up with a CAD drawing of a D8B2, there was lots of excitement regarding what improvements etc that it could have, I think the information gathered was sent to Mackie, but it fell on deaf ears!

[Y-my-R]

Quick post, since I don't have time to write a "novel" as usual right now, but feel that I need to clarify how my earlier post above was meant (and how I should better not have posted that at all... probably a bit late to delete):

"Old School" from this forum sent me some REALLY GOOD questions about requirements he has for a desk to replace the D8B in his environment, but that the PreSonus mixer simply doesn't have. Like, "how many routes to tape, aside via USB."

I think I'll respond to each of his questions here (if he's OK with that), when I have a little more time, but basically, that mixer is not a "drop-in replacement" for the D8B at ALL, if you would not also change ALL of your workflow, to work with the workflows that exist in the context of the new hardware. They're VERY different.

So, if your setup is basically something akin to "analog style" and you want to keep it like that, the D8B really is one of the only mixers that are affordable. I stand corrected.

So, I apologize - that post was out of place, and this is not the "audience" for it.

I'll be removing the content of the post above shortly (I don't think I can delete it completely anymore), since it could be misleading to anyone not reading the posts around it.

[RJH_MUSIC]

No apologies needed. All good posts. I did check out the Presonus 64s. Pretty sweet, but only has 32 physical inputs for $4,500. I think part of my problem is that I have to much hardware.... lol if that is possible, so on one d8b I am using all 24 TRS inputs plus all three analog card inputs via break cable plus the three 2 Trac inputs A, B and C. I did not want to use a patch bay, so this was the only to get all hardware synth modules in connected in stereo. The second d8b handles vocals and live instruments as well as VSTi ins and outs. All together, that is 80 physical inputs, with room for 16 more via patch bay. Did I say patch bay...lol from there, the main, sub and bus outputs of each d8b are sent to a Mackie 32x8 bus along with 4 keyboard synths. Master outs of 32x8 bus go to Final processing and then are routed to recording devices.

Long story to say that if I were to graduate to the 64s, I would need additional hardware to convert the analog to USB for the inputs in excess of 32, or use a patch bay.

[Y-my-R]

I removed the original post (i.e. “[Removed by Author]" above) where I had suggested a PreSonus StudioLive 64S mixer as a possible replacement for the D8B, since it checked most of the boxes “RJH_MUSIC" had shared for the requirements for such a desk for him.

However, when that post was still live, “Old School” from this forum sent me some REALLY GOOD questions via a direct message, about things a D8B-replacement would need to be capable of doing, to handle the job in his environment.
Since nearly all the answers to his questions would either have been a “no, it doesn’t do that” or a “yes, but the workflow would be completely different”, I figured it would probably be best if I’d share the questions he asked, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.

I have to admit that I previously struggled a bit to understand why some people say that the D8B is this difficult to replace, but I think it mostly comes down to workflows. The D8B follows a “classic” workflow that has existed since there were multi-track tape-recorders and mixing consoles… most “budget” digital mixers don’t fit that workflow. And I think that’s really where expectations aren’t being met.

Just for those reading along that may not be familiar with how such a classic workflow looks like, and why it works/worked the way it does/did:

- When an analog multi-track tape machine is recording, the tape first passes over a “write/record” head, that magnetizes the tape in just the right way and places the audio recording on the tape.
- Right AFTER the “write/record” head, is the “read/playback” head, that is used to hear back what’s been recorded.

…and because the “Play” head can read the tape immediately after the “Record” head has written the audio to the tape, you can listen back to the recording, while still recording.

To make a mixer take advantage of a Tape-Machine's “listen back to the recording WHILE recording” operation, mixers with a Split/Inline design were created. In the analog world, such mixers usually have either a smaller fader above the main channel fader on the mixer, or on cheaper mixers, usually a "level knob" instead of a 2nd fader.
The main channel fader controls the live-input that goes through the mixers pre-amps (or line-inputs) for that channel, while the “small” fader (or 2nd level knob) controls the “Tape Return” - which is kind of like a second channel within the channel. So, the signal that is coming back from the Multi-Channel Tape Machine, is going to the "2nd channel" within the channel where the instrument/mic signal is coming in.

