MACKIE ONYX 400F (audio interface)

[Anderton]

Mackie Onyx 400F – Prologue

Short form: Mackie’s Onyx 400F is a cross-platform FireWire audio interface that can also work in standalone mode, with bundled sequencing software and a mixer applet. Currently, my main interfacing needs are handled by the Creamware SCOPE system, which I use for its dual ADAT light pipe, SPDIF, and MIDI I/O. It also has two channels of analog I/O, and while these are okay, they are on a card located inside my computer…so there are, shall we say, some inherent limitations.

For analog recording I’ve been using the preamps and converters in my Panasonic DA7 digital mixer, which are definitely better than average, but not “boutique quality.” As it looks like I’ll be doing some more acoustic recording in the future, including an on-location piano recording with a FireWire-friendly laptop, the Onyx 400F definitely piqued my interest. What better way to find out about it than by doing a Pro Review?

The hype on Mackie’s web page for the Onyx 400F starts with “There are plenty of FireWire audio interfaces on the market today.” Well, no doubt about that, so points for honesty. But then they make their case as to why you should choose theirs: Really good mic preamps, rugged construction, good mixer software applet, etc. They even throw in a bundled version of Tracktion 2, which is actually a pretty good deal (hint: laptops love it). The package list price is $899.99, considerably above the “cheap ’n’ cheerful” category but well below the stratospheric “well, maybe when I get a gold record” level.

Click on the attachment to see the Onyx 400F front panel.

What I want to find out is how easily it installs, how it sounds with my mics, and whether the mixer application is flexible and easy enough to use that it’s an asset to the package. I’m also going to see if I can crack it open and check on the quality level (guess I’ll void the warranty, eh?). So all in all, this should be a fun Pro Review.

For those of you not familiar with how the Pro Review concept works, it’s simple: This is a forum, so everyone’s invited to participate in this “open source” review. If you have questions or comments, step right up and voice them. I’ve also invited Mackie to participate, and we’re fortunate that Dan Steinberg, Mackie’s Recording Product Manager, will be around to answer questions and offer insights on the product as required.

Here’s the link to the Onyx 400F “landing page,” which gives the basic specs, features, system requirements, and the like so I don’t have to waste bandwidth repeating them here:

http://www.mackie.com/products/400F/index.html

All right, time to open the box and start the review!

[Anderton]

The Onyx 400F is packaged well in a sturdy cardboard box, covered with a cardboard wrap. Even UPS couldn’t dent it. You get:

 The Onyx 400F itself
 Two detachable line cords (one for US and one for the European connectors used in Germany and other countries)
 A loooooong 6-pin FireWire cable (didn’t measure it, but I’d guess 15 feet) Printed manual written in Mackie’s inimitable, breezy-yet-comprehensive-with-a-dash-of-humor style
 CD-ROM with Windows drivers for ASIO/GSIF/WDM (the Mac doesn’t need drivers), control panel software, and a full – not demo – version of Tracktion 2 software. There’s also a PDF version of the manual on the CD-ROM for those of you who appreciate a format with a search function.

The manual is online, so you can check it out here:
http://www.mackie.com/pdf/Onyx400F_OM.pdf

What you don’t get is a 6-pin to 4-pin FireWire adapter. If you’re planning on using the Onyx 400F with a laptop that has a 4-pin connector, visit your local computer or office supply store and buy the appropriate adapter.

Of course, even before powering it up or plugging it in, the first thing I did – which I do with any software or hardware that runs software – was to check the CD-ROM for a read me. And yes, there was one on how to update the firmware and software.So next was a trip to Mackie web site to check for updated drivers. Sure enough, V1.05 was there. After a mercifully small 897K download, I was ready to go.

Note to Mac fans: The Onyx 400F communicates with the Mac using OS-level FireWire drives, so you have run System 10.3.9 or higher. Mackie also notes that the Onyx 400F is Tiger-compatible, but as my Mac hasn’t gotten past 10.2.8, I can’t vouch for that one way or the other. Guess I really do need to update…

I decided to test the Onyx 400F with my dual Athlon Windows XP Pro machine. It meets the system requirements (XP with SP1, 256MB RAM, Athlon XP/Pentium 4/Celeron), and I felt this might be a somewhat tougher test because FireWire isn’t native to the machine, but comes courtesy of a cheapo 3-port card with the TI chip set. I also figured it would be a good test to use it with my Digital Audio Wave laptop, which has a FireWire port…but I gotta get the 4-pin adapter first.

And now, the “smoke test”: Time to plug it in and see what happens.

[Anderton]

Even though FireWire devices are supposed to be hot-swappable, a recent article by PC wizard Martin Walker in Sound on Sound magazine questioned whether that’s always true. Rather than fry anything, I figured I’d play it safe and power everything down before plugging in the Onyx. If someone from Mackie would like to comment on whether this is unnecessarily paranoid or not, I’d appreciate it.

Like so many other hardware+software driver combos that run on Windows, you install some of the software first, so that when you do plug in the hardware, Windows will recognize it rather than assume it’s some generic plug-and-play device and want to install its own drivers. That held true here.

When I turned on the Onyx 400F, though, there was about three seconds of fear – nothing happened! Then the little LEDs started dancing, the “FireWire present” LED turned on – success. Next, the New Hardware wizard appeared on the computer screen. There was a slight discrepancy compared to the manual; it said the wizard would ask if I wanted to check the web for updates, but my computer started right in on the second wizard screen so I just picked up from there. Installation was totally non-eventful, which is always a nice thing.

So was it really there? I checked System Properties, and there it was, in Device Manager under “Sound, Video, and Game Controllers.” (Click on the attachment to see where the device gets installed under Windows.) As shown in the attachment, there was also the always-reassuring “This device is working properly” message. Things were off to a promising start.

Next up: Time to run some programs with it, and get familiar with the settings and console software…and see what kind of latency I could get away with.

[Anderton]

The console software is a collaboration between Echo and Mackie, with Echo contributing the FireWire technology. It has five mixer pages, which control the ins and outs, as well as provide a zero-latency mix if you want to bypass your host software. We’ll get into the mixer later, as it’s an important part of the package; but first, let’s set up the Onyx to match the computer system, and run some audio to make sure it actually works.

The system characteristics are edited on the Settings page. Click on the attachment to see this page, which includes the controls described in the rest of this post. The big knob at the top (ah, the recurring Mackie “big knob” theme) chooses among the sample rates: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.41, and 192kHz. Do I care whether it has 192kHz? Well, not really, even though that’s a big deal for this particular interface. What I care about much more is that it can do 88.2 as well as 96kHz, as that seems to sample rate convert more elegantly to a 44.1kHz CD.

This is also where you select the Clock source. It can be internal, or come from S/PDIF or the hardware word clock connection on the rear panel.

The DSP Mixer switch enables or disables the mixer (when disabled, the mixer pages are grayed out). If you’re monitoring through the host, you might as well leave this off. But if you need zero-latency monitoring, it had better be on.

Another switch determines which outputs (1/2 or 7/8) get “mirrored” to the headphone outs. When switched to 7/8, then you can have separate headphone and control room mixes; with 1/2, both get the same signal. We’ll cover the available outputs shortly. For now, as we just want to make sure the thing works, so we’ll mirror outs 1/2 and use headphones. I always find it best when testing gear to go from the most basic to the most complex situations.

There’s also a S/PDIF format switch that chooses between Professional and Consumer. According to the manual, this relates to the subcodes used in the signal, not the data itself. I’ve had other devices with this option, and set it to Consumer unless things didn’t work, in which case I set it to Professional. One of them would always work. When using a passive AES/EBU to SMPTE adapter, Professional seems to be the way to go. Whatever; just flip it until things work – besides, you have a 50% chance of getting it right the first time!

The final editable option is a buffer samples slider, which goes from 32 samples all the way up to 2,048 samples.

An info box toward the bottom shows the software, firmware, and driver versions. I used the latest ones available as of this writing (1.05 software, 1.04 firmware, 1.05 drivers). In preparation for testing with audio, I set the sample rate to 44.1kHz, with a 256 buffers – a setting that works well with the Creamware interface and doesn't tax the computer too much, so I figured it would work here as well.

[Anderton]

I loaded Propellerhead’s Reason, and set the audio page preferences to ASIO Onyx F Series. The 256 samples translated to about 5ms of latency. Good.

I pressed Play, and yup, it played back. It’s then that I noticed just how good the headphone amps are – quiet, clean, and very well-behaved. This is definitely not one of those boxes that stuffs in a cheap amp chip for phones for quickie monitoring; these are nice. I don’t know if they’re Class A or not (I doubt it, because the unit doesn’t get very warm!) but they’re a cut above.

Also note there are two headphone amp outs, each with an individual volume control. The +48V phantom button is located next to the headphone 2 jack; I don’t know if this is intentional or not, but if you plug into this jack, it provides a natural barrier that helps inhibit hitting the +48V switch accidentally. Click on the attachment to see a closeup of the headphone section, and you’ll see what I mean about the +48V switch.

I thought I’d push the ASIO latency a bit further, so I tried 128 samples. Of course in the grand scheme of things, this really tests the computer’s speed and the complexity of the host software project more than the interface, but really well-written drivers can sometimes make a computer behave better than expected. The Onxy 400F and Reason passed the “ASIO 128 samples test” without problems.

So hey, how about 64 samples…nope, the audio started to break up, as did 96 samples in complex passages. I then tried Wavelab, a program that doesn’t place much demand on a CPU when just playing back files, and it worked fine with 64 samples.

Next, I loaded a really complex project in Sonar: Lots of MIDI and digital audio, Reason 3.0 rewired into it with a big Reason Drum Refill loaded, and East-West Colossus loaded as a virtual instrument. 256 samples didn’t cut it, as there were lots of dropouts. Just in case using Sonar 5’s 64-bit engine was screwing things up, I disabled it; same thing. So, I bumped the number of samples up to 512, and everything worked perfectly.

Just out of curiosity, I checked out using the Creamware interface and while 256 samples didn’t break up as much, it was still unuseable, whereas 512 samples worked fine. Bottom line: With ASIO, the Onyx worked about as well as my computer would let it, and within a hair of performing as well as an internal PCI card (which should theoretically give a slight performance advantage compared to going through FireWire, all other things being equal). Additional bottom line: I’m really glad I’m getting a new computer soon to replace my vintage 2002 model!

[Anderton]

It's getting toward the end of the day, time to call it quits for now. I've started doing some testing with Sonar and the WDM drivers, with mixed results to say the least...I can't get good results without really high latency settings. However, I'm not a huge fan of WDM - I've been using ASIO with Sonar once that option became available - so I could be doing something wrong within Sonar itself. I'll look into this further and report back tomorrow.

Please remember, this is an "open source" review. Got any questions? Comments? Complaints? Whatever? Chime in!

Note to Mackie: And you have some homework, too...let me know your opinions about the viability of hot-plugging FireWire connections, and also, whether you've done any special mojo to the headphone amps.

[Dan Steinberg]

Hi there everyone, Dan Steinberg here, product manager for Mackie recording products.

I've been a longtime lurker on Craig's old forum on the musicplayer boards, so I feel like I know a bunch of you already! I'm honored to help take part in this review and answer any questions anyone may have. So here we go.......

"let me know your opinions about the viability of hot-plugging FireWire connections"

I have definitely done it all the time with my Mac powerbook G4, including times when it’s been the only thing on the chain as well as times when it’s been on the chain with an external hard drive. So, for my setup at least, hot plugging has been just fine. HOWEVER, that only speaks for that model of powerbook. I have heard tales of some PC laptop or desktops where the manufacturer did not spec the Firewire chip to handle hot plugging that well, so I suspect how "safe" it is depends on the computer. It’s always supposed to be OK, and it is for our unit and my powerbook I tried device, but that’s really as far as we can “guarantee”.

