Hi Paulo,
You’re asking a lot of questions… if I’d answer in my “regular style” my response would probably get 10 pages long, so I’ll try to keep it short:
First thing I need to ask is about reliability? Is it really bad?
The D8B is kind of infamous for being very UNRELIABLE. It’s great when it works, but getting a non-working unit to work, or keeping a repaired one working, is the main reason why people get rid of these desks, or just use them as a controller with the ProBox, instead of as a mixer. It’s pretty much the most unreliable digital piece of gear I ever worked with.
I never heard of that Korg Zero 8 before. Looks like some sort of expanded DJ-Battle mixer, with a crossfader and buttons to route the sources to either the left side or the right side of the crossfader. I guess this could be fun if you’d really be using this for live performances, like an “expanded” DJ-Battle Mixer with more sources… but for home/studio use, this doesn’t look very useful to me.
I did see some forum posts just now, that also described that Korg Zero 8 as having lots of issues… channels going out after warranty, the display dying, signal-to-noise being terrible, and that the drivers for the soundcard portion of it were never updated to 64-bit. So, that device seems to be a big source of frustration when it gets old… I’m afraid the D8B is NOT a good escape from that, though. You need to kind of LIKE to tinker with old unreliable hardware, to be able to put up with the D8Bs many quirks and frequent bad days.
I do NOT recommend it, if trying to get away from unreliability issues with your last mixer.
Second thing, how is the noise floor of the mixer, and does it work well with ADAT?
I'm asking this cause I had two Creamware A16 ADAT converters (one original, the other an Ultra) and the noise floor on both of them was absolutely awful…
On my RME Fireface 800 the inputs go to -108dB, while the channels it received from the ADAT converters were at around -95dB or worse…
I'm a bit picky with noise, so that made those unusable and I ended up getting rid of them…
I’m very curious how you measure that and how you get those numbers. What these companies publish as the signal-to-noise values, and the results you would get if you “attempt” to measure the signal through software, like the RightMark Audio Analyzer, usually don’t match at all.
End-user home-measured values are usually wrong and not comparable to “published” such values (…oh, the silly claims we sometimes got in tech support, from people who “thought” they measured their signal to noise themselves, BUAHAHAHAHAHA). Or do you have the proper testing equipment for that, to set the right conditions for such a test? Like an Audio Precision unit, for example?
RME converters are pretty good, and have a reputation for not being very noisy, usually. I doubt that you’d measure -108 dB of noise floor on that, via home-methods, either, though. Unless it’s an RME provided software tool, that “optimizes” the results for their own hardware.
When looking at the published specs for a Creamware A16, they claim to have a dynamic range of 110 dBA as well. So, again… why do you think that the noise floor on that A16 was at that particular level? How did you measure that?
Generally speaking, though… Creamware is a brand that I only remember from the very early days of digital audio, for their Triple-Dat and Pulsar products. I dimly remember the A16 coming out, but I think that company didn’t exist for long after that. From my memory, the Creamware A16 was a VERY early 16-channel standalone converter… and technology DID move forward quite a bit, since then. So, I’d expect these converters to be noisier than the ones in the RME… but not by such a huge marin. So, I’m still thinking the measurements were not right.
Was the A16 clocked to the main clock you’re using in your system (so, probably as slave to the RME)? If that’s not set right and you try to measure with the occasional pop and click in the signal, your measurement results will look terrible.
…and while we’re at it… that Korg Zero 8 was apparently TERRIBLE when it comes to the S/N-Ratio. But that worked well enough for you, even though you’re picky about noise?
Also, I think you can’t compare the noise floor of a simple “converter only” device, or an audio interface that is essentially also nothing but a converter that sends the now digital audio signal to the computer, with a full blown digital mixer with DOZENS of inputs and a dozen Mic Pros, that all generate a certain level of noise, if they’re “on” while you measure.
Or to put it differently… how much noise will the DIGITAL transfer from your A16 to your RME card add? Nothing. No noise. Absolutely zero. If there’s any noise added, it’s from the A16 converters… but again, I think your measurement isn’t right.