With this sort of configuration, the signal you want to record would usually pass through the Pre-Amp/Line-Input, then through the “regular” channel strip, and would then be sent out of the channels “Tape Out” to be recorded to a Tape Machine.
While the RECORD Head “writes" the audio to tape, less than an inch later on the tape, the PLAY head “reads” the audio from the tape again. The Audio read by the PLAY head, is then sent back to the mixer’s “Tape In” channels, and ends up on the “small fader”. So, basically on a channel within the channel.

This way, you can record audio to tape, while listening back to the audio you just recorded (and thus making sure there were no issues with the recording - for example b/c of issues with the tape itself). And all of that without any noticeable latency, because the Record and Play heads are so close together on an analog tape machine.

The D8B makes use of that exact principle. Except the “small fader” isn’t located in a section of the “main” channel strip (and above the larger/main fader for the channel), but there’s a separate “layer” for that on the D8B.

So, when comparing to an analog mixer, your “main channels” are on the “Mic/Line” layer on the D8B, while your “Tape Return” channels (aka “the small faders” on an SSL or similar console), are on the “Tape In” layer on the D8B.

Because of this layout, you could seamlessly integrate the D8B with an analog Tape Machine… like the classic Fostex G24S, for example, or an Otari MTR-90, etc. (as long as you have Analog I/O cards in the Tape I/O slots in the D8B).

The HDR “sort of” follows the same principle - except for that it’s kind of pointless to listen back to the signal that’s been printed “to tape” since the kinds of issues that plagued tape during recording, don’t usually happen when recording digitally to a hard drive, like in the HDR or any other DIGITAL multi-track recorder. What you “send to the harddrive” to get recorded, will be exactly what will be played back later. No need to listen back in real-time. You can just listen to the audio-source on the mixer (instead of listening to what comes back from tape/HD).

However, for those who learned their craft during the analog days, the “Tape Out/Tape Return” layout is an integral part of the workflow and many do not want to change this approach.

Oh... and I almost forgot that part: On a "modern" digital mixer, you usually just choose your "audio source" for a track, and that could either be the Mic/Line inputs, or USB or SD-Card, etc. So, you basically have a different audio source going to the same mixer channels... just from a different source. (And if I recall right, you could have different FX/Plug-in settings depending on the sources... the settings/FX for the previous source are simply suspended, while the FX/Settings for the current source are active. Kind of like "virtual channels").
What you don't get in this way, is to use the Tape ins and Mic/Line ins to double-up your mixer inputs during mixdown, though. But that's also why these kinds of mixers don't cost quite as much (more I/O and converters on each Input/Output really drive the price up).

So, since the practical reason for the Tape Send/Tape Return approach pretty much went away, though (i.e. “listen back from tape" is pointless with a digital recorder), new “budget” mixers and recorders don’t usually follow that Split/Inline console layout and with it the Tape Send/Return workflow AT ALL anymore. It’s considered obsolete and/or reserved for higher-end studios who have been working this way for a long time, and would need to change their entire operation to integrate gear that doesn’t follow this type of workflow.

…and I think that’s exactly where were are, with the discussion which mixer could potentially replace the D8B.

The answer really depends on how far you’re willing to change your workflows, and move part of the process “in the box”. I guess I realized just before I deleted my earlier post above, that people who gravitate to the D8B, typically want to stick with the proven “analog style” workflow - and I can totally understand that. That’s how I learned to do it, first… and in a way I wish times would have stayed this “simple” (…or rather, this clearly defined and similar from studio to studio).

So, the problem happens, when looking at replacements for a mixer that was designed to fit the “analog workflow” (even though it’s digital), since most modern “budget” mixers just don’t have this type of workflow as their goal at all.