"and also, whether you've done any special mojo to the headphone amps."

Glad you like them. I'd say that the "mojo" is that we’ve had a longstanding expertise in making clean and loud headphone amps in our mixers for a long time, and were able to call on that expertise, same as with the pres. That’s one of the benefits of having an audio interface come from a company with a long pedigree in analog circuitry, we sometimes have more tricks in our bag to call on than some other manufacturers. Our competitors in this product category all make some great stuff, but some of them started out making software, MIDI interfaces, etc, so although they make some awesome prodeucts, they sometimes are still learning about how to do great sounding analog.

Craig, to address a couple of other points I saw you raise:

"A loooooong 6-pin FireWire cable"

This was no accident. Since studio setups come in all shapes and sizes, it’s entirely likely that your 400F might be mounted somewhere that’s way more than 6 or 10 feet from where your laptop or desktop computer sits. I didn’t want to have someone start setting everything up and then find the cord didn’t reach, that would put a damper on one’s day for sure!

Including a 6 to 4 pin Firewire adapter

Funny you should bring this up, we actually did just finish sourcing a 4 to 6 pin adapter to include in the 400F’s forthcoming big brother, the 1200F, and since we were able to get a good price on them, we will probably be able to afford to start including them in newly built 400Fs as well. So in the long term life of the product, the 400Fs will probably start including those like you had wished. For anyone who needs one in the meantime, I have found that online sources tend to have much better prices than brick and mortar retailers, on 4-6 pin cables and adapters.

For example, www.monoprice.com has a great rep among home theater nuts trying to find good prices on DVI cables, and they can get you a 15 foot long 4 to 6 pin cable for just a few dollars, the same cable would probably be $30 at radio shack or Best Buy. Here’s the link

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10301&cs_id=1030102&p_id=41&seq=1&format=2&style=

"next was a trip to Mackie web site to check for updated drivers"

Thanks for reminding users to always check the wesbite for updated materials, we'll rev the CD-ROM at some point to bring it up to date. Users will also want to do this for the bundled Tracktion 2, as we came out with a newer version of T2 since the disc went to press. When you register the version that’s on the CD-ROM, you'll then have an online my.mackie.com account where the newer version will be there for the downloading.

Buffer Sizes

It's true, the 400F can get nice and low and with a powerful enough machine, you should be able to run at 64 samples for very low latency. Craig, I noticed that you mentioned your desktop PC had 256 megs of RAM, I'd be interested to see if bumping it up to 512 megs might allow you to achieve some lower latencies than you got. I have always found that Windows XP (like Mac OSX) seems to run best with at least 512 megs of RAM, and this would hold even truer for audio where lots of RAM "breathing room" is always a good thing.

As Craig said, feel free to post any questions or comments you have, we're really excited about this product and are very excited to have it undergoing a Pro Review!

[Anderton]

Great comments Dan, I like the extra info like where to get a good price on FireWire cables and adapters!!

A couple comments on your comments...

Just in case it could be misunderstood, my mention of the long cable was not a complaint. In fact this is the first time that an included FireWire cable was able to reach from the back of my computer to a convenient place to put the interface. So maybe it added a couple more bucks to the cost of the package, but I didn't have to run out to Best Buy and pay some ripoff cable cost just to get the pro review off the ground.

Also, the 256MB reference was to the system requirements, not my computer. It has 1GB of RAM, like all good music computer desktop machines should :)

It's actually still a pretty capable machine, it's a dual processor AMD with Tyan motherboard spec'ed by the legendary Pete Leoni. But the 2002 processors are a little slow by today's standards...I'm going to be going dual core before the end of the year, that should be a nice little boost!

Once again thanks for your participation. It's great to be able to get answers to questions "from the source."

[Brittanylips]

Craig - great job as usual!

Craig or Dan (this is probably more of a Dan question - Dan: I appreciate any response, but "company speak" tends to wash over me, so I would appreciate as un-company-speak a response as possible :) ):

How would you compare the 400F with the 800 and new 1200F?

I was very impressed with the 1200F's intro at AES.

Are the differences between these different models merely in the realm of features, OR does the 1200F benefit from further R&D and include better-sounding components? Will the 1200F actually sound better than the 400, or will they sound the same?

TIA,

Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Dan Steinberg]

- "company speak" tends to wash over me, so I would appreciate as un-company-speak a response as possible ):

The Onyx 400F is such a good interface that it will wash your car, do your taxes, and improve your love life.....wait a minute, you said you DIDN'T want hype, oops

- How would you compare the 400F with the 800R and new 1200F?

I'll try to make some brief comparisons here. The three pieces are really quite different from each other, and are each suited for a different type of customer. When you know what you want to do with your gear, which of those three pieces to get will probably be pretty clear.

800R: Pretty "apples and organges" to the 400F and 1200F because it's not actually a computer audio interface, it has no USB or Firewire connectors on it. This unit is an 8 channel A/D converter, with 8 Onyx mic Pres and 8 line level inputs, and analog line level and 8 channel AES, SPDIF and ADAT digital out. Great as a line or mic expander for an existing audio interface (or hard disc recorder, or 2" reel to reel, or portastudio) but it won't get audio into a computer on it's own.

1200F: This is the "big brother" to the 400F and gives you MORE, of well, everything, and will separate you from more of your money for the privilege :)

30 in, 30 out channel to/from computer, as opposed to the 400F's 10X10 channel count
12 mic pres instead of 4
12 analog inputs instead of 8
built in control room fucntions such as talkback and monitor A/B switching
4 channel headphone amp with individual audio streams to each jack
2X2 MIDI instead of 400F's 1X1
16 channels of ADAT I/O (hmm, an Onyx 800R would be perfect for those)

So as you can see, whereas the 400F is great for a guy recording up to 10 tracks at a time, the 1200F takes it further, since you can actually track 30 tracks at a time and also get fancier with headphone mixes at the same time. So, which unit to get really depends on what kinds of work you think you'll be doing.

But really, what you want to do is buy both. The kids can go to community college instead of one of them fancy out of state schools, tell them Dan said it was ok.

Are the differences between these different models merely in the realm of features, OR does the 1200F benefit from further R&D and include better-sounding components? -

I would say mainly features. The two units actually share a very similar development platform. Same Firewire chip, same co-developers (the fine folks at echo) and when the 1200F comes out, they will even share the same control panel that auto-senses which unit you have connected and configures accordingly.

- Will the 1200F actually sound better than the 400, or will they sound the same? -

I checked with ther appropriate propellorheads and they had this to say:

The 400f and 1200f use the same converters, same input and output circuitry so they should sound the same. However, due to the loads of circuitry inside
of the 1200f, the noise floor is about 1-2 dB higher than the 400f, so the 400f is a bit quieter (measurable, not audibly). From a specs standpoint,
everything should be within a dB or two of the 400f, in some cases better, in some cases not. So in summary:

Same "sound"
Same performance

Also, the 400F and the 1200F use the same Texas Instruments DSP chip, so both units' standalone DSP mixers have the same ultra-neutral sound when summing signals together. The 400F web page has some good info on how the DSP chip is pretty cutting edge and actually gives the 400F a better sounding digital mixer than a lot of "actual" digital mixers out there.

Thanks very much Mr. Brittanylips!

[Anderton]

Okay, I had a chance to test the WDM drivers with Sonar and Project5, and the results are definitely not impressive. The latency with Sonar has to be set very high to get satisfactory results, as there was significant breaking up with latencies under 150 ms - even with a really simple project that just played back some loops (and dinged the CPU meter a mere 5% or so).

For a bigger project, I had to bump the latency up to 200 ms. Matters were much better with Project5; I got satisfactory results with as little as 40-50 ms of latency, but to put that in perspective, that's still not acceptable for a comfortable real-time work with a host program.

I was wondering if maybe the newer versions of those programs (Sonar5 and Project5 V2) were the issue, and that perhaps there was a change in the way they handled WDM. So I tried both with my Creamware card's WDM drivers and got 5 ms latency easily with decent-sized projects, and 10 ms with behemoth projects.

I tried a zillion different things with Sonar and the Onyx control panel, changing bit justification, disabling dual processor operation, everything I could think of...no go. I think that either the WDM drivers are not mature, or need optimization. I believe they are true kernel streaming types, not "wrappers" for plain-vanilla MME drivers, so I don’t know why this is an issue.

Interestingly, in Martin Walker's Sound on Sound review of the Echo FireWire interface, he noted the same level of excellent ASIO performance that I found, and the same questionable WDM performance. I have an inquiry in to Mackie about this, and expect that Dan will have an answer soon.

[Anderton]

And while we’re waiting for a definitive answer, it made me wonder just how important WDM support is. Granted, Adobe Audition requires WDM, but it seems just about every pro application for Windows is switching over to ASIO (there are rumors that Audition will as well). Even Sony/Sonic Foundry, a stalwart supporter of Windows and DirectX, has made the move to ASIO and VST. And of course, Mac people don’t have to worry about this at all.

I do know that Sonar’s WDM support goes deep into the OS to get the high level of performance. Since Sonar started supporting ASIO, though, I virtually never use WDM with Sonar. Actually, make that “never.” There are so many ASIO-based programs in my system that seems to be the best way to go. Programmer friends seem split over whether ASIO or WDM is better, as they feel there are “band-aids” present in both of them.

Let’s travel into the Speculation Zone as well. Why would Cakewalk, which was really on the WDM bandwagon, support ASIO? The obvious reason is that they wanted to open up the application and be more inclusive, much like how they supported VST along with DirectX – now they’re even producing an instrument (Dimension Pro) that supports Apple’s AU spec.

But maybe they’re also cautious about cozying up too closely to WDM for other reasons. I’ve heard totally unverified rumors that Windows Vista will introduce yet another sound protocol that’s not related to DirectX or WDM. I would assume Cakewalk has a pretty good pipeline into what’s happening at Microsoft, and as a developer, would be aware of any upcoming changes before the press or general public would. Maybe ASIO is a convenient safety valve so they don’t get caught in the trap that happened when Sonar was first introduced and supported only WDM, but WDM hardware support was scarce.

If indeed the industry is moving to ASIO for reasons related to WDM being a lame-duck protocol, then that would explain why the Onyx 400F has a solid ASIO implementation and lame WDM. The WDM works okay for Windows Media Player, DVD Playback operation, and similar stereo/consumer-oriented apps, it’s just not up to pro specs or operation for use with a multi-track host like Sonar.

Let’s see what shakes out…tomorrow we’ll look at other aspects of the Onyx 400F.

[Brittanylips]

Dan,

Thanks for the helpful, direct, and dare I say, Craig-like response!

I’m already set with an RME FireFace 800 at home (competitive with the 1200F), so for me, the 400F would be something I would consider - seriously consider - for a smaller interface to take around with my laptop if I didn’t want to lug around the FireFace. (I am also considering an Apogee mini-me).

In any case, it is nice to know that the difference between the 1200F and 400F is in features rather than quality, so it is not as though Mackie is slumming on the sound of the 400F.

But really, what you want to do is buy both. The kids can go to community college instead of one of them fancy out of state schools, tell them Dan said it was ok.

You mean Mackie doesn’t offer a “need-blind” admission policy (like some of them fancy out of state schools) with a sliding scale for customers who want to buy 2 interfaces for the price of 1? You should do that - some guy named Greg told me to tell you it was OK.

Thanks very much Mr. Brittanylips!

Thank you! But “Mr.” – are you sure?

Also, and most importantly, what’s a guy with a name like “Steinberg” doing working for a company called “Mackie”?