How much noise will the DIGITAL transfer from an ADAT expansion card to your RME card add? Again, nothing. No noise. Absolutely zero. What WILL add noise, is any component on the D8B that is active and in the signal path before the signal gets sent to your RME card. And there’s LOTS more components the signal can run through here, than on that A16.
In other words:
Will there be an added noise floor when connecting the D8B via ADAT to your RME. Yes.
It as simple as saying “then the ADAT transmission from the D8B is bad” - No. Absolutely not.
For another thought experiment: If you feed an ADAT signal into the D8B and without processing, send it back out of another ADAT port (or even more direct would be to just convert to TDIF on a DIO8 card), there will NOT be any added noise. The noise comes from the stuff you run your signal through on the mixer… so, preamps when recording from Mics or Line signals, AD-Coverters… some of the effects will generate some level of noise if added… but the ADAT transfer will NOT add any noise.
I’m just talking about this so extensively, since I get the impression you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. It’s apples and oranges. Can’t compare a full mixer with all its capabilities and components, with a comparably simple audio interface or standalone “converter only” device.
To come back what I think you’re actually asking, though - is the D8B noisy, by today’s standards? Personally, I avoid using the pres and the converters on the D8B, since I have “higher end” options to choose from. I do have a lot of synths, samplers and drum machines, etc. connected to my D8B as well. For important instruments that stand out in the song, I usually record stems from them through other, better converters, rather than going through the D8B, by re-patching that stuff to my other pre’s or to the converters on my Apollo 8 interface.
But if I print stems for a whole arrangement to be quicker, I sometimes just leave a whole D8B layer/bank full of synths connected, output them to the 24 ADAT outs in it’s back, and re-record a whole bunch of stems at once, via the D8Bs pres and converters.
Quite honestly… can I tell the difference if I listen to an “Apollo” recorded stem, and a D8B recorded stem from the same source. No, I can’t. There are subtle differences I usually can’t put my finger on (i.e. the Apollo sounds a little “fatter” - but it also sounds a little “fatter” than my PreSonus interface… which seems to sound a little “clearer” - but not as fat).
But when “stacking” stems, meaning when many such tracks go through BETTER converters, the result will sound noticeably better, than when “stacking” a lot of stems that went through lesser pres and converters.
In other words… I don’t think there are a lot of people with ears that are good enough, to listen to the output (or recording through) one digital audio device, then listen to the same thing from another device, and notice a clear and obvious difference. I think these differences become more apparent with combining MANY recordings/tracks that were recorded with either higher end, or lower end converters.. but I think most people who sit there and listen to one thing, then listen to the other thing and then point to one of these things and say “the converters on this one sound MUCH better” - is full of sh*t. Sure, you can imagine hearing all kinds of things… but it’s not as “day and night” as some people make it out to be… at least not if you didn’t compare doing an entire multi-track recording and mix with one device, vs the other device.
Third thing, how is the sound?
Anyone here using their Mackie D8B with lots of synths?
Does it colour the sound nicely, or is it very transparent?
And do the internal processors add something nice to the sound, or nowadays you are probably better off not using them?
The one I'm checking seems to have an MFX and UFX boards installed (and all the different effects available).
The sound isn’t bad. But it isn’t the best of what’s available today, either. The pres are a bit dark. The converters are old and not quite as “smooth” (again… you’d mostly notice after doing a whole recording project and mixing through a set of pres and converters, etc. - not from sitting there and listen to one device against another).
The channel effects are usable. Like, the EQs and compressors do what you need them to do, but for a “standout” voice in the mix, I’d reach for either better outboard gear, or for a modern plug-in in a modern DAW (what still runs on a G5 today, can’t be considered modern, though… that’s old/early plug-ins that also don’t usually sound nearly as good as plug-ins that were introduced in more recent years).
The better EQs and Compressors you can use via the UFX cards can help with this, too. But they’re not “amazing” either. But better than the channel EQ/comps.
I think opinions will differ on the quality of FX when it comes to things such as reverbs and delays via the MFX and UFX cards. I just recently tried to get used to the TC Electronic reverbs available in the D8B… those algorithms come from their M2000 effects device. Quite honestly, though… I didn’t even find those reverbs good enough as a temporary reverb while tracking vocals. To me, the verbs on the MFX cards are almost better than what the TC Level I is doing. And the MFX words are by no means good.