And with all this said, I think now the questions/answers will make a little bit more sense:


D8B vs. “modern” digital mixer - here, at the example of a PreSonus StudioLive 64S:

Q: How many “routes to tape” besides via USB (or to the built-in SD-card):
A: None.
C: You either record to the built-in SD-card, or to the computer via USB. There are no separate dedicated Tape Send/Return I/Os. Potential problem: Latency. If you intend to process the signal on a computer connected via USB and listen back to the same signal in real-time, you can expect somewhere around 10ms of latency (give or take). This is enough to potentially give a drummer or percussionist a hard time (…but is usually not an issue for “melodic” instrumentalists).
However, as long as you listen to the signal going into the mixer before it goes out to the computer via USB (e.g. if no computer-processing is needed to make the signal sound different for monitoring), then there won't be any latency... just like if you listen to the incoming audio from any other (analog) mixer0.
Having said that, it’s possible to add more Inputs/Outputs via Network Audio (AVB for this mixer)… potentially to the point of getting enough I/O to connect a 24-Track recorder with analog cables. But I’m not aware of anybody using such a mixer in this way, and am not sure if the intended workflows for a mixer like that, would get in the way of such a "workaround" approach. I never tried.

Q: How would you route audio to say an HDR or adat if recording
A: You typically would only record to the built-in SD-Card or to the computer via USB. Not to a standalone recorder.
Having said that, you can add more I/O via network audio (see longer comment on that for the first question above).

Q: Is there a video output so that you can see what you are doing with the tracks if you record them onboard (via the built-in SD-Card multi-track recorder)
A: The “video output” happens on the built-in touchscreen. However, this is very basic and not comparable to what the HDR displays. You also get no serious editing options on the built-in recorder at all. The expectation is, that such edits would be done via the DAW in the computer (that you could record directly to via USB).

Q: How many auxillary or effects sends does it have and can you route the returns to any channel.
A: I forgot how many sends there are, but I’m also not sure if you mean “to external hardware” or if “internal FX sends to DSP FX” count. I’ll have to look this up, but I don’t recall thinking “oh, this is less than the D8B”… so, I’d think at least 12, but I’m not sure.
As for how many returns… I also don’t recall right now if it had “dedicated” returns, but as far as I recall, you’re basically just using up a channel for a return, but for that, you can return the signal to any channel, IIRC.
Routing is generally REALLY flexible, and you can basically route anything to anything. Rather than thinking in ‘how many channels, how many returns, how many sends”, digital mixers like that usually function more like “how many streams are available on the DSP”. And such "streams" can then be whatever you want them to be (channels, returns, busses, etc.), as long as the DSP has enough resources left to handle them. I’m actually not sure how many streams the DSP in the 64S can handle and would have to look that up. At least 64, of course, but I’d expect that there’s some extra streams available on top, to handle at least a basic set of Busses and Sends, etc. Returns are basically mixer channels, though.

Q: Can you use 3rd party plug-ins?
A: Not directly on the desk, no. But if your desk would function as the front-end for a DAW on the computer (which the mixer I mentioned can), then you’d just run 3rd party plug-ins within that DAW.

Q: Can you monitor previously recorded tracks while recording another without noticeable latency?
A: That depends. If you monitor a signal that goes into the mixer from the mixer, and only process it with the plug-ins that are available on the mixer, you won’t get any noticeable latency. If the signal needs to go to the computer/DAW via USB and come back (e.g. to add a guitar amp simulation in real-time), then you will likely get noticeable latency, since USB isn’t all that fast. Again, probably around 10ms. For stuff like recording vocals, adding some reverb on the mixer, and monitoring it all from the mixer (while recording to SD-card or through USB, but not monitoring from that route), you won’t get any noticeable latency, though. There, it’s just real-time audio, like you’re used to from analog mixers (probably some DSP delay in the nano-second range, but nothing noticeable).