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Lawrence Farr]

As the review progresses I am certainly curious about the DA converters on the Mackie units. I'm *considering* swapping out my d8b for an analog console but to do that I'd need some good DA converters. Plenty of them.

I'll be reading.

Lawrence

[Dan Steinberg]

So, here's some info to speak to Craig's experience with Sonar and the WDM drivers:

-We did some more testing with Sonar 5 and found the same issues with latency items, using the WDM driver, so it's not a local issue with Craig. Sonar, compared to other WDM programs like Adobe Audition, works with the WDM drivers on a deep, "windows bypassing level", that our WDM drivers are not currently optimized to deal with, thus the issues Craig mentioned.

Since Sonar DOES however, work with the 400F's ASIO driver very well, we chose not to devote a lot of engineering resources to working through this Sonar/WDM issue. Instead, we officially recommend that any 400F/Sonar users simply use the ASIO driver, not the WDM driver.

Having said that, we want to be very responsive to customers' needs, so if anyone here knows of a reason that we do not, about why that is not a practical method of working, please let us know. If there is an important reason why you must use Sonar with WDM drivers and not ASIO, post about it here.

-The 400F WDM driver works fine for system level stuff like system sounds, itunes, windows media player, web browsers, video games, etc. That was actually our main intention for the WDM drivers, apps that had to use it, as opposed to apps like Sonar where ASIO is a valid option.

I am hoping that speaks to the issues Craig raised. If not, please let me know and I'll be ahppy to weigh in further, I'll be monitoring the thread over the weekend.

Thanks!

[Anderton]

Thanks much, Dan. I'll be interested to see if anyone pipes up in support of WDM with Sonar. Some people claim the program is more solid with WDM, but I suspect that's more a function of the drivers that were written for it. Certainly when using the Creamware drivers, there is no discernible performance difference between ASIO and WDM.

I'll be adding more posts over the weekend, so Dan, keep your laptop on "standby." <G>

[blue2blue]

Originally posted by Anderton

The DSP Mixer switch enables or disables the mixer (when disabled, the mixer pages are grayed out). If you’re monitoring through the host, you might as well leave this off. [color=red]But if you need zero-latency monitoring, it had better be on.



Near zero latency.

One man's silly little millisecond or two is another man's aeon. :D

Personal bugaboo, here. Sorry for nitpicking.


Great review so far. I was really hoping to find a thorough write-up on this unit somewhere and I can't think of a better writer or format for the job!


_____________________

I would add one thing, since Craig noted that his laptop -- like my own -- required a 4 pin FW connector. Like the Mackie, the MOTU 828mkII I bought last year came with a long, beautiful 6-to-6 that's been of no good to me.

If I'd known that I could have shopped the internet and eased the pain of paying something like $25 for a too-short connector from my local micro-chain computer store (same cable/brand was a nasty $40 at CompUSA!)

Get a long enough cable -- the added flexibility will seem heavensent -- and help reduce strain on connectors (particularly of concern to us laptop users whose connector ports are often mounted directly on the mobo).

[MoreGuitars]

Well, since my audio is Adobe Audition 1.5, the poor performance would be a deal breaker for me.

[Anderton]

<<Well, since my audio is Adobe Audition 1.5, the poor performance would be a deal breaker for me.>>

I'll test it with Audition to see what happens. Sonar pushes a lot deeper into the OS than Audition, and I suspect it pushes in deeper than Project5 as well.

I'll let you know what happens.

[Anderton]

Most people don’t know that in my print reviews, I usually take things apart but there’s never enough space to go into details…I only write something if the construction is noteworthy, either for being good or shoddy. But hey, I have all the space in the world and I can’t resist taking things apart…

So 18 Phillips head screws later, I had a naked Onyx 400F in front of me. First thing I noticed is that the FireWire interface is a daughterboard that plugs into the main board via two multipin headers (not those !#$&$@ ribbon cables that are always so hard to get back in), secured by three screws with lockwashers that screw into standoffs (nice…thank you). There’s no way the daughterboard will vibrate out of place. This is the Echo Digital Audio part of the show: Their FireWorks board includes three main chips, among these a huge honkin’ Texas Instruments DSP chip. If FireWire gear always has to have this special mojo circuitry in it, I bet that definitely adds a few bucks on to the price.

The power supply is another drop-in module. Whenever I take a unit apart I’m always a little paranoid about brushing against the incoming AC line, but no worries with this one: All the AC connections are covered with a thick insulating plastic sleeve, and the two AC lines terminate immediately in a connector that again manages to keep live wires away from the outside world.

It’s also clear that a lot of effort went into making sure any power supply switching noise didn’t get into the audio lines. The power supply is located at the opposite end from the mic pres – if it was any further away, it would need to be outside the case. There are plenty of caps and inductors, and decent heat sinks; and while I didn’t remove the power supply module, it looks like there’s a ground plane in the circuit board area beneath it.

The power supply outputs go through heavy gauge wires, and like the AC line ins, terminate in a connector. Bottom line: If I had to substitute a new power supply, I bet I could open the case, replace the power supply, and close it back up in under 10 minutes…probably less, actually.

The rest of the board has the expected surface-mounted chips along with capacitors, resistors, a couple local voltage regulators, and the like. All jacks except the FireWire and MIDI connectors are secured to the rear or front panels via screws or nuts, so you can plug and unplug audio connections without worrying about stressing out the circuit board to which they connect.

However, the controls are not secured, and do the usual “terminals-mount-on-circuit-board, shaft-sticks-through-hole-in-panel” thing. I was concerned about this, because the classy brushed aluminum knobs (with setscrews, no less!) extend far out from the panel. But the pot bushing goes right up to the front panel, so there’s very little “play” when you push down hard on the knob. It would take a lot of downward pressure to snap the shafts off; I pushed down to what I judged to be what the most ham-fisted user could possibly do, and they survived just fine.

Similarly, the front panel LEDs (there are four, four-LED meters) are secure – even if you push hard on the LEDs, you’re not going to pop them out the back of the panel because they’re retained by a plastic shell that anchors into the circuit board.

The jacks appear to be rugged and well-constructed, which is a good thing – I’d hate to have to replace one of those suckers, although it is doable. One of the clever design features is that the front panel can be removed fairly easily, so if you remove all the jack nuts and XLR+1/4” combo jack screws, you can pretty much pull out the board if you need to work on it.

And speaking of jacks, one of the truly great features is that the ground sleeves on the 1/4” jacks are plastic, and physically insulated from the front and rear metal panels. This means the ground connections are made internally to the unit, at the jacks themselves; therefore there’s a great degree of control over how grounding is handled, rather than just grounding to the panel. Proper grounding can have a huge effect on reducing noise and hash, and this is definitely an example of proper grounding technique.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the entire casing is made of metal, which helps give a feeling of security. Overall, I would rate the construction as high level stuff, and there are indeed some serious analog chops on display here.

[Anderton]

P.S. to Mackie - don't worry, I didn't lose any of the screws :)

[spokenward]

oh Yeah!

This link (http://www.physorg.com/news4205.html) might help identify whats what.

[blue2blue]

Originally posted by Anderton
Thanks much, Dan. I'll be interested to see if anyone pipes up in support of WDM with Sonar. Some people claim the program is more solid with WDM, but I suspect that's more a function of the drivers that were written for it. Certainly when using the Creamware drivers, there is no discernible performance difference between ASIO and WDM.

I'll be adding more posts over the weekend, so Dan, keep your laptop on "standby." <G>

When I got my MOTU 828mkII I was pretty trepidatious about MOTU's level and quality of support for WDM drivers, since I had the perception (and nothing has really shaken that) that MOTU has always been a more Mac-centric outfit.

Oddly, the WDM drivers have apparently mostly worked just fine, allowing me to run the i/o buffers at 128 samples (min of 96 presented glitching) and Sonar's 'mix-latency' setting at 2.9 ms. (It should be noted that I do not do huge projects... seldom going over 20 audio tracks... although I have let myself slip into using more and more plugs and v-synths.)

Odder still, perhaps, I have never been able to get the ASIO drivers to even show up in Windows -- although twice, now, the MOTU driver installation prg has said it installed them. (IOW, I did a reinstall to see if I couldn't get them to show up. Nope.)


At any rate, the 828's seemingly been fine with the WDMs in Sonar 2.2, 4, and 5. (Although I still have not given S5 a real workout; I've been busy with small acoustic recordings as I build a catalog of informal performances of all my songs... preparing my 'legacy' as it were. Other people build science buildings at their alma mater -- I'm sticking all my stuff on Archive.org. It's my era of diminished expectations. Besides, my alma mater already has a science building.)

[Anderton]

<<When I got my MOTU 828mkII I was pretty trepidatious about MOTU's level and quality of support for WDM drivers, since I had the perception (and nothing has really shaken that) that MOTU has always been a more Mac-centric outfit.>>

Just as an aside...when EQ asked if I wanted to review the 2408, I said I was pretty much using Windows, so they should probably get someone who lived and breathed Mac to use it. MOTU stepped in and said they were hoping I would review it with Windows because they wanted to change the perception they were a Mac-only company. I figured what they hey, and was pleasantly surprised that it worked very well under Windows, as well as Mac.

However, I'm surprised ASIO doesn't show up...given a choice between having ASIO not show up or WDM not show up, I'd be happier if WDM was the no-show.

[Barry Jive]

First of all, let me say thank you. There have been very few (perhaps zero?) in depth reviews of this unit, and I couldn't be happier you've decided to undertake this.

At a shootout on another forum, one user reported fantastic AD conversion but very thin, brittle, DA conversion. I've been looking very seriously at the Mackie, but bad DA would be a deal breaker for me. What good are great preamps and AD if you can't trust the sound coming from your monitors and headphones? All I've heard so far is one man's opinion, so I'd be very happy to hear another.

I'd also like to hear about latency within tracktion 2 and, if possible, Cubase.

Thanks so much,

-Eric

[Anderton]

<<At a shootout on another forum, one user reported fantastic AD conversion but very thin, brittle, DA conversion.>>

Well, as I said, the headphone amps sounded realllllly good. We'll see what happens when the outs really get put to the test.

It seems like an odd statement, though, because DA is pretty much cut and dried these days; the hard part is AD conversion. I'm much more likely to hear differences between units on the AD side, not the DA side.

[Pleasant]

I'm familiar with the thread that Barry mentioned, and am also concerned with the D/A conversion on the 400f.

It won't prevent me from getting one -- I've already decided the feature set is great for the money.

However, I do plan to use outboard gear during project mixdown/mastering, and I'm curious how the 400f conversion will affect the sound during a couple of D/A/D cycles.

Thanks for the review. This is just what I've been waiting for.

- P

[mandoman]

Was all set to buy a motu traveler as a portable interface for when I am away from the studio and my mackie onyx 1640 w/firewire card. However what I found with the onyx board is I really love the sound of the onyx pre's, they sound really nice. So I am now considering the 400f as an alternative since I am almost certain the pre's are going to sound better than what motu uses.

Question for Dan. Any reason why you guys left off lightpipe io, seems as though you could sell more 800r's if you had included it? That expandability would have been nice and I would have liked it for integrating spdif optical consumer devices.

Also, I've noticed with my 1640 that there are performance issues when running with Digital Performer 4.61 on a g4/10.3.9. I have to set work priority to 'low' to avoid cracks and pops. Have you resolved this issue with motu in the 400f (and in the 1640 for that matter)?

Thumbs up on including two headphone jacks instead of one as well as standalone operation, these are two big selling points.

I guess all the remains for me is to know how the AD converters compare. I'm guessing they are similar since they are both 24/192k capable?