So, my overall verdict on the MFX and UFX cards, when compared to MODERN plug-ins, like the UAD range, or say, the Valhalla verb, is… that the FX running on the MFX/UFX cards are more or less garbage, by today’s standards.
Some of the effects can give very unique “experimental” results that would be difficult to get from anything else… like the Voice Effects, the old built-in Auto-Tune or the Delay-Factor plugin, etc. But they’re not “great” when it comes to their sound quality… they’re fun for different and creative effects, that I wouldn’t know how to make with any other device or even DAW.
As for the D8B “coloring” the sound nicely or not. I would not say that that’s a strength of the D8B, no. It’s a digital mixer… not a flavor-box like a Neve Pre or something. I think the pres try to be as neutral as possible, but tend to be a bit on the dark side. No “warm and fuzzy” or “sparkly” flavor added, like in some high-end mic pres. You’ll need a high-end mic pre for that.
Fourth thing, is the Mackie D8B a good solution for someone who isn’t too experienced with mixers?
I like challenging gear (am currently trying to master my Symbolic Sounds Kyma Capybara 320…) and I know my way around a mixer after having the Korg Zero 8, but I guess this one is a much more serious tool and I got the impression there is quite some menu diving…
But I guess with this group it should be easier to get around issues if any issue arise, no?
“Isn’t too experienced with mixers” is a bit of a wide range to interpret. An analog mixer will be easier to understand, than any digital mixer. If you would be switching from an analog split/inline mixer to a D8B, then this is pretty much the closest “digital” equivalent to the split/inline mixer concept.
If you do not know what a split/inline mixer is, or why that’s useful, then that’s not really going to help you on the D8B, either.
In my personal opinion, if you’ve only used rather simple, small footprint analog mixers, then something like a Yamaha 01V or 02R is quicker to understand and find your way around.
If you have certain expectations of what a mixer is supposed to be - such as if you worked on a large-format split-inline console in a “real” studio before, then you’ll appreciate what the D8B does, and why it works the way it works.
So, the short answer… the D8B is fairly complex, if you want to use all of its features. IMO, there are other digital mixers that are easier to figure out (e.g. Yamaha), but there are also digital mixers that are harder to understand (e.g. stay away from the Roland VM range of digital mixers. The VM7200 must be the WORST user workflow ever designed for a digital mixer… I think I once spent close to 40 minutes, trying to figure out how to re-reoute the S/PDIF in, without messing up everything else).
I’m surprised by the combination of gear you list you’re using… on the one hand, you mentioned almost only outdated, “not to today’s standards” old gear (G5, A16, Fireface, D8B) that people only buy if they have no budget… or if better/newer equipment isn’t available in their country (where are you located? Cuba?). But on the other hand, you mentioned a Kyma?!?! That was some cutting edge stuff, when it was new, and is still worth it, for the uniqueness of sounds you can get from this thing… and the journey how you get there. I never had one, but it always reminded me a bit of Native Instrument’s Reaktor - at least the general approach.
So, the Kyma definitely is a challenge - but IMO, a “good” challenge. It’s just not the easiest thing to operate… but the challenges you’d get with the D8B (or a lot of this other old, outdated gear), isn’t usually a “good” challenge, but rather a “struggle” to get it working and keep it working.
So, I take it you like a “good challenge” - but you probably wouldn’t like the “bad struggle” you’d get with a D8B. Similar notions, but in practical, every day use of gear, one could be fun… the other one won’t be, haha.
Last thing, what’s the best way to integrate this mixer with a DAW?
