Beginner Question - Using Apollo in conjunction with Onyx 1640i

I am a beginner with little knowledge, but I was fortunate to get my hands on some decent gear. My basic setup is an Apollo Quad coupled with a Dangerous D-Box run through an iMac and Neumann KH120 monitors. I'm struggling to hone my skills on this gear, but as I said, knowledge wise I am a novice.

I also have a Mackie Onyx 1640i firewire mixer. Now here is my question. Is it possible to utilize the UAD plugins and D-Box while mixing through the Onyx 1640i. I like the idea of analog mixing and using faders and I also like the idea of analog summing using 16 channels. I've been told that the D-Box/Apollo combo would yield superior summing quality, but it would be only 8-channel rather than 16-channel summing.

The bottom line is, I would like to incorporate the Mackie mixer, but I do not want to give up the UAD plugins or the beautiful sound of the D-Box output to the monitors. Will I be able to do this, or am I trying to do too much? Any help you experienced guys can offer will really be appreciated.

I think it's more about having options than welding the two solutions into one all encompassing workflow. Take some time to try each in different roles and see what you prefer. The two solutions have fundamentally different approaches - the Dangerous/Apollo belonging to the ITB(in-the box) and the Mackie to the OTB. Each has its strengths and they can be used together in different ways if desired. The key is to be deliberate in how and when you integrate them. Experience will tell you what is the best fit for each use-case.

The Mackie is a FireWire device. How are you connecting the Apollo to your computer? Are you sharing them on the same FW bus or do you have thunderbolt in the equation? Have you been able to get simultaneous input from both to your DAW? Have got them synced together via wordclock?

There are lots of intriguing possibilities for integration...

If you discuss some exam




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... Some examples of what you would lie to achieve, and a bit more information about your setup, the forum can certainly give you some ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies for the technical difficulties ... Walking down the street try to post on my iPhone... 'like to achieve' was what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the reply rrjuly. As it stands, I have an Apollo Quad connected to an iMac via thunderbolt. I mix using UAD plugins, configure the outputs in ProTools 10, and then send them out to the D-Box for summing. I monitor via the D-Box through Neumann KH120 monitors with Avantone Mix Cubes as the alternate. Prior to a year ago, my only experience was with a Tascam Portastudio and I am still learning the intricacies of a full blown computer based recording rig. To further complicate things, I am not a technical wizard like many of you here. In fact, I struggle with the technical aspects of recording and gear inter-connectivity on a daily basis. But I am learning.

At this point in time, I don't do a lot of recording. I am focused on learning to mix properly. I subscribe to a monthly service called "Dueling Mixes" that provides pre-recorded stems with sample mixes, videos and forum support. It has helped me tremendously and I highly recommend it to other mixing novices. ITB vs OTB? Since reading Mixerman's "Zen and the Art of Mixing" I am intrigued with the idea of analogue summing and have decided to go that way (Don't want to discuss the pros & cons. I've made my choice). Utilizing the D-Box allows analogue summing at a high level, but limits me to summing only 8 channels. The monitoring capabilities of the D-Box are astounding. Even if I decide to mix through the Onyx 1640i, I will probably still monitor through the D-Box.

Concerning the Onyx 1640i, I picked it up a while back after taking a few audio classes at a local community college. Each station had a Mackie 1604VLZ4 and I became accustomed to mixer methodology. The Onyx 1640i takes it up a notch with the fire wire implementation allowing full 16 channel analog summing after processing in the DAW. I like mixing with faders and I also like the 16 channel recording capability of the Onyx 1640i. I have a Focusrite OctoPre Mkll Dynamic I could ADAT with the Apollo for more channels, but I prefer to leave the Apollo in the rack and will probably sell the OctoPre.

The problem with the 1640i is in regard to using plugins. You can use the standard plugins included in ProTools as well as other VST plugins. Mackie mentions a Waves plugin package in their user manual, but I have already invested a fortune in UAD plugins and don't want to spend additional money on Waves stuff. That's why I am asking if anyone knows a way I can use the Mackie for mixing while simultaneously using the Apollo for the UAD plugins. I am not a ProTools expert and I don't even know if it allows using both the Apollo and the Mackie at the same time. I am afraid, rrjuly, that eventually I will have to do what you suggested and choose one methodology or the other. I guess that if push came to shove and I had to use only one method, I would stick with the Apollo/D-Box option and save the Onyx 1640i for recording away from my project studio.