Q: I need to be able to feed my 16-channel headphone system with individual headphone mixes, and the D8B handles this easily via the 12 aux sends. Can it do that?
A: It works very different from the D8B (I like the “Copy Mix to Cue” feature on the D8B, though), but is easier to handle, IMO. Basically, you a number of buttons for Aux/Sub/Matrix mixes that work like having LOTS of layers on the D8B (rather than just Mic/Line, Tape and FX), and you can use the faders to build the Cue-Mix for each musician individually. Honestly, I don’t remember if you could just create the mix once, copy it everywhere and then adjust for the individual musician… but I expect that you can do that. I don’t see why not (you can take snapshots of the entire mixer, so I can’t imagine that a snapshot of the main mix, to copy to the aux/sub/matrix mixes would not be possible)

Alright… these were “Old School”’s questions and what I think is possible with a mixer like the 64 channel one from PreSonus.

Generally, though… the I/O isn’t limited by what’s on the mixer itself, though, but really just by how many “streams” the DSP can handle. You can always add more I/O via stage boxes or AVB (network audio) compatible gear. But of course this also quickly shoots up the price when needing to add a lot of I/O, and will also become more and more complex to set up.

The reason why I was studying how to use a PreSonus StudioLive 32SC was, because my drummer at the time added that to the rehearsal room, and I tried to help to get him up to speed (replacing an MDR connected to an Alesis Studio 32 and an 8-channel ADAT pre to get pre-amps for all 24 recording channels). He’s not the most technical guy, and needed someone to help him get started - so I took the mixer home for a week and played with it, then brought it back and showed him what I found.
He moved out of town soon after, but has since completed the drum recordings for multiple EPs with that mixer. So, I guess that thing is workable for your average drummer (who has a total lack of interest for technical things).

OK… I’m tired of typing. But RJH_MUSIC… if you need a lot of Inputs, as mentioned above, you DO have the ability to add more inputs via AVB devices/stageboxes, but I don’t know what the limit for the DSP in the 64S is.

Sorry again for possibly ruffling some feathers with that earlier post. I hope this one helps to illustrate where I was coming from, rather than rubbing everyone the wrong way even more… really sorry, if so. Not my intention at all, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to switch to a “different kind of mixer” at all!

[Old School]

Thanks for all the Info,
For me, not being able to see the tracks (and edit them) right after you record them is a huge disadvantage which throws us back to the old days of punching in and out blind. When the musicians are getting paid $3000 for the session, I have to fix everything during the session, because once they leave the studio that's it. I have to catch anything that isn't what the vocalist wants, mistakes or notes that are different than what the vocalist wants (sometimes notes that blend with the lead vocal will clash later when 3 part harmony is added), With the HDR I can punch an entire drum kit in and out and then adjust the punch in and out points with the editor so that even the cymbal tracks are seamless, and I can do it in less than three minutes. Sure you can punch in and out just by listening but try it when the songs are all original and you've never heard them before. You can get lost pretty quick and waste a lot of time and possibly make a mess of things. As for headphones, I can't spend a lot of time creating a different mix tor every one. I find that copying mix to cue doesn't work for everyone so I have a headphone system where everyone has a little furman 16 channel headphone mixer which I feed from the D8B's 12 aux sends so external sends are a must. This way every musician gets just what he wants during the initial tracking and I just copy my mix to cue to two of their channels so they can hear the playback for overdubs. This is the environment of a commercial studio, and no one is making any console (for less than 50 grand) that I know of which can handle all these things like the D8B does. I don't agree that the market is too small, by nature almost everyone who records music is a perfectionist and with the equipment sales to home studios now in the billions, I think a significant percentage would buy a revamped D8B offering. Not that much would even have to change. Just a modern MB, better pre amps, better converters and the ability to run 3rd party plug-ins, a usb interface and the D8B would be hard to beat. (it would also be really nice to build the HDR into the D8B's computer and you'd have an all in one recording setup) I don't think production cost is the problem either as most of the audio companies now have their hardware produced in China at unbelievably low costs ( it cost the Chinese less than $200 US to build a 32 channel digital mixer).
At any rate, thank you Y-my-R for explaining all the pros ( and to be fair, there are a lot of them) and cons of that mixer. As usual, your explanations are thorough and enlightening.

Have a blessed day,
Mike