For me, I see the following:
Traveler:
Advantages: Works well with DP
Has lightpipe in
Can change settings standalone from front
panel away from computer.
Bus powered and very portable
Disadvantages:
Cheap plastic front with front panal LEDs that are prone to failure
Mediocre mic pre's

400f:
Advantages: Mic pres, 2 headphone jacks,
all steel and aluminum construction
Disadvantages:
DA quality in question
Not as portable as some units
No lightpipe io
Possible performance issues with some host software (DP in my case, WDM drivers for others).

I hope some mac users who has used both Mackie and Motu units will chime in with some comparisons.

Thanks for the review!
Mandoman

[clasam]

Mr. Steinberg, I read a while back on another forum (forget which one) that Mackie was planning to enable DSP effects functionality (ie: compression, EQ, etc) at some point in the future for the 400f. Is this true and if so, what is the time table for that?

Thanks,

Jon

[Anderton]

Quick update: Sorry about the delay between posts. As some of you know I moved not too long ago, and I could only find a couple of my mics for testing!! So I'm frantically searching through boxes.

I'm also learning a new camera and want to take some pictures of the inside to illustrate what I said about the construction.

I did use the 400F last night for recording some vocals with an SM58. I gotta say the preamps do sound very good, more on this later. I also don't hear the "brittleness" to which people allude, but I'll see if I can push things somehow to find out what might make that happen.

So far so good. Again, sorry for the delay, I'll be back in full in a day or two.

[ticohans]

Let me chime in with the chorus of "thank you's" for this review. I have been looking long and hard at the 400F, and it is wonderful to finally get a serious review on the product. I, too, am familiar with the seemingly infamous "brittle D/A" thread, so to get another qualified opinion on this will be great.

(Side note on the "brittle D/A" thread: the poster compared side-by-side the 400F, RME FF800, a MOTU unit -Traveller, I believe?- among others. His general conclusion was that the 400F outshone all other units on everything but D/A, and that the D/A was so brittle that he sent it back, despite it's superior quality to the other interfaces in basically every way - ease of use, mic pre's, cost, A/D, etc... If this review shows the D/A to be of better quality, that will be a significant factor as to whether or not I purchase the 400F. Unfortunately I can't audition all the different interfaces before I buy :()

I anxiously await further posts!

[Anderton]

<<Unfortunately I can't audition all the different interfaces before I buy>>

I have limited options for comparison here as well. I will be evaluating the 400F on its own merits and compare it to as many devices here as possible.

[Anderton]

Okay, got my nice new shiny digital camera working :) so here are some photos that illustrate what I've been talking about with respect to construction. As there can be only one photo per post, the next four posts will each have a photo.

This one shows the FireWire interface and power supply modules. The power supply is toward the right. You can see all the insulation around the "live" AC connections.

[Anderton]

This photo shows what I mean about the mic pres (at the bottom) being as far away as possible from the power supply and FireWire interface cards.

[Anderton]

Here are the four rear panel mic preamp connectors, which accept XLR or 1/4" jacks.

[Anderton]

The Onyx 400F has two mic preamps with front panel 1/4" jacks and a "Guitar" button for switching to a high-impedance instrument input. (Hey, thanks Mackie for recognizing that some instruments have stereo outs.) This photo shows the plastic ground sleeves used in the 1/4" jacks, which insulates them from the metal front panel and improves grounding (thus reducing the possibility for noise and ground loops). You can also see the instrument input button, metering, and sexy brushed aluminum know with setscrew.

The other two mic pres don't have the instrument input option or front panel 1/4" jack.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton
<<At a shootout on another forum, one user reported fantastic AD conversion but very thin, brittle, DA conversion.>>
It seems like an odd statement, though, because DA is pretty much cut and dried these days; the hard part is AD conversion. I'm much more likely to hear differences between units on the AD side, not the DA side.
I don't know that I agree that all DAs sound alike any more than all ADs sound alike. I have several DA converters and they all sound different. The fancy one sounds better than the mid-priced one which sounds better than the plain jane one.

FWIW

-PL&B

[Anderton]

Yes, I think you're right. But I think the differences are far more subtle than with A/D converters.

As an aside, I was having a conversation with a manufacturer of AD converter products (not Mackie) and he said that in A-B tests of converters with zero jitter and with a slight bit of jitter, some people preferred the ones with a little jitter. He was kind of baffled, but figured it was something similar to how some people like sound with a little bit of distortion.

This is all so subjective...I guess that's part of what makes it fun.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton
Yes, I think you're right. But I think the differences are far more subtle than with A/D converters.

As an aside, I was having a conversation with a manufacturer of AD converter products (not Mackie) and he said that in A-B tests of converters with zero jitter and with a slight bit of jitter, some people preferred the ones with a little jitter. He was kind of baffled, but figured it was something similar to how some people like sound with a little bit of distortion.

This is all so subjective...I guess that's part of what makes it fun.
Interesting - I know you've mentioned some similar points before regarding the old analog vs. digital debate.

Re AD vs. DA: perhaps since what comes out of the AD converter is the stuff of our work - our raw clay to mold into whatever we mold it into - maybe we care about it more than what comes out of the DA, which is what goes on the shelf.

Compounding that is that the differences in AD converters are something that can be more easily measured and appreciated "in the box" whereas the differences in DA are spit into open air by God knows what!

-Peace, Love, and Blips

[mandoman]

Can you please tell us more about the planet-earth supply? Mackie advertises this supply can be used anywhere in the world.

Does this mean it is safe to use a ground lift 3 to 2 prong plug with this supply? Electrically speaking and in terms of ac noise getting into the audio?

Thanks.

[Anderton]

<<Can you please tell us more about the planet-earth supply? Mackie advertises this supply can be used anywhere in the world.>>

Like many other supplies these days, the power supply can handle 100-240V at 50 to 60Hz. The unit itself has a standard IEC receptacle, and ships with two different AC line cords for different markets. The only issue for interfacing with power anywhere around the world is to have an appropriate physical adapter to match up with the physical socket.

<<Does this mean it is safe to use a ground lift 3 to 2 prong plug with this supply? >>

This is a separate issue that relates to safety. I highly recommend that you always use a grounded plug. If you have only a two prong socket, then you can get 3-to-2 adapters with a wire lead you can screw to a ground (like the faceplate screw on the socket, which typically screws into a grounded metal box).

Does that help?

[mandoman]

Yes, that helps, thanks for the quick reply.

[mandoman]

Hi Craig,

Can you please tell me if the rack ears are removable? Seein' as you are so good at taking things apart on the 400f :-)

Thanks!

[Pleasant]

In the "distance" jpg it looks like he has removed one of the rack ears.

- P

[mandoman]

Originally posted by Pleasant
In the "distance" jpg it looks like he has removed one of the rack ears.

- P

Yes, but will the cover go back on nicely with the rack ears removed? Reason I ask is I'm lookin' to make this unit a little more portable, ie, something I can toss in a bag with my laptop.

[Anderton]

Okay, so WDM didn’t perform well with Sonar…but it’s not that big a deal, because ASIO works fine with Sonar. But what about Adobe Audition 1.5, which at least as of this writing is WDM-only?

Well, I loaded the Audition theme demo file (which uses eight tracks of digital audio) in Multitrack view. Granted, Audition 1.5 doesn’t put a lot of strain on your CPU owing to their clever pre-mixing method for dealing with multitrack audio, but I was nonetheless shocked to find that it performed superbly with 64 buffer samples! That's only 1.5ms of latency - wow. I decided to push things and see if it could handle 32 samples; there was a little bit of crackling. Any crackling renders a latency setting unuseable as far as I’m concerned, but even then, the crackling was relatively minor, and happened only sporadically.

I then wanted to see what would happen with ReWire. I tried rewiring Reason 3.0 into Audition, but for some reason it didn’t work…possibly I need to install the 3.0.4 update, because I never had problems rewiring Reason 2.5 into Audition. Anyway, I rewired in Project5 V2, and was again shocked to find that the combination worked perfectly with the 64 buffer samples as well. This was particularly surprising because when I had tested P5 earlier, I had a hard time getting latencies under 40ms. What?!?

I quit Audition, and tried Project5 V2 by itself. This time, latencies around 6ms worked just fine. It wasn’t a hugely tough project – several digital audio tracks and several Dimension synth tracks – but with 10ms of latency you could handle just about anything.

At this point, I started to suspect my previous tests. I tried Sonar; same problems as before. Then I loaded a stereo file into Wavelab, and it didn’t work too spectacularly either – about 70ms of latency was required before the crackling went away.

So why the differences? Here are my theories:

 Sonar deals with WDM differently compared to Audition.
 Wavelab doesn’t use pure WDM, but an MME-WDM based protocol.
 Audition follows the standard WDM protocol really closely, and that’s what the Onyx 400F is optimized to handle.
 Project5 doesn’t like to have any other drivers open or available. This time I completely disabled all the other audio in my computer, so that might have made the difference.

Bottom line: If you use Adobe Audition 1.5, not only does the Onyx 400F work well, it works extremely well. And it works well with Project5, too, but you’ll probably want to use ASIO with it.

[Anderton]

<<Can you please tell me if the rack ears are removable? Seein' as you are so good at taking things apart on the 400f :-)>>

Yes, you can remove the rack ears - check out the attachment. Note that this leaves about a 1/4" gap, but if you're really concerned about that, you could tape it over.

Removing the ears doesn't degrade the structural integrity; note the two screws above where the rack ear goes that bind the top rear panel to the top front panel. There are also two screws on the bottom that provide a similar function. Having said that, adding the rack ears does add just a bit more structural strength, but I wouldn't worry about removing them.

So yeah, you can take off the rack ears :)

[Anderton]

They’re as good as people say they are: Dead quiet, excellent detail on high frequency transients, clean…basically, what you want out of a mic pre. And hey, you get four of them! The real test for me came when compressing vocals. I kept lowering the threshold, but the noise didn’t come up because, well, the noise just isn’t there to bring up. These pres provide excellent bang for the buck, and perform superbly with condenser and dynamic mics.

What I don’t like is that the +48V phantom power switch applies phantom power to all mic pres simultaneously. Granted, the odds are remote that applying it accidentally to a modern dynamic mic will cause any damage, but it makes me nervous anyway.

The LED VU meters are adequate; there are four LEDs for -40, -20, -10, and OL (overload). For live, stand-alone use, there’s what I feel is a big gap between -10 and OL. Obviously, this isn’t an issue when feeding a DAW, where you usually have very high resolution meters. But for live, I would have preferred the four LEDs to be “activity” (anything below -20), -10, -6, and overload. No big deal, and maybe someone will post if that’s a dumb idea.

I also have to say something about the Instrument input mode. Man, my PRS sounded great! (I mean, even greater than usual :)). I’m very used to the sound of direct guitars, and as with mics, the Mackie pres deliver an incredibly clean, full sound with plenty of gain and a suitably high impedance. They come very, very close to my favorite direct box of all time, the Radial Engineering JDV Mk3 – which, incidentally, lists for half the price of the Onyx 400F.

There’s really not much else to say: These are great mic pres that provide outstanding quality at a very fair price.

[mandoman]

Originally posted by Anderton

Yes, you can remove the rack ears - check out the attachment. Note that this leaves about a 1/4" gap, but if you're really concerned about that, you could tape it over.


Sweet, thanks for the picture. Looks as though the rack ears aren't meant to be left off, but I could probably tape over the gap if I really wanted.

The 400f is the front runner for me right now over the Traveler, basically boiling down to mic pre quality vs. portability. Looking forward to reading more as the review continues to help me make my final decision.

Thanks!
Mandoman

[thie1210]

About the preamps, did you had a chance to test them with a ribbon mic? Would you find the preamps adequate for this type of mic? Thanks.

Nice review and great pics! :)

[Anderton]

Actually, I don't have a ribbon mic to test them with. But I have used ribbon mics quite a bit in the past, and I certainly don't see any technical reason why they wouldn't be a good match.

[composer]

I have read about the brittle ness as several other forums including Mackie....however these posters at Mackie are new users, so this leaves me suspect. However, at gearslutz, these users are long time members.

A few questions after reading all this in this thread...
If one where to find brittleness in DA, how would you rectify this problem using the 400F, in otherwords what would be a typical set up? 400F for AD and then run out of??? to some other DA? How is this done.

Second: Does the global phantom power affect the HIGH Z input?

Third, the lack of phase switch, is this imperitive?

thank you
:D

[ironbuddha]

Hi Craig,

Thanks so much for doing this review, I've been seriously contemplating the 400F as my sound interface since it's one of the few that has 4 mic pres before I have to scale to another unit.

One of the subjects however, that I haven't seen too much about is how this unit holds up in standalone mode. I'm asking this since Mackie currently has a promo going for the 1220 with the firewire interface free which actually comes in at less cost/input and from what I can tell is essentially the same mic pres, but more versatile for a live situation.

I've played with the motu units, and they have the ability to play around with the standalone mix with a menu type GUI on their main lcd. From what I understand with the Mackie you set it and it remembers the last settings on power up, but how much control is there just with the gain knobs?

Mr. Steingberg, maybe you could comment as well. Other than the sampling freq. and digital sync options, how much would I be losing.

Also, I read on another forum that there are plans for the 400f to be controlled as a standalone mixer with the MCU. Any roadmap as to how this functionality will be implemented?

Thanks for all the info once again - Brilliant review Craig.

Cheers.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton
What I don’t like is that the +48V phantom power switch applies phantom power to all mic pres simultaneously.
Same with Mackie's more conventional mixers (I have one banging around somewhere - i think it's the 1402 VLZ). From what I understand, it's just a cost cutting measure - share the phantom power circuit among all powered-pres.

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Pleasant]

Composer:

You can buy a separate D/A and connect it to the SPDIF 'out' on the 400f. Then you simply route the output of your DAW through SPDIF 'out' on the 400f, and the new D/A will pickup the signal.

The Lucid D/A runs about $500. Combine that with the 400f and you have one heck of a good conversion/interface with pres for only $1200.

Now, we all might find that the D/A is just fine on the 400f. When I get mine, I'm going to run a couple of A/D/A loops to see if the sonic integrity of the tracks is compromised.

I'm betting it will be fine.

- P

[composer]

ok, but if you don't have a mixer, how would this be done? ?

Also, I shop online AMS, could you give me some links and brands as well as the lucid model? The cheapest at AMS is 649.

thanks

[Pleasant]

When you plug the 400f firewire into your computer and start up the DAW, you will have 10 outputs appear in the DAW. Eight of them will be the analog outs on the back of the 400f. The other two will be SPDIF outputs that you will have physically connected between the 400f and the outboard DAC (e.g., Lucid, Apogee).

A word of advice: If you don't understand what I'm talking about then you probably don't need a separate, outboard DAC. Just know that you can add one to the 400f later if you need. I understand the desire to have it great right from the start, but to honest, I'm thinking that, at this point, you probably won't hear a difference between the 400f DAC and a Lucid DAC....I doubt I could either :)

As far as where to buy outboard DACs.....you're on your own.

- P

[Anderton]

Wow, you guys come up with some great comments. I love doing Pro Reviews!!

<<One of the subjects however, that I haven't seen too much about is how this unit holds up in standalone mode. I'm asking this since Mackie currently has a promo going for the 1220 with the firewire interface free which actually comes in at less cost/input and from what I can tell is essentially the same mic pres, but more versatile for a live situation.
>>

I consider the standalone mode an important aspect of the 400F and will be covering that in detail. Next up I'll be dealing with the DSP mixer, which is intertwined with the standalone aspects.

About the brittleness: I did some preliminary comparisons last night between the 400F sound and that of my DA7, which I've always felt has a "sweet" sound. Comparing the two, the best analogy I can come up with is that the 400F is a single coil, and the DA7, a humbucker. The 400F definitely has a real sparkle in the high end and I can see where some would call it brittle, but I suspect these are the same people who don't really like the sound of a single coil pickup taken direct. In other words, so far my take is that it's a subjective thing. I hear it as being ultra-clear and defined, but I LIKE that kind of sound -- the first time I heard a guitar direct, it was like a revelation. Others might find it too "present." Then again, as has been pointed out, you can stick a different DA on the SPDIF out; or frankly, you might be able to get what you want just by rolling off a little bit of the highs above 15kHz (like we used to do with FM synths, LOL).

So initial reaction: Very clean, crispy high end. But "brittle?" That's not the word I'd use.

[Pleasant]

Composer:

Here's the lowest price that I've seen on the Lucid DA9624:

http://www.frontendaudio.com/Lucid_DA9624_24_96_kHz_D_A_Converter_p/2984.htm

- P

[mandoman]

The 1220 would be a good choice if you don't have a mixer already, need something for live use, and don't need spdif IO. I actually need spdif, otherwise would definately have considered the 1220 as an alternative. Maybe the next rev. of the onyx firewire card they will think to include spdif? Are you listening Dan?

I'm familiar with the gearslutz thread and the supposed brittleness of the DA. I'd agree that is probably a subjective thing. I might worry about it if I was to do several DA AD cycles with outboard gear, but most prosumers like me probably won't be doing much of that. I think those considering a two piece setup to address this (ie, an outboard DA) might be better served going to another interface with lightpipe and getting an 800r.

I'm looking forward to reading about the stand-alone feature. You are limited somewhat because you have to set up the dsp matrix in advance on the computer. That may not be a big issue for some.

[guitwizz]

Great review Mr. Craig! I have an 1820m, but I am looking to replace it with the new box next year, and havent found this extensive of a review on, well almost anything! Its neat if the pres are good, but I like the conversion and local control the most about it.

Hope you're getting some sleep!!!:thu:

[Anderton]

<<I have an 1820m, but I am looking to replace it with the new box next year, and havent found this extensive of a review on, well almost anything!>>

This is the fourth Pro Review I've done, you might want to check out the links to the other ones...they're pretty deep too! Glad you like the format, it's a gas to write.

<<Its neat if the pres are good, but I like the conversion and local control the most about it.>>

Honestly, I'm taken aback by the interest in this unit, I thought it was more of a niche product. There are some great comments here.

<<Hope you're getting some sleep!!!>>

Well, actually lack of sleep has been a bit of a problem lately...but tonight, I'm taking a break and having dinner with the owner of Maricam Studio here in Santa Fe. I just finished a cool mastering project with him and it will be nice to kick back for a while...I hear his wife is a gourmet cook :)

Okay, back to work, and back to the review.

[Dan Steinberg]

Hi there everyone, sorry for taking so long to post again, things have been very busy at Mackie HQ lately. I will try to address some of the questions and comments I have seen come up since my last post.

My answers came out a little long winded, but that’s my middle name, and the beauty of the Pro Review. Also, if I forgot to answer any questions so far, don’t be shy, speak up and say “Dan, you forgot to answer my question, you $%^*#”.

WDM performance in Adobe Audition

Craig’s experience worked out as we had predicted, that even though the 400F does not like WDM with Sonar, it works just fine with Audition. So, the good news is, the 400F’s WDM works fine, for the programs that have to use WDM.

From what I have been told by our colleagues at Echo, Craig’s 1st theory is correct, Sonar and Audition deal with WDM audio differently.

Sound of the D/A conversion:

I am glad to see that the fine folks on this thread realize that one man’s “brittle” can be a very subjective thing, and have decided to try out the 400F and judge for themselves. It’s a little frustrating to read that gearslutz post and then see others just accept one poster’s opinion without listening for themselves. I am hopeful/confident that many of you you will feel that the poster’s opinion is firmly in the minority.

It is interesting to me that some people have suggested strapping a Lucid DA9624 on the s/pdif out and seeing how that improve things. I actually have that exact D/A converter sitting in my closet, if I have time maybe I will try an A/B test and let you guys know how the two compare, since I have always loved the sound of that particular piece of gear.


“Question for Dan. Any reason why you guys left off lightpipe I/O, seems as though you could sell more 800r's if you had included it? That expandability would have been nice and I would have liked it for integrating spdif optical consumer devices.”

We left it off for all the usual reasons, cost, panel space, impact on time to market, and added complexity. But, for anyone who is concerned about the lack of an ADAT input, let me throw out a couple of suggestions that I hope may help:

First, you mentioned how you’d like to use spdif optical consumer devices with the 400F. You can definitely do that for a very nominal expense. Simply purchase an optical to coaxial spdif conversion box that will take your optical spdif signal, and convert it (all in the digital domain) to a coaxial spdif signal that can come into the spdif input of the 400F. M-Audio makes a good one for about $60, and I’ve even used a no-name one from Fry’s electronics that was about $20. In fact, I’m doing this right now, I have the optical output of a DirecTV satellite receiver, converting to coaxial and coming into the 400F, which I use to listen to music channels while I work during the day.

As for people who wish to use an ADAT input to expand the mic pre count, it’s true that you can not do that through an ADAT connection with the 400F, but keep in mind that multiple 400Fs can be daisy chained (presently available now with Mac 10.4, and available soon for Windows through an upcoming 1.06 driver we’re working on). So, it’s true you can’t go buy an 8 channel mic pre for $700-1000 an pipe it in digitally, but you can go buy a whole 2nd 400F and combiner it with the first one, for a 20X20 channel count. Hopefully that option will ease the “no-ADAT” sting for some.

“In Digital Performer I have to set work priority to 'low' to avoid cracks and pops. Have you resolved this issue with MOTU in the 400f (and in the 1640 for that matter)?”

From what I’ve been told, this is a result of how Digital Performer deals with any device that uses Mac OSX’s driverless “plug and play” capabilities (like our Onyx mixers and the 400F). MOTU told us that as long as you set work priority to low, that should solve the issue for all users and in fact, they put in that setting because DP needed it, to properly handle OSX native interfaces. So from what I know, it’s not so much a Mackie issue as a DP issue, and one that they said is resolved now by having that setting available. If this solution is not sufficient, let me know and we’ll work with MOTU further.

So hopefully with the info above, you’ll feel the 400F works as well with Digital Performer as the traveler does. I am not aware of any innate advantages their hardware has with DP software over us, but let me know if there’s something I’m missing.

Next up, Clasman wrote “Mr. Steinberg, I read a while back on another forum (forget which one) that Mackie was planning to enable DSP effects functionality (ie: compression, EQ, etc) at some point in the future for the 400f. Is this true and if so, what is the time table for that?”

It is still a goal to do this, but I can not really say when we expect this to be ready. Up until now it has been more of a priority to have rock solid Mac and PC operation at low buffer sizes, as well as work on multiple box support. Once multiple box support for Windows is done we should have more time to dive back into this.

To give a little more detail on what effects we’d hope to have, it would be stuff designed to make the DSP mixer act more like a standard digital mixer. EQ and compression on each channel strip, plus a couple of effects loops fed by aux sends on each channel, with a choice of reverbs chorus delays, etc.

But, lest we be accused of not thinking outside the box, we are open to suggestions about what you’d like to see running on that DSP chip. If you have a good idea, we are all ears.

Planet Earth Power Supply

Craig answered this correctly. The idea is to have one single product SKU that you can take with you anywhere when you are jet setting around the world, and only have to use the appropriate electrical cord. As opposed to building one unit for US operation and a whole other unit SKU for Europe (which we used to do for products many years ago, but no longer).

Removeable Rack Ears

As mentioned, even though it leaves a tiny bit of open space exposed, there is definitely no harm or structural impact if you wish to remove them. I have done so often when taking the 400F on location, it keeps it from scratching up the bag it’s thrown in. And, the unit is short enough, front to back, that it becomes a pretty portable solution.

Sound of Mic Pres

Craig, I am glad you liked them. We really have had a lot of positive response to the sound (or lack thereof really) of the Onyx mic preamp design. So the whole idea of the 400F is that you don’t have to spend more money “augmenting” it with decent pres, they are already there.

[Dan Steinberg]

Next our good friend Ironbuddha asks

“One of the subjects however, that I haven't seen too much about is how this unit holds up in standalone mode. I'm asking this since Mackie currently has a promo going for the 1220 with the Firewire interface free which actually comes in at less cost/input and from what I can tell is essentially the same mic pres, but more versatile for a live situation.

I've played with the MOTU units, and they have the ability to play around with the standalone mix with a menu type GUI on their main LCD. From what I understand with the Mackie you set it and it remembers the last settings on power up, but how much control is there just with the gain knobs?

Mr. Steinberg, maybe you could comment as well. Other than the sampling freq. and digital sync options, how much would I be losing.”

Well, an Onyx mixer with a Firewire card, and a 400F, are pretty different. Here's a rough comparison:

Mixer with Firewire card:

96kHz, not 192kHz

Gives you a great analog mixer to use for whatever you need one for

Slightly less expensive with current free card promotion

400F:

Higher sampling rate
BNC word clock IO
Rack Mountable in 1RU space
10 in, 10 out. The Onyx 1220 is 14 in, 2 out
MIDI IO

So really, you would look at your needs and then see which unit make more sense for you.

Since some people were asking about "standalone mode" and comparing it to the MOTU, I'll compare that a little bit as well.

As mentoned, since we have no front panel controls or LCD like the MOTU, you need to set standalone mode the way you want it at the computer, and then use those settings in the field.

When at the computer, you get 100% of the settings, sample rates, spdif format, etc. It can all be set and remembered when you yank the Firewire cable.

For those of you asking “but what good is a standalone mode if I can’t change settings without the computer there”, here are some examples of what you can still do (some of these are visually illustrated in the downloaded user’s manual)

4 channel Onyx mic pre: With the computer attached, set the routing so that only input 1 is routed to input 1, only input 2 to output 2, etc, for the 1st 4 channels. Now, you have a 4 in, 4 out Onyx mic pre to use with a hard disc recorder, etc. Each mic pre is output discreetly, no mixing, and you still can use the front panel mic gain knobs, since they are in the analog domain.

4 channel Microphone Mixer with digital out: With the computer attached, route inputs 1-4 to spdif output 9-10. Now you have a 4 channel mic mixer that routes all 4 mic channels to a 2 channel digital output, ready for feeding to that old beat up DAT deck in the closet, bypassing its old, bad sounding A/D converter. 4 mic recordings are great for Jazz and Classical groups in a good acoustic space, you can use one stereo pair up by the band and a 2nd stereo pair further back in the room , mixed in to taste.

10 channel rack mount keyboard mixer Set all 10 inputs to mix to outputs 1-2 (which are mirrored in the control room outs and phones outs). Plug 4 stereo analog synths into 1-8, and the spdif output of a modern Roland synth into inputs 9-10. Use the synths’ volume sliders to mix the 5 keyboards volume to taste. You now have a rack mount keyboard mixer that you van use to practice at home, or use at a gig in a rack, all with no computer in sight.

I use a variation on this at home. I have an Alesis QS8 into inputs 1-2, a Line 6 pod into inputs 3-4, a Digidesign 002 coming into inputs 5-6., and the aforementioned digital cable box coming into the digital ins. I can listen to any of these sources just by turning the 400F on, I don’t need to fire up the DAW software first and the master output volume is still controlled by the control room volume pot on the way to my powered monitors.

“Also, I read on another forum that there are plans for the 400f to be controlled as a standalone mixer with the MCU. Any roadmap as to how this functionality will be implemented?”

This will hopefully come to fruition one day, but again I do not have a specific timeline for it, and it has never been officially advertised anywhere in print. So, I would want people to buy the 400F on its current merits, and treat that capability, when or if it arrives, as “icing on the cake”

In general, this Mackie Control “MCU mode” you mentioned would complete the big picture, along with effects. It would work as follows:

Aforementioned DSP effects would be implemented and would allow the DSP mixer to have the same type of effects as a Yamaha 01V, etc.

We would offer (for sale on the website) a Lexan overlay to put on the MCU so you know what buttons do what.

You’d connect the 400F and the MCU together with 2 MIDI cables, no computer in sight.

And at that point, the MCU/400F combo would basically be a small format, 10 channel digital mixer, much like a Yamaha 01V, Tascam TMD-1000, etc, just in 2 pieces instead of 1. The MCU’s screen would be used to give you feedback on channel levels, effect settings, aux sends pan positions, utility menus, etc.

We would love some feedback from you guys if this MCU mode would be useful to you. Basically, you could take the 400F and the MCU and mix a small show at a club, as long as the interface and channel count were acceptable to your needs.

Whew! That was a lot of typing. I think I’ve earned tonight’s sushi now!

[mandoman]

Dan,

Thanks for your comments. One thing I won't knock Mackie on is deadication to their products!

For spdif optical, I already have the afformentioned midiman co2 coax-optical converter, just hate pulling it out, and an extra set of digital io would have been nice to give the unit a more swiss army knife appeal. No biggy though. I really don't need the extra expandability of lightpipe io, and I realize the cost to add it (licensing from Alesis, etc) and don't want to pay for it.

After re-optimizing my powerbook and DP settings and using the 'low' priority setting, I'd say I am pretty happy with the performance of my onyx firewire card in DP. Hope the 400f will perform as good or better.

Good to know I can remove the rack ears. Probably will do this until you guys come out with a perfectly matched 1u shallow rack bag with laptop pocket and accesory pocket(s) with the Mackie logo on it ;)

[imagodei]

Originally posted by Dan Steinberg
We would love some feedback from you guys if this MCU mode would be useful to you. Basically, you could take the 400F and the MCU and mix a small show at a club, as long as the interface and channel count were acceptable to your needs.

I really dig this idea. Any way to have a single MCU control multiple 400F's at once?

[spectacular g]

Originally posted by Dan Steinberg


It is still a goal to do this, but I can not really say when we expect this to be ready. Up until now it has been more of a priority to have rock solid Mac and PC operation at low buffer sizes, as well as work on multiple box support. Once multiple box support for Windows is done we should have more time to dive back into this.

To give a little more detail on what effects we’d hope to have, it would be stuff designed to make the DSP mixer act more like a standard digital mixer. EQ and compression on each channel strip, plus a couple of effects loops fed by aux sends on each channel, with a choice of reverbs chorus delays, etc.

But, lest we be accused of not thinking outside the box, we are open to suggestions about what you’d like to see running on that DSP chip. If you have a good idea, we are all ears.

[/B]

Hello all first post here, and I would like to start by thanking both Mr. Anderton and Mr. Steinberg for their time and effort.

Now some questions and comments for Mr. Steinberg.

Where to start...

O.K. As I've followed this thread I've seen others refer to certain dealbreakers, to each his own I guess. I would like to focus on features that I feel will be dealmakers.

First on my list is multiple box support for pc, I think for me two of these would be better than a 1200f. It will in fact be one or the other for me. So If you could elaborate a bit on this feature please do. For instance was this unit designed with this feature in mind from day one? Will I need to run two instances of the control panel? What will be the proper way to hook two of these up together, would they be chained together w/one cable to the computer?

Next, I cannot help but feel that the inclusion of the DSP chip in this unit is the real wildcard here. How much DSP horsepower is still yet to be used?

As far as what to use it on, I would say...

1= compression.
A great sounding one!!! that can switch from opto to vca with a vintage/modern option.

2= E.Q.
Sound quality, versitility and ease of use are the key here. And mabey an option for clean/character.

3= Pre adc soft limiter/ tape emulation type thingy.
Again simply make it sound great and be adjustable.


4= reverb/delay.
I would not waste any DSP horsepower on this, if anything mabey a really simple verb for monitoring while tracking.


Thats it, simple really just make these available for TRACKING and mixing and you will have an absolute MONSTER!!!!

I would also like to know if the 1200f will have more DSP power in the box?

Thanks again to you both and keep up the good work.

next time,
jfg

[ticohans]

Let me chime in here and say that plugins handled by the 400F's DSP processor would be AWESOME, and I really like the idea of a channel strip plugin, similar to what's bundled with the Yamaha 01V/i88x. Also, I would rather see just a couple really high-quality plugs, as opposed to a bunch of mediocre ones. It seems that Mackie has done everything possible to make the 400F a very high-quality unit, despite it's low cost. I would hope to see the same bang-for-your-buck quality with whatever plugs that are bundled with the unit.

I think the ability to pair the 400F with the MCU would be a great way to add functionality. A definite plus in my eyes.

Also, Dan, I am one who is familiar with the Gearslutz "brittle D/A" thread. I want you to know that all the reviews I read are taken with a grain of salt: obviously everything is subjective. That said, you should also know that for whatever negative things the poster in question had to say about the quality of the D/A on the 400F, he rated everything else very highly, with pre's, A/D, and ease-of-use better than the RME FireFace. He suggested purchasing the 400F along with a nicer outboard D/A, saying that combo would without a doubt top the FireFace, and come in at around the same price. That's very high praise, since the FireFace is pretty much the current standard against which all other high-level firewire interfaces are measured. It's all the more remarkable when you consider that you can get two 400F's for the price of a single FireFace!

I would definitely be interested, if you had the time, Dan, in a review of the D/A on the 400F versus the Lucid9624 D/A, since that is exactly the unit I would consider purchasing along with the 400F, if I decide the D/A on the Mackie is not for me.

I hope this post doesn't in any way sound very critical of the 400F. All-in-all, everything that I've read is VERY positive on the unit, and it seems that you have set a new value-standard for firewire interfaces, at the very least. That you have produced an interface that competes if not surpasses the FireFace at half the cost is VERY impressive, and I will be purchasing a 400F soon.

Speaking of which, are there any updates coming out soon, for which I should hold off my purchase? :)

[clasam]

I agree with my fellow forumers in that I would definitely prefer QUALITY over QUANITY for the DSP effects. Additionally, making the DSP available for both tracking AND mixing is very important.

In addition to their great ideas, I have a few suggestions:

The ultimate effect that I could possibly dream up is the "Make my song NOT suck" plugin.

Okay, all kidding aside, would it at all be realistic to have any modeling simulations (preamps, mics, guitar cabs)?

What about guitar/bass specific effects like flanger, wah, crunch (going DI into the 400f, the instrument signal would be split, and one would remain dry, while the other would be wet)?

In terms of the 'standard' plugs, in addition to the manual controls, I'd appreciate several templates (ie: for compression, have presets for various vocal styles, slap/funk bass vs. upright bass vs. jazz bass, strings, de-esser, soft + hard knee settings, etc).

Well, there's my 5 cents...I'm sure i'll have more thoughts later, but some general ideas to shoot at ya. But overall, I'd rather have 5 top notch effects than 15 mediocre ones.

Thanks,

Jon

[Anderton]

I wouldn't want to see Mackie go in the direction of guitar effects...they're too subjective, and I'd rather see the bandwidth spent on really good dynamics control and EQ...and maybe a reverb.

[Anderton]

Okay, it's Sunday night and all that and I wasn't planning on posting anything, but just had a couple points.

1. The MIDI works fine. I've been using it all day with Reason. No surprise, I realize that, but thought I should mention this for the sake of completeness.

2. The Onyx 400F does not run hot at all. Very slightly warm, maybe, but it definitely doesn't feel like any component lives are being shortened in the slightest by heat. I don't think it's an issue of the all-metal case dissipating heat; it just seems to be pretty conservative thermal engineering.

I'm still not hearing brittle, BTW. I'm beginning to think that if the 400F had been the only interface in the world, then new ones were introduced, people would consider the new ones "muffled." The 400F does have presence, but more and more, I think the "single coil/humbucker" analogy is what's going on here.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by ticohans
I think the ability to pair the 400F with the MCU would be a great way to add functionality. A definite plus in my eyes.

Also, Dan, I am one who is familiar with the Gearslutz "brittle D/A" thread. I want you to know that all the reviews I read are taken with a grain of salt: obviously everything is subjective. That said, you should also know that for whatever negative things the poster in question had to say about the quality of the D/A on the 400F, he rated everything else very highly, with pre's, A/D, and ease-of-use better than the RME FireFace. He suggested purchasing the 400F along with a nicer outboard D/A, saying that combo would without a doubt top the FireFace, and come in at around the same price. That's very high praise, since the FireFace is pretty much the current standard against which all other high-level firewire interfaces are measured. It's all the more remarkable when you consider that you can get two 400F's for the price of a single FireFace!

I would definitely be interested, if you had the time, Dan, in a review of the D/A on the 400F versus the Lucid9624 D/A, since that is exactly the unit I would consider purchasing along with the 400F, if I decide the D/A on the Mackie is not for me.

FWIW – and not to undermine your opinion but just to be fair to “what’s out there” - the reports of brittle-sounding conversion on the 400f are not limited to a lone user at Gearslutz.

But as has been pointed out, it’s hard to tell when a vocal minority is dissing a product or whether an opinion voiced by multiple users from the trenches is valid. I suppose it’s all about keeping a grain of salt handy for ALL occasions (including when someone appears in a forum for the first time to defend a product!).

For whatever it’s worth, I love Mackie gear. For me, Mackie wins the sixth player of the year award – in my setup, it’s not a starter, but when it comes off the bench, it does its job.

One of the things I like about the 400 is its all-in-one-ness: All those functions stuffed into one neat package. So, I really don’t follow the logic of buying a 400f and an additional converter. If someone is not happy with sound of the 400f, and would add the bulk and expense of another converter, that just doesn’t make sense to me when you could put the extra money into a higher-end all-in-one and get just what you want.

For me, these super-convenient all-in-one interfaces are “sweet spot” products – people buy them because they hit the nail on the head. And since there’s a range of units out there, there are plenty of nails to choose from. And certainly the 400f seems like a nail with a pretty big head. I might even buy one of these suckers myself to use with my laptop as a portable rig.

But to buy a 400f AND a redundant converter if the one in the 400f isn't adequate just doesn’t make sense to me when there are other all-in-ones that would give you everything you need in one neat package.

Maybe it’s also a philosophy – in the old days, it seemed that the more components, the better. But since quality is progressively NOT sacrificed for the sake of convenience, it seems that every day there are less compelling reasons to litter up a studio with boxes and cables.

FWIW, I appreciate all of Dan’s information. What a wonderful privilege to get info straight from the horse’s mouth. But I would not be interested in his “review” of a competitor’s product for reasons that are, you know, kind of obvious.

Also, FWIW (and in case you don't already think I'm a big enough jerk :) ), to repeat that someone speculated that adding an extra converter to a 400f would make it top the FireFace at half the price is meaningless speculation. Anyone can say anything. Which is why multiple opinions from the trenches - feedback from actual users actually using the equipment (God bless the internet!), and evaluations from known and respected reviewers who do not work for the companies they review (God bless the internet!) are so valuable.

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Pleasant]

But to buy a 400f AND a redundant converter if the one in the 400f isn't adequate just doesn’t make sense to me when there are other all-in-ones that would give you everything you need in one neat package.

...not for the price of the 400f + outboard D/A.
Nope, not even close!

Does it make sense now?

- P

[ironbuddha]

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to address everyone's comments on this. I think it is really commendable when manufacturer reps can actually offer insightful comments about their own products without having to flame their competitors. It inspires some integrity regarding the business practices of an organization.

I must admit, I really like the idea of the MCU being compatible with the 400f to bypass a computer for small rehearsal + recording or live applications. Like others have indicated, I would like to see the DSP be capable of handling high quality compression, EQ and reverb. I think the domain of various instrument specific effects and emulation be left to those who focus on that specifically.

In my humble opinion, the 400f and onyx mixers already pack a lot of bang for the buck in terms of features, but I'd much rather they concentrate on the quality of the signal going in and channel strip function DSP and do it well.

Personally I'm leaning towards the 400F myself. Seems an incredibly versatile unit, and capable of some field recording with a laptop and as Dan said, DSP and control with the MCU would really complete the picture here and change the landscape of the competition in terms of an integrated control surface and interface in that it would have a much more powerful mixing engine. I hope Mackie does implement a roadmap to this, but regardless the 400f is a very versatile product and there are not many in its class for the price to performance ratio.

But being a technoweenie, I'm not happy until i've researched and exhausted all options, so just to mix things up a bit though, I'm going to throw another curveball. Any idea on how this product compares to the audiofire units from the 400f's co-designers at Echo? The design of the 400f appears to be a direct sibling of the audiofire 8, save only 2 different mic pres and 96khz as opposed to 128kHz. I'd be interested in how these two units compare.

Craig and Dan, as always your comments are welcome. (hope i'm not getting under your skin too much yet).

Cheers.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Pleasant
...not for the price of the 400f + outboard D/A.
Nope, not even close!

Does it make sense now?

Not to me. As I see it: buy something and be happy with it. I wouldn't buy something knowing that I needed to buy something else to compensate for what I perceived as a flawed component. For me, I like to love my equipment in its entirety!

There's so much stuff out there in the "all-in-one department," there's really no need to cobble stuff together. You can get just what you want! And I'm sure that for many people, the 400f is just what they want. But if you're not happy with its converters (if that's your opinion), you CAN get something else for the price of a 400f + outboard D/A, if that's what floats your boat. Alternatively, if you love the 400f and want an external D/A, well then do that! That's what makes horseracing, as they say.

-PL&B

[Pleasant]

Originally posted by Brittanylips

There's so much stuff out there in the "all-in-one department," there's really no need to cobble stuff together. You can get just what you want! And I'm sure that for many people, the 400f is just what they want. But if you're not happy with its converters (if that's your opinion), you CAN get something else for the price of a 400f + outboard D/A, if that's what floats your boat.
-PL&B

The gauntlet has been thrown!
400f + Lucid D/A: $1300

Please list comparable interfaces for that price that have the following features:
- firewire
- 4 rockin' preamps
- 8 analog ins
- 8 analog outs
- great A/D
- great D/A
- All metal housing
- internal power supply
- 64 bit DSP

Good luck!

- P:thu:

[ironbuddha]

Pleasant,

I have to agree with brittanylips in that one shouldn't typically buy a piece of gear only substitute an A/D D/A unit rather than looking at it from a scalability flexibility standpoint and should appreciate the merits of each individual product.

Having said that, I think trying to list solutions in this manner is neither productive nor relevant to this thread and it's main focus of discussin the 400F. You could come up with any number of mic-pre + A/D D/A solutions to fit the bill here.

Presonus Mic Pres w/ Audiofire 12
RME Fireface
MOTU 896HD

I could go on... but as I said... I'd much prefer to stay on track and discussing the merits of the 400F

[Anderton]

<<Which is why multiple opinions from the trenches - feedback from actual users actually using the equipment (God bless the internet!), and evaluations from known and respected reviewers who do not work for the companies they review (God bless the internet!) are so valuable.>>

Sounds like you really "get" the Pro Review concept! :thu:

[ticohans]

iron, if I could throw in my 2 cents here, I think what brittanylips is getting at is that you aren't going to see better quality than the 400F with the Lucid D/A at $1300.

The counter list you give is good, but I'd take the mackie + lucid combo over any of those easy. I believe it's cheaper than all, and the general consensus of the internet message boards seems to be that the pres are MUCH better in the mackie.

Hopefully the external D/A isn't even neccessary. Personally, I doubt it will be to these ears. Maybe somewhere down the road, but not now. I guess at the end of the day it's all about how well your mixes translate.

[Pleasant]

I plan to get the 400f, period. It's got the features I need. And it's expandable (e.g., outboard D/A). I'm sure I'll be very happy with the conversion in the unit.

I was just giving BrittanyLips a hard time -- because she earned it :love:

OK, back to reading the review. :cool:

- P

[ironbuddha]

I felt that I should clarify what I was trying to say... I didn't mean to come across as being snarky or abrasive.

I think it's fair to say that everyone that's been contributing has been providing good insight on the product and what's in it's arena. Once people start deviating and talking about rigs in combination it becomes a free for all about which rigs sound better and I'm sure we call all agree that sound is a very subjective thing.

I was just trying to emphasize the fact that most people don't decide to buy a piece of gear because only 1 aspect of it is appealing and instead to look at the product as a whole. That's not to say that we shouldn't use them in combination with other gear we like if we've got that available to us. What I love about this pro review is that we're focused on a product and the those involved in the thread have only drawn in reasonable comparisons and contrasts as opposed to a pissing contest of "i own this and it rocks, ergo that is an inferior product"

My point was to illustrate that there are many options that meet those requirements once we get over the $1300 price mark all with their own merits. I don't think it would be a stretch to say we'd all have a crapload of gear to our hearts delight if money was no object, but that's not the case for this dabbler/aspiring artist.

Nonetheless, at least we've kept ourselves entertained until the next segment of the review. So big up to Pleasant and Brittanylips - no hard feelings. :)

Cheers.

[hacheka]

Hello,

My suggestion for DSP effects is... what about a software emulation of the Onyx EQ? It would be great!!!

Ivan

[Anderton]

<<What I love about this pro review is that we're focused on a product and the those involved in the thread have only drawn in reasonable comparisons and contrasts as opposed to a pissing contest of "i own this and it rocks, ergo that is an inferior product">>

+1!

<<Nonetheless, at least we've kept ourselves entertained until the next segment of the review.>>

Yes, indeed. I've deliberately held off on the next "segment" because as threads often do, this has taken on a life of its own and I feel important subjects are being discussed. I really like the way this review has progressed; it's also giving me a better idea of what to cover in the rest of the review, based on what interests people here.

Props to Dan too for the comments, I really think getting the manufacturer involved adds a very useful dimension...as long as companies continue to send us engineers/product managers and not marketing types. :) He also included enough info about standalone operation that I'm not sure I can add much to that, so thanks for doing my job for me, Dan :thu:

[spectacular g]

Originally posted by Anderton


I'm still not hearing brittle, BTW. I'm beginning to think that if the 400F had been the only interface in the world, then new ones were introduced, people would consider the new ones "muffled." The 400F does have presence, but more and more, I think the "single coil/humbucker" analogy is what's going on here.

Well...

I sure hope we are talking about P-90's anyway.

Seriously though, you gotta know I am not trying to fan flames here.

But...

I do feel that the singlecoil/humbucker analogy is a bit of a red flag for me. I mean really, there is a huge difference there and to me it says that these dacs truly do have a unique and identifiable sound, and this really is a bit of a concern for me.

Craig you have used the word "presence" and to me, between that and the "singlecoil" analogy it could be taken to mean "bright"

Which of course does not mean "grainy"!!!

So I gotta ask...

Craig would you say these dacs are "bright"? Would you think that listening to them for a normal mix session would be any more "fatiguing" than normal?

Just to be clear my main concern is not the sound of the dacs for playback, I have a nice monitoring chain with a dac/sound that I love. I am more concerned about the sound of the analog out's on the way too outboard comps and such during a mix.

I just feel that for me, and I suspect others here that at this point there is enough concern over the sound of the dacs on this box to warrant a definitive analysis/answer.

Soo...

I propose a test which I feel is fair and easy enough for you to do. Simply set up a mix in your normal daw that you are "comfortable" with. Then simply do a few rounds of a/b comparison with your normal/"comfortable" monitoring dac and the dac on the 400f. Then please report the differences whatever they may be.

I truly hope that we can then finally put this topic to bed, and move on to more of this great review of this very interesting/exciting box.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from here. I really want to get a couple of these. The upside is huge to me, really a perfect feature set.

But I gotta know...

ya' know.

next time,
jfg

[Anderton]

<<I hope you all understand where I am coming from here. I really want to get a couple of these. The upside is huge to me, really a perfect feature set. >>

I absolutely do understand, and no, doesn't seem to me like you're fanning any flames. The frustration at this end is, of course, that I can't just say to all of you "Well here, just listen."

You can attach files to these posts, but they're limited to about 100k. With a 16-bit/44.1kHz WAV file, that means under a second of audio. Not good enough. Perhaps for future reviews HC could allocate some server space for hi-fi audio examples.

<<I propose a test which I feel is fair and easy enough for you to do. Simply set up a mix in your normal daw that you are "comfortable" with. Then simply do a few rounds of a/b comparison with your normal/"comfortable" monitoring dac and the dac on the 400f. Then please report the differences whatever they may be.>>

Well, that's actually what I've done, moving back and forth between the 400F, the Creamware DA, and the Panasonic DA7 DA. If you listen long enough to the 400F, then it sounds normal, and the others sound a little muffled. If you listen to the others long enough, then they sound normal and the 400F sounds a little bright.

Mind you, we're dealing with very small differences here, and subjectively speaking, I prefer clean/sparkly sounds as opposed to "warm" sounds. I always disliked the Miller effect in tubes (internal capacitance that affects highs, and which is present in solid-state devices to some extent), and was pleased when Aphex figured out a way to defeat it.

In fact, that would be a more accurate analogy (tube with or without Miller effect) than the humbucker/single coil one, although I felt the latter would be more intuitively understandable.

The one thing I should emphasize is that the brightness has more to do with definition and transparency. It's like the frequency response "goes up to 11." To me, "bad" brightness is synonymous with "harshness." I do not hear harshness out of the 400F, nor is it fatiguing. In fact, I have no problems listening to it for hours at a time.

In short, one of the variables in all this is that the 400F delivers a high end quality for which I have a predilection. Those of you who really value a "warm" sound might not like the 400F's high end characteristics. Those who'd rather hear a dry guitar through a Class A solid state amp than a tube amp with a transformer will probably love the 400F.

Come to think of it, if you think the 400F is "brittle," it wouldn't surprise me if you could get the sound you want by feeding the output through an audio transformer.

I also feel that the 400F doesn't influence a mix. In other words, the balance of high to low frequencies is still there; I don't find myself turning down the treble with it. I just feel like I can hear "through" the treble range more, like it somehow has a little more high end "space."

Whew...do I qualify to write wine reviews now? "Sharp, with a mild nose, recalling essences of fruit and oak but with a deep, almost comical, finish." I know, I know...don't quit my day job.

Does any of this help to convey what I'm hearing? Remember, we're dealing with subtleties here, so the language I use has to be quite nuanced.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by Anderton
"Sharp, with a mild nose, recalling essences of fruit and oak but with a deep, almost comical, finish."

This really clears up a lot for me! Is Mackie going to use this in their next batch of ads? :D

~~~~

I've been sorta skim-reading this thread and just wanted to add that so far I really love these interactive, in-depth, and ongoing reviews.

[guitwizz]

<<"I do feel that the singlecoil/humbucker analogy is a bit of a red flag for me. I mean really, there is a huge difference there and to me it says that these dacs truly do have a unique and identifiable sound, and this really is a bit of a concern for me.">>

Well, "For me" the analogy is cool, I know it can be a hazy way of wording to us, but what is a better alternative?? Its pretty much, "I like them", or "I dont like them", which leaves absolutely nothing, not even a vague comparison, like the pup idea.

If you ask Craig to A/B the same mix, using different dac's, and he was to say, "why, yes, they are glassy and harsh", that wouldnt mean the same to you or me, maybe, right?

My point is, there is nothing wrong at all with drawing a difficult listening comparison from a tone opinion, that most of us have been familiar with for years, which is the pup & amp design thing... Its not a measured science, but it may help to convey in "words" (words dont have sound) a closer understanding of a product....:)

[spectacular g]

[i]Originally posted by Anderton
Does any of this help to convey what I'm hearing? Remember, we're dealing with subtleties here, so the language I use has to be quite nuanced. [/B]

Yes it helps alot. Thanks!!!

next time,
jfg

[KernelG]

It helped me. My 400F will be here tomorrow, possibly replacing a MOTU Traveler on a dual G5/Logic 7 rig.

(SSS reader since the AOL days. Thanks Craig!)

[ticohans]

Hey Kernel, let us know your thoughts on how the 400F compares to the Traveler!

[sutoman]

Am I crazy, or is it too much to ask that adapters be included with the Onyx series so their product can be used out of the box immediately after purchase?
I have been waiting for a week to receive an adapter for my Firewire 800 port in order to use my Onyx. The local computer superstore workers look at me like I am nuts when I ask if they carry these adapters in stock.
Meanwhile, I just sit and stare at my new decoration, dreaming of the day I can acutally begin using it as I await the $5 part that I had to pay $6 shipping to get. FRUSTRATING!!!:mad:

[DemoKing]

Quote "Next, I loaded a really complex project in Sonar: Lots of MIDI and digital audio, Reason 3.0 rewired into it with a big Reason Drum Refill loaded, and East-West Colossus loaded as a virtual instrument. 256 samples didn’t cut it, as there were lots of dropouts. Just in case using Sonar 5’s 64-bit engine was screwing things up, I disabled it; same thing. So, I bumped the number of samples up to 512, and everything worked perfectly."


Ok, I use M-Audios WDM drivers currently and they are FAB, and I mean incredible, I can get regular 2.9 latency at low buffer rates and never locks anything up until about 15 tracks.

What was/is your latency at 512 with ASIO in Sonar, using the 64 bit engine, and whats the difference in latency using 32 mode?

Also, can you do record and playback in 32 bit, and then switch to 64 bit mode to mix, or does it ahve to start and finish in one mode? I think I am and see where it takes my clarity.

And lastly, how are the EQs and compressors that come with Sonar 5 now in 64 bit mode? Good stuff? I still cant find a full list of the included 64 bit plugs...

Thanks
Paul

[eightyeightkeys]

But...

I do feel that the singlecoil/humbucker analogy is a bit of a red flag for me. I mean really, there is a huge difference there and to me it says that these dacs truly do have a unique and identifiable sound, and this really is a bit of a concern for me.

Craig you have used the word "presence" and to me, between that and the "singlecoil" analogy it could be taken to mean "bright"


This is where words might not be quite enough and leaves the reader often wondering where the product stands. As a keyboard player, the "single coil/humbucker" analogy doesn't do anything for me. How do I know that it's better than my Tango 24 convertors ? Is it worth the upgrade ?

A reference to older technology or a reference to top of the line products and products in it's class much like automobile reviews might set us straight. A comparison to what has come before and the SOTA as it is now. Something like :

The sonics of the 400F is clearly a step-up from my DA-7 digital mixer. (or maybe I heard no difference)
or
The sonics of the 400F is much cleaner/clearer and with more defined bttom than my older XYZ convertors. Definitely a step-up.
or
Clearly, the Lavry Blue convertors is in a league of it's own. The 400F sounds positively clinical in comparison.


I don't really know. I'm thinking of what might be helpful to me.

I can't possibly try too many convertors and especially at one time which would be the most revealing. (My retailer probably wouldn't go for that)

[Anderton]

<<How do I know that it's better than my Tango 24 convertors ? Is it worth the upgrade ?>>

The problem is...define "better." Please go up 8 posts, and you'll see me describing the sound in a way other than using the pickup analogy.

But as you're a keyboard player, here's a good analogy for you: Remember how FM synths sounded "crispier/brighter" than analog synths? Same sort of deal, but not to such an extreme by any means.

<<A reference to older technology or a reference to top of the line products and products in it's class much like automobile reviews might set us straight. A comparison to what has come before and the SOTA as it is now. Something like :

The sonics of the 400F is clearly a step-up from my DA-7 digital mixer. (or maybe I heard no difference)>>

I already addressed this, actually They sound different, but not by much. Some might prefer the sound of one, some the sound of the other.

Now let me say something that will get everyone REALLY riled up:

It doesn't matter.

I really think the problem is that people want me to be able to say that X is better than Y. But at this point in technology, the best I can say is that X is different when compared to Y.

It wasn't always this way. When the first 20-bit converters came out, there was an obvious, distinct improvement compared to 16-bit converters. Yes, they sounded different, but when I heard my first 20-bit system (PARIS) compared to my 16-bit Pro Tools setup, there was no comparison. Period. I bet even a tone deaf grandmother would have picked PARIS as sounding better.

But I think we're getting into "speaker territory" in this thread. Put five high-end pairs of speakers next to each other, and they'll all sound slightly different. Now put five high-end audiophiles in the room, and listen them argue about which is better. Fact is we have different preferences. I've taken great pains to point out I like crisp, bright, clean, transparent sounds. At least I'm consistent: Back in 1968, I was using solid-state keyboard amps for guitar because guitar amps weren't defined enough for me. Others prefer a more rounded, warm sound. Sure, I could say the 400F converters are "better" than the ones in the DA7. But are they? I can guarantee some people would prefer the sound of the DA7, and some, the sound of the 400F.

I'm not trying to cop out here. It's like me trying to convince you that your favorite color is blue because I like blue, even though your favorite color is red. Ultimately, this speaks to the limitations of the printed word, and why Lynn Fuston has done his set of A/B comparison CDs. If there's one thing those CDs have proven, it's that there is no universal consensus on what sounds "best." No wonder there are so many models and so many brands -- each has its fans.

Now let's zoom out even further. I've already said that I don't believe the 400F's sound causes me to alter my mixes. It's not like a situation where a speaker is deficient in the low end, so you turn up the bass. I adjust the mix for the same amount of high end regardless of whether I listen to the 400F, the Creamware DA, or the DA7. It's just that the resulting sound is subtly different.

Bottom line: Put great music through the 400F, and you'll be hearing great music :) My personal opinion is that if the feature set floats your boat, that trumps minor differences in sound. The only time it becomes a factor is if you have two units with similar feature sets and can't decide between them. At that point, it's worth setting up a rigorous test to decide if one has sonic qualities you prefer over the other.

[freen-bean]

We would love some feedback from you guys if this MCU mode would be useful to you. Basically, you could take the 400F and the MCU and mix a small show at a club, as long as the interface and channel count were acceptable to your needs. [/B]


It would be very useful, indeed. Especially if it meant being able to create super-low latency headphone/monitor mixes while tracking. Presumably this feature would also be included on the 1200F? That's where it would really come in handy. Two questions related to this:

1. Would these interfaces be able to function in this MCU controlled mixer mode while simultaneously handling DAW I/O?

2. While controlling the interface (400F or 1200F) in this mixer mode, would the MCU be unavailable to control whatever DAW was being used? Or could it somehow switch modes and control both the interface mixer function and the DAW? Bank switching with some