So if anyone can offer advice or suggestions, I would be very appreciative. But please, keep it simple. So much of this stuff goes right over my head. HaHa.

You can certainly use your Apollo with the DBox in a hybrid system. You could build groups/stems in your DAW then route out of the Apollo into the line inputs of the DBox. I don't know of any way to take a multichannel digital channel array out of the Apollo and send to the Onyx. I'd suspect a driver conflict if you tried to run the Onyx over FW with the Apollo running TB but maybe Gannon can address this after his tour.

Another effectively similar approach would be to use a control surface with faders to control your DAW and then sum into the DBox. Good luck!

Thanks Syncamorea. I have been using the Apollo and D-Box in the manner you mentioned above and it works very well. As far as routing a multichannel digital array out of the Apollo, I guess that is exactly what happens when routing to the D-Box, but since the D-Box is a passive device and does not require drivers or recognition by ProTools it is not a problem. The Onyx 1640i, on the other hand, is an interface as is the Apollo. I have read that ProTools is capable of utilizing multiple interfaces, but whether they can be used simultaneously or not, I don't know. Maybe Gannon can shed some light. I guess I need to keep it simple because I just don't have the technical expertise to get fancy.

I mistakenly called the D-Box a passive device. It has Op Amps so I guess that makes it an active device.

Core audio allows you combine audio interfaces into an Aggregate Device, where all I/O will show up in the Audio Midi Setup Utility and your DAW. ( + symbol lower left Audio Midi Setup Utility.)

When using devices from different companies the quality of the drivers may become an issue, devices may have different latencies, different sound quality, as a beginner you would be adding another layer of complexity.

The best signal chain is short signal chain, I wouldn't add the Mackie to the chain.
The Mackie is a solid state device, running a signal through it will not give you an analog tube sound.

If it was a classic console, or digital mixer with automation, maybe.

I've had a mixerless setup for over a decade.

Thanks for the input gdoubleyou. I see a lot of wisdom in your advice. The last thing I need is to make things more complicated than they already are. I do love pushing the faders though.

Maybe the approach I should take is to keep the two methods separate, but to practice mixing the same songs on both setups. After a while I should be able to determine if one method yields better audio results than the other and which workflow method is better for me. Hey! I'm retired. I have nothing but time!

I don't have the room to record a band in my small studio so I usually set up to record at a remote location. At this point, I don't charge for recording. I usually work with individuals or bands who are just grateful for the opportunity. For me, it's an opportunity to learn the craft. It's a Win/Win situation!

I do think I will use the Onyx 1640i for these recording sessions from this point on however. I had been using a PC laptop through an RME Babyface with an OctoPre MK ll Dynamic via ADAT giving me 10 total input channels. Using the 1640i will give me 6 more channels and satisfy my need to push and pull the faders at the same time. Then I can take it back to my project studio and mix with the Apollo and the UA plugin library. It's best of all worlds!

Thanks to all for your input.

contentode said:

Thanks Syncamorea. I have been using the Apollo and D-Box in the manner you mentioned above and it works very well. As far as routing a multichannel digital array out of the Apollo, I guess that is exactly what happens when routing to the D-Box

Click to expand...

The DBox just has two channels of D/A, so typically people sum through the 8 analog line inputs. I have not compared myself, but I'd bet that the DBox has a better analog summing buss than the Onyx, with higher headroom plus a bit more transparency. That's one of its main selling points.

Correct me if I am wrong Syncamorea, but I believe the D/A converters in the D-Box comes into play only in the monitoring section. The summing section of the D-box, like it's big-brother siblings, the 2-BUS and the 2-BUS LT, are dependent upon the D/A - A/D converters in your interface. The converted analog signals enter the D-Box which "combines" the stems in the analog domain and then sends the combined stems back to the interface for conversion back to digital. For monitoring, the (analog summed) digital signal comes back again to the D-Box monitoring section where it is converted to analog via the D-Box D/A and sent out to the speakers.