This is another thing I don’t have much experience with…
And honestly am not that sure what to expect…
That depends on what you mean by “integrate” with a DAW. You can “integrate” by controlling what happens inside your DAW from the D8B (or at least 8 of its faders, while in HUI mode), and/or you can “integrate” by sending all the audio from your DAW to the D8B… and when using it like this, you can still choose if you’d use it in the “old school” workflow where your inputs are on the Mic/Line layer, and your returns from the DAW are on the Tape layer, and you switch between them, to control “recording” and “playback” channels… or you could use it like a “flat” mixer, where the Mic/Line layer and the Tape layer are used in the same way, as if that’s nothing else but “more channels” on another layer. Most more modern mixers concepts are more in the vein of the latter… the Split/Inline concept started dying, when tape-machines started dying. This wasn’t really as essential, anymore, when DAWs took over for recording.
IF you do want to “integrate” the D8B by sending all your audio to the D8B to mix it from there, you need to make a pretty serious investment in audio interfaces that have as many inputs and outputs of the same type, as what you want to connect to the D8B.
For example, if you’d have 3 expansion cards with ADAT ports in your D8B, to fully utilize them, you’d also want to invest in an audio interface (or multiple stacked ones), that give you 3x ADAT ports as well, for 24 channels of audio going back and forth between your DAW and the D8B.
But this will cost you A LOT more on the DAW computer side, than what a D8B usually costs, nowaways. And if it’s a real benefit to send everything to the D8B or not, or just mix in the box, is another question. If you haven’t spent the money on all that gear, yet, IMO it’s not worth it and you can get good results “in the box” without all these extra effort and expense.
Although… on a G5, you don’t have a whole lot of processing power, and will be pretty limited with how many plug-ins that lets you run. So, the D8B would definitely add a lot of processing power (e.g. EQs and Comps on every channel, that don’t take up resources on your G5).
One option I could see for that, is to buy an old set of Pro Tools HD PCI-X cards and an old Digidesign 96 /IO with digital I/O expansion cards in it for your G5… those Pro Tools cards are dirt cheap now (in fact, I have 4 at a friend’s house that I’m not planning to ask back, b/c they’re essentially worthless, now). If you’re stuck with a G5 as your main computer, this would still give you some extra processing power (i.e. the DSPs on the Pro Tools Core and Accel cards), and as a nice side-effect, if you can find a nicely expanded 96 I/O, you’d be able to send your audio to the D8B for EVEN MORE processing power.
In other words… if you’re somehow forced to continue working with all this antiquated gear, because you either don’t have the budget or the gear is not accessible where you live, a G5 with a Pro Tools HD|3 system and 24 channels of digital I/O to integrate the D8B, “could” be a pretty powerful system in today’s world, still.
However, for perspective… something like my Mac M3 laptop I bought last year, can do a lot more than that whole combination of things, in the box, because the processing power of more recent computer processors “exploded” to a point, where none of this old gear is really still necessary. It’s a convenience, if you find working with old hardware to be convenient… but it stops being a convenience quickly, when the old gear and complicated connectivity between them, starts giving you trouble. At that point, it’s usually more “convenient” to just not waste any time with unreliable old gear, and just make progress “in the box” from the moment you sit down at the computer.
That’s why I also always point out, that I have all my gear set up in a way, where I can operate without it, and just add/turn-on additional gear as I find it useful or convenient. So, most of the time, my D8B stays off, hahaha.
Sorry… I meant to keep this short, but then it turned into an endless ramble again. I don’t mean to “hate” on the D8B (I really do like it a lot, in the context of my setup - but I also don’t mind a little troubleshooting because of my Tech Support past… it’s kind of like doing tech support for myself as a hobby now, haha), but it really depends on what you expect from it.
If, what you expect from the D8B, is that it’s a reliable, easy to understand mixer that adds positively to the sound character of otherwise “in the box” recordings, then… no. The D8B is not for you. It would mostly give you hassle and complication, and not the type of benefit you’re looking for.
I’m sure there are many here who have a completely different view of this… until stomped with a problem with their D8B, that they can’t solve by themselves on their end, either. And even though I post a lot of stuff on here, and think that I have a pretty good handle on the D8B, overall, my main unit keeps giving me trouble again, lately… and I’m really hesitant to start doing the serious troubleshooting work. It’ll be a lot of work and hassle and cables all over the place… and I’ve done this WAY to many times with my own D8B… so, would I recommend it as a “reliable, easy to understand and use” mixer - absolutely not, no.
