I would also love to here any comments on the Mackie Onyx. I am interested in getting one myself. How are the Pre's? Can you make a good sounding record to sell with them.

Haven't tried it in the studio yet, but live it was a noticable improvement over the VLZ.
The main downfall I can see in the studio is that the direct outs are pre eq. This sucks, because the eq is IMHO the best feature.

I think the Onyx mixers are a great value and yes you could make a good sounding recording with one. As Markd said we also noticed a great improvement live.
They are built like a tank and I think the pres sound great. Maybe not $2000 a channel great but great nevertheless oh and and super quiet.

It all depends on what you want to do with them. They're a great value for live use, and the pre's are fantastic, a whole level better than the VLZ series.

I use my 1640 constantly - 3 - 4 times per week for live tracking at events, and I monitor my DAW back at the studio now, through a 1220. I have tracked several "soon to be released" professional CDs with it, as well as dozens of live broadcasts, archival CDs, and flat-out live sound reinforcement gigs. The "Sound" (as such - there is NO sound to it) is superb. I get constant compliments on the transparancy and clarity of sound. (Maybe it's ME? Hehehe)

They've made considerable improvements in the "Swiss Army Knife" approach of the VLZ Pro series (Talkback sections, Firewire interface, etc.) Probably the only drawback is the pre-EQ digital sends.....everyone seems to be evenly divided 50/50 on this issue. You either love it (and don't need post EQ digital sends) or you HATE it, because that's how you want to work. it's probably THE deal breaker for those that need it. (I prefer to EQ after the fact, in the studio).

It's really an analog LIVE board with a 24/96 digital I/O for tracking; don't be thinking it's a real DAW, or you'll be disappointed. The digital part is ONLY the Firewire I/O card.

I wrote a review on it for MIX magazine back in April; you can read more about it here, and maybe draw your own conclusions:

http://mixonline.com/products/review/audio_mackie_onyx_analog/

I got over the no-EQ bit quickly, my main beef, and what will probably keep me from getting one is the lack of returns other than a stereo mix back from the computer. I was hoping to have it multitask as a small live board and a decent front end (16 matched channels to compliment some decent outboard pres) but the inability to have any sends to other outboard gear has me looking at a motu interface for now.

I may still get the 8 channel pre pack for drums and run it into the adat on the motu.

Another thing that annoyed me in the live situation was that there are no insert points for the master outs.

i have the onyx 800r. the pres are very quiet which is the most important feature to me. I can record soft sound sources with a low output mic and not worry about operation noise when turning the pre up. Sonic wise ive been happy as well. Much better than the prosonus digimax i had before it.

The main downfall I can see in the studio is that the direct outs are pre eq.

And pre insert so serial devices don't print to tape.

Another thing that annoyed me in the live situation was that there are no insert points for the master outs.

Another gripe of mine also.

I also hate the fact that the fader markings are the same width as the fader (covering the marks) making it almost impossible to align with the unity marking when setting levels.

OK, my complaints are done. On the positive it definitely sounds better. The highs are smoother than the VLZ actually closer to my CR in that respect. Very quiet. Better EQ although I doubt I would use the EQ in the studio anyway. I like the individual phantom switches on each channel. Talkback is a nice feature.

I got the 1620 after my faithful old CR 1604 crapped out. It's used for monitoring, HP mixes and overflow pres when tracking. I really like it and as far as the pres go their not Seb's, Neves or API's by any stretch of the imagination but they do sound good and you could produce a very respectable recording with them.

I plan on purchasing the 1640 in the near future. I read the manual and I think its pretty fool proof besides a few little things. I'm one of the 50% that doesnt care about the pre-eq firewire send. I wouldn't EQ while recording anyway. Save that for later.

I plan on using it both live and in the studio, so mines going to see a lot of moving around. Is it built pretty solid?

I want to know something about the onyx´s. The direct outputs are through a parallel port, how could you record into pro tools (eg:through a digi002 rack) if the direct outputs arent through line output? Specially for multitrack recording? I think it´s not possible to do this, am I right?

The Firewire output/input seems to work with a software coming with the mixer, will it work with other software/hardware?

Joe,

That's a great review. I'm impressed. A real internationally published writer here on our humble forum!

I was wondering about the EQ and the lack of a Q control on the mid bands. That's the main deal breaker I see ... plus I think the EQ should be in the digital path. That way everyone's happy ... don't want EQ, bypass it.

I suppose in orchestral settings that would not be such an issue but with pop and rock production, I have not been able to get by without that kind of control, especially for bass and kick drums.

I was wondering if you had any opportunity to track some Rock and Roll or Country music while you had the ONYX and if so, what were the results like?

The direct outputs are through a parallel port, how could you record into pro tools (eg:through a digi002 rack) if the direct outputs arent through line output?

Actually the multi pin connectors that look like PC parallel ports are actually the direct outs. To hook it up to your Pro Tools (or other DAW) you would need a cable that has the multipin connector on one end and a "pigtail" with TRS or XLR on the other end. Just plug the pigtails into your Digi 002R

I downloaded and read the manual so I understand that when tracking the preamps are pre eq, so this might be a stupid question, but... when you're monitoring/mixing the tracks (via Fire Wire) you've already recorded can you use the eq's then? If so, would you only be limited 16 of them? For instance if I had 24 tracks recorded would I only be able use the Onyx eq's for 1-16 and have to use my software eqs for the other 8 or could I use the Onyx eq's for all 24? Hopefully I am making sense, I am just trying to get my head around the whole Fire Wire option.

Thanks!
Nick

starscream2010 wrote: I downloaded and read the manual so I understand that when tracking the preamps are pre eq, so this might be a stupid question, but... when you're monitoring/mixing the tracks (via Fire Wire) you've already recorded can you use the eq's then? If so, would you only be limited 16 of them? For instance if I had 24 tracks recorded would I only be able use the Onyx eq's for 1-16 and have to use my software eqs for the other 8 or could I use the Onyx eq's for all 24? Hopefully I am making sense, I am just trying to get my head around the whole Fire Wire option.

Thanks!
Nick

The answer is No to everything. the firewire can send 18 channels TO the computer (16 faders + master stereo mix) and 1 stereo mix BACK to the mixer. It doesn't send any other audio back to the board. This is why I probably won't be getting one soon (later probably, but I need returns). If you had another interface you could use that to feed the mixer, but that's about it.

Mackie Onyx? Opinions?

Hey, I'm Jeff and this is my first post, though I have been reading for quite some time and love this forum.

I own a Presonus Digimax LT. I use it as a front end for my MOTU 828mkii. I am curious as to the difference in sound quality between the Mackie, the Presonus Digimax series and the Focusrite Octopre series and if anyone has A/B'd them. I know that the Mackie has a ton more features and its converters are *very good*.

I've used the Presonus for one recording session and I felt that it was a step up compared to the XDR preamps in my 1604 VLZ (which is soon to be exiting my studio).

I am interested in any feedback.

thanks!

Jeff

I was interested in adding a Mackie onyx 1220 mixer to by DAW.

McCheese replied to starscream2010

The answer is No to everything.

I haven't really looked into how to attach the 1220 to my computer via my Edirol 8in/8out card yet(don't want to use firewire at this stage, but I was hoping that I could record through the onyx to cubase then send my tracks back out for summing/mixing to use eq and also process through one or two pieces of external processors.

Is this possible or is the onyx only used for tracking or live mixing?

You can only send 2 channels back to the Onyx via it's own firewire. I don't think they can be routed to anywhere but the main outs or control room (monitoring) outs. You could use your edirol 8x8 to send them out though, and just wire the outputs to channel line-ins on the mixer or whatever else.

All these issues people are having can be resolved by not opting for the Fire Wire interface.

IMO it's always better to keep different pieces / functions of a recording system separate and dedicated anyhow.

All the "one box solutions" I have come across represent some type of compromise. By getting separate converters in and out, the user can tailor the system to their needs and go for the quality where they think it's most critical.

Not worried about pres but you do want the best conversion ... no problem. Are you like me and think that pres are more important that converters? Go for it. Want EQ and multiple ins and outs? You got it.

A lot of people are looking at the convenience in an all in one solution like the ONYX. Others like the approach because it appears to be more affordable. But if that's what you want, then you have to live with the compromises it brings with it.

To me what really matters the most is does the ONYX sound better than its predecessors and do the mic pres compare to boutique and other high end offerings? To both questions, I suspect the answer is .... uuummmm, well maybe, .... sort of.

Alright, I see what Kurt is saying regarding the "compromise" factor in all-in-one solutions and after seriously considering my "needs" I can see how this could benefit me so here's my second question. Let's say you used this also as a summing mixer of sorts but wanted to utilize the eq. Does anyone know/think that using the hardware eq's would sound 'better' than using a plugin? I mean if the preamps are as clean as everyone is saying, getting 16 of them seems like it would be a deal on that alone but if the eq's are any good and with the possibilty of it doubling as a decent summing mixer then I think that I've found a new front end for my daw 8) .

Now we are delving into different questions.

Are the pres as good as a lot of people think they are? The only way to really get a definitive answer to this question is for someone who really knows pre amp design to take a look at the layout of both the pres and the power supply of an ONYX (I will not interject my thoughts, suspicions or skepticism).

I also wonder about the EQ in the ONYX. I have never met an EQ that didn't have Q control on at least the mid band(s) that I liked. I would rather have seen a 3 band eq with a bandwidth control on the mid band than a four band EQ with fixed Q on the mids. That's personal preference.
My advice is; listen go to what an ONYX sounds like and play around with one a bit to see if it is a tool that (1) lives up to the hype / buzz and (2) is something that would be useful to you.

JoeH, you've used the 1640 a lot, I have a technical question. once you've recorded 16 live seperate tracks to your daw through the firewire card, and are monitoring the output of your daw as a stereo mix through the firewire stereo return into the onyx..... can you use the (now inactive) 16 channels to record (overdub) another 16 tracks (at a time), giving you a total of 32 tracks in two runs? Any synching/latency problems? Obviously once your live band tracks are recorded, you'd tend to overdub 1 track at a time... (but... hammond organ solo with the leslie mic'd in stereo...) Just wondering if it can be done. Does it do stereo (return) out and multitrack in at the same time, without any problems?

(how many different ways can I ask the same question?)

Anyone else who knows for sure, feel free to answer.
Thanks

Sorry it took so long to respond to this. (To quote ol' Frank Zappa: "A week went by, now it's July....")

Kurt wrote:

I was wondering about the EQ and the lack of a Q control on the mid bands. That's the main deal breaker I see ... plus I think the EQ should be in the digital path. That way everyone's happy ... don't want EQ, bypass it. >>

THANKS For the kind words, Kurt! I really do appreciate hearing that from YOU. It really means a lot in my corner of the biz. :wink:

I understand your desire for Q control on the mids. I'm a bit surprised it's not provided, but again, it was probably a cost issue. Ditto for putting the EQ in the digital signal path. I just feel it was a tough choice to have to make, and in the end, since it's a live board with a recording option, most people would probably not want the same EQ used for the live show used in the DAW recording. I know the lines blur here, when it gets moved inside and used in small project studios, soooo...... Can't please everyone, I guess. (I'm really expecting to see a MKII of this whole thing, sooner or later....an aftermarket mod, or a new design/product #)

I was wondering if you had any opportunity to track some Rock and Roll or Country music while you had the ONYX and if so, what were the results like>>

Well, here again, it's probably not going to give you what you want for serious tracking sessions, where you want that kind of control, but for taking splits from a live PA system, or running your own mics out on anything Bluegrass/Jazz/Classical to power rock bands, you've got all the basic tools you need for clean, solid tracking. Aside from a temp CDr 2-bus, I wouldn't dream of doing anything beyond that onsite.

I got it in the fall of 04, and have probably used it on 75 or 80 live remotes since then....haven't really kept track. The gigs that had me holding my breath initially were the very loud hybrid acoustic Jazz/electric Jazz gigs, where we had some very loud players - everything from full percussion rigs, to rock-style kits, electric basses, electric guitars, and plenty of horns wailing as well. (One particular event had me running 22 tracks to my laptop with the ONYX and a MOTU 896...talk about cowboy stuff! Somehow that worked, as well...)

I've never had a bit of overload, sagging or clipping when the pre's are set properly (assuming I get a REAL sound check, of course! :-) and in every instance, I brought back tracks that contained all the detail and punch you'd ever need for creating a new mix from scratch (for broadcast, CD archive, etc.) Whether they were Big & boomy or tiny/tight sounding, kick drums have come through will all the balls I'd expect, ditto for snare and other fast, LOUD transients - lots of blistering hi ends as well - cymbols, brass, etc. Some of the more interesting moments were mic'ing guitar cabinets or killer trumpet soloists. (I'm talking SERIOUS Panamanian Jazz bands here! ;-) I almost reached for a seperate preamps out of habit on a few occasions, but decided to see what the ONYX pre's could handle. Since then, I really don't worry about it, and haven't used so much as an inline pad. Haven't needed anything at all like that yet.

To be fair, my MO for all of this to simply keep it all as clean as possible, and track with enough headroom and punch for transients, etc., going right to HD at 24/44 or 24/96. Admittedly, I'm not looking to color things so much as capture things. (Which, I believe is a big selling point of this mixer, at this price point.) Very often, I am also running ambient mics in the house for applause and live audience reaction. They can also be my reality check for making sure I'm "assembling" the band/ensemble in the mix after the fact.

What I capture in almost every case is: Firstly, the talent of the artist themselves, then the mic selection and position, the sound of the room itself, and last but not least - that inescapable "Vibe" of the performance in toto. Wayyyyyyy down on that list, for me anyway, is any subjective "Sound" of any preamps. Frankly, I don't want any "Sound" or coloration. Hahah.... I want a straight wire with gain. (Ok, and maybe a little padding, once in a while, too! ;-)

So for me, the board is powerful, flexible, and as transparent as any other collection of preamps I've used. You get 16 of them all under one roof, same power supply, same grounding, far fewer interconnect cables to deal with (remember, I'm often setting up and tearing this thing down 3 or 4 times a week during my busy season - late Sept through early June. It DOES get tedious sometimes!) Good RF suppression is also a consideration, as are grounding schemes, residual noise from multitple devices, HD's, etc. Put that all under one roof, and.....well, you can do the math.

Add to that the convenience of ONE wire to/from the computer, it's really a no-brainer for the kind live stuff many of us here do. I cannot predict or say what project studio owners would want for day to day tracking, as I don't do that as much as live location work. (I also work in a studio with every preamp and toy known to modern audio, so I'm covered. :-). The ONYX may or may not be what's needed there, and it's certainly not for everyone.

As for Maxmillan's question of overdubbing via the firewire out - I'm looking into that right now, since I've got a summer session coming up where I know I'm going to be providing onsite playback with Overdubbing, headphone monitoring, etc. Stay tuned on that.... My guess is that a lot of it depends on your DAW, but you may have already figured that out by now....

I can see how The ONYX mixers would be a great choice for live / remotes. In that situation, I wouldn't want to be dialing in a lot of eq anyhow as it's difficult to make those calls in that kind of listening environment.

The point Joe makes about different requirements for FOH and the recorder is a valid as well although I rarely use the same feed or mics as FOH on remotes. I usually like to pick pres and mics that will perform optimally for the recording purposes and leave the FOH to someone else if possible. What I am more concerned about in these situations is pre amp headroom ... can it handle deep bass and peak transients without choking? From past experience, Mackies have always had problems with this. Perhaps the ONYX has addressed that problem? I have not heard anything about upgrades to the summing bus's or the power supplies. Truth is it's a bit beyond me to make the call ... It would be good if some one (like Kev) who knows what they are takling about, checked out the schematics and weigh in on whether the power supplies are up to snuff to handle 16 mic pre at "full tilt" and whether the summing has been improved.

Maximillian asked about summing ... I am curious as well about this. My SR24 does an abysmal job at summing. I monitor using an old, all discreet Nakamichi 450 pre amp as a "control strip" into my Haffler 3000 power amps. I can play a commercial CD through my Fostex CDr (which is connected to both the Nak and the SR24). When I switch between the Nakamichi and the board, I hear major collapse of the stereo field and a loss of dimension and depth. I have yet to hear a Mackie board that was good for summing tasks. Would the ONYX fill this need?

I'm sorry to hear about your SR25, Kurt! :roll: I never worked with the 24 or 32 input SR boards, aside from a few installations, and I've heard similar complaints to yours.

I'm lucky for 99% of my remotes in that "I" get to choose the mics and give the house the split when we're working with sound reinforcement that way. (I've got an old 27 pair Wireworks stage box with transformer & direct splits for all, with 150' and 300' spools, with breakouts and fantails). I get the direct feed, while the house people take my split.) So, I am getting the signal and the mics I want right at the source; rarely do I have to compromise, unless the artist has a preference.

Frankly, the headroom and detail in the ONXY pre's is so good I really don't even think about it anymore. From pipe organ to slamming/slapping basses, I haven't had a bit of trouble with it in terms of clipping or drooping for critical stuff....even with all 16 channels going at full tilt. Granted, I haven't done the kind of tests that Kev would, but I do trust my ears and the final result. (if there ARE power supply issues, it's happening gracefully. )

Keeping the signal chain as short as possible (mics to pres' to firewire to DAW) also helps as well - I am not using summing buses for the most part, either. The CDr mix is often just a safety copy, or something for the client to listen to right away.

I'd be happy to send you some things we've done with the ONYX over the last 10 months if you'd like to hear some examples. (Drop me a note privately, Kurt...)

Joe,
I sent you a PM with my email addy.

You don't need to send me anything. I can take your word for it. These are just questions I have had since I heard about the ONYX. It's great to have someone who knows what to look for, that has actually used the unit to weigh in on what it does. I'm confident this kind of commentary is what a lot of people have been waiting for.

Thanks Joe!

MO it's always better to keep different pieces / functions of a recording system separate and dedicated anyhow.

In general I'd agree, except in some cases where budget is a concern having optional converters on a card can provide the best bang for the buck. For instance, the $600 A/D card in my ISA428 certainly sounds better (to me at least) than anything in its price range...I think it sounds better than the Tango or RME boxes that cost quite a bit more. And it makes sense that it should...since you've already paid for the power supply (which, in the case of the ISA428, is pretty beefy) and chassis you're getting more for your money than you would with a $600 converter (at least, that's a reasonable expectation). From what I've heard the Mackie converters sound pretty good...better than something like the Alesis Ai3, which is about the same price. Which one gives you more bang for the buck depends on what you need...if you'd rather have more outputs from the computer and don't need as many inputs the Ai3 may give you more, but if you really want all of those inputs you'd need to buy two Ai3's to get that.

Are the pres as good as a lot of people think they are? The only way to really get a definitive answer to this question is for someone who really knows pre amp design to take a look at the layout of both the pres and the power supply of an ONYX (I will not interject my thoughts, suspicions or skepticism).

I don't think there's any way to get a definitive answer to that one. Whether they're as good as a lot of people think they are...if those people have actually used them then sure they are. That doesn't mean they'll sound as good to you, and neither does someone looking at the design and pronouncing them "good" or "bad".

I also wonder about the EQ in the ONYX. I have never met an EQ that didn't have Q control on at least the mid band(s) that I liked.

Perhaps you should meet a Neve 1073 someday. Very nice.

-Duardo

Are you suggesting that the "Perkins" EQ in the ONYX can compare to the 1073? :-?

Of course there's always an exception and the Neve 1073 / 1084's are a great example. Full paras weren't in general use when the 1073's were introduced. At that time they usually inserted Pultecs when needed, as the the approach was towards minimalizim in console design. I remember consoles with no eq at all that sounded killer! Note however that Neves later designs like the 9098, are full parametric.

Are you suggesting that the "Perkins" EQ in the ONYX can compare to the 1073?

Goodness no. I was just responding to your statement that you'd never met a preamp without a Q control on the mids that you liked. I've met plenty...the 1073 as well as API and Pultec EQ's and others. The presence of a Q control (or lack thereof) has no direct bearing on the sound, and probably in many cases people would be better off without them...kind of like giving people enough rope to hang themselves with.

-Duardo