At this point I don't yet have an opinion on whether the D-Box summing is better quality than the Mackie summing, although I suspect the D-Box might have the edge. I can say for sure that the D-Box monitoring section really opened my eyes, and my ears. Eventually, I may be able to offer an opinion. I guess the real issue for me is to compare the D/A - A/D conversion of the apollo vs that of the onyx 1640i. I know they both use high level Cirrus Logic components for D/A conversion, but I am not sure about A/D.

The big difference between the new 1640i and the older 1640 is that the i series firewire allows you to assign your mix back to the faders in analog on all 16 channels for analog mixdown and summing. I don't know how good the conversion is, but I would imagine that the bulk of the $700 price difference reflects the extra cost of the 16 D/A converters used to bring the signal back into the analog realm.

Thanks again for your input.

It sounds like you have a firm grasp of the issues, contentode. It only remains for you to determine your preferences. For mixing, I agree with your stated preference for the Apollo->Dangerous combo. For me the Mackie would be superfluous. You should certainly try mixing through it to see how it differs sonically. Perhaps try a very simple identical mix (I would go dry without any effects) through both setups and a/b the results. Depending on how well you can get PT 10 to support aggregate devices (more than one interface simultaneously), you might be able to assign each track output to both the Dangerous stems and the Mackie line inputs at the same time and a/b by toggling the monitoring on the Dangerous. Either way, whether you mix to separate files or a/b on the Dangerous, you must ensure that levels are exactly precisely the same. I would recommend calibrating with a 1K tone. That way you can be sure that level differences won't affect your perception.

For remote recording, as you say, the Mackie seems a natural, given it's 16 inputs, with one caveat... The Apollo does give you low latency real-time monitoring with effects. The ability to sweeten monitoring while recording can be a real boon to the artistic process, plus if you want, you can print with effects going in.

One other aspect you might consider: although you are currently mostly practicing with stock stems, my presumption is that ultimately you will be concentrating on mixing songs you yourself have recorded. I want to emphasise the proportional importance of what happens to the audio before it gets digitised, both to the quality of the final mix, as well as the ease of manipulation in bringing it to the point of (subjective) perfection in the mix. It is far easier and more effective to make fundamental adjustments to the audio on the way in then to try and fix them later ITB.

I would submit that now, before you really begin recording in earnest, is the time to determine if the Mackie is what you want to pass all your audio through on the way in. Do you like how it sounds? Do you want every track to have the same sonic signature? One school of thought (to which I subscribe, purely coincidentally...) is that one can get more texture, or depth, by using different hardware to suit different tracks when recording, that this imparts a different 'signature' to the sets of tracks, thereby keeping them from all inhabiting the exact same spectrum sonically. This is certainly debatable. Another point of view prefers consistent hardware (and a consistent audio 'signature')for all the inputs.

For my own part, I simply enjoy the creative challenge of matching up different mic pres with different sources, and seeing how much beneficial character I can impart to fit a given track. For example, I might want to use very clean, high headroom mic pre's for Piano, something with some tube warmth for vocals, or possibly something with a bit of grit (like api, or neve) for kick and snare. Purely subjective, but it is nice to have options.

Anyway, forgive my digression, and I hope to hear the results of your deliberations, if not some actual files posted for the comparison of the Dangerous versus the Mackie as a summing solution.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

contentode said:

Correct me if I am wrong Syncamorea, but I believe the D/A converters in the D-Box comes into play only in the monitoring section.

Click to expand...

Correct. It's worth your time to compare conversion on the units you own. In general, I find such comparisons to reveal subtle differences or none at all. I'm not at all down on the Onyx, I think it is excellent value but it's tough for it to compete with the DBox. If it's possible for you to take the same set of tracks and mix through both, try to compare headroom.

Hi

sorry to get out this old thread, but i´m very curious if the OP can make a statement about the quality of the sound, if he has been able to compare the preamps and convertes of his mackie onyx and his apollo.

im a ua-fanboy lol, i have 2x UAD-Quad Cards in use and work mostly with UA plugins, also i have an UA L610 MKII Channelstrip that i use, still, my interface is an old mackie onyx 1620 (the old one) with firewire option card for A/D conversion
i really like how the mackie sounds, i have not the feeling something is missing in terms of quality, but somehow i´m gasing for a new apollo quad, also because of the great offer for 1000$ in Plugins
what annoys me on the mackie is just the one stereo output, i really would love to have more analog and digital outputs, to get creative with some hardware gear.

I read the apollo manuals and know what superb stuff i could do with the apollo (that i might never need anyway) but i really love the idea behind the unison technology and run UA Plugins in the Apollo with nero zero latency while tracking and printing them directly onto harddisc..

but besides that, what i really wonder is.. are the preamps and converters so much better than on those mackie, or are they somehow in the same ballpark?
there are so many mackie haters around the net (GS Forum, etc) that its nearly impossible to the a unbiased, realistc opinion onto this.

to be honest, i would have bought an apogee symphony as everybody raves about soundquality, but as im on windows, thats not an option.

I dont want to buy an apollo and have to return it, for not having that "wow" factor that it does not sound that significant better to justify that amount of money..
Am i too worried? lol

would be glad to hear your opinions onto this

all the best
exoslime

I don't have any experience with the new Mackies, at that price point I don't expect a high end performance.
Not really sure where the Mackie fits, it doesn't have features usually found in digital mixers.

I came from a MOTU 828mkI, the Apollo has a more defined sound.

That doesn't mean the Mackie sounds bad, my MOTU 828 sounds decent just not in the same class as the Apollo.

The only way to really tell is to hear the units side by side.

gdoubleyou said:

I don't have any experience with the new Mackies, at that price point I don't expect a high end performance.
Not really sure where the Mackie fits, it doesn't have features usually found in digital mixers.

I came from a MOTU 828mkI, the Apollo has a more defined sound.

That doesn't mean the Mackie sounds bad, my MOTU 828 sounds decent just not in the same class as the Apollo.

The only way to really tell is to hear the units side by side.

Click to expand...

gdoubleyou said:

I don't have any experience with the new Mackies, at that price point I don't expect a high end performance.
Not really sure where the Mackie fits, it doesn't have features usually found in digital mixers.

I came from a MOTU 828mkI, the Apollo has a more defined sound.

That doesn't mean the Mackie sounds bad, my MOTU 828 sounds decent just not in the same class as the Apollo.

The only way to really tell is to hear the units side by side.

Click to expand...

Hi gdoubleyou

many thanks for your reply and sharing your experience with the MOTU interface upgrading to the Apollo.
I guess i going to pull the trigger on an Apollo Quad, i also would need to add some more uad-2 processins power to my system anyway as the latest plugins like the NEVE 1073 are really crazy on dsp load, though they sound very good and musical, but as i have uad plugins all over my sessions, my 2 uad-2 quad cards are pretty busy but the NEVE 1073 is killing it.. lol

back then 7years ago the mackie was quite in a high price range, its not really a "cheap" piece of gear
the analog mixer alone was more than 1300€ + another 600€ for the firewire A/D conversion card.. still 7 years later and countless of thousends hours of working hours on it, it still sounds and feels great, i use it really everyday, its built rock solid, i absolutly cannot say anything against it..during all the time i absolutly havent had a single problem with it, very stable drivers, not a single Windows System crash because of it and also low latency of 64samples on a Windows System without any clicks or pops.
the onboard EQ may sound a bit harsh but luckily the EQ is not part of the audiosignal thats going to feed the firewire channels
I also bought a second 2nd Mackie 1620 for 300€ inlcuding the Firewire card last year as a backup..what a bargain..
Its a major need for me that the unit runs stable and is reliable, if the interface isnt, its a creativity killer and i dont need that

its not something that i think from the sound is "missing" on the mackie, but you never know until you upgrade and experience the "better" sound.
what i really love about the apollo is the concept behind the Unison Technology and flexible routing and input output over some concurring products

Also what i was thinking is, that perhaps a even slightly "better" audio quality on the input channels because of better preamps and converters may not be really audible on single track and THAT significant better, but adds up, in a project filled with may audio tracks, the better quality may add positivly to the big picture of the sound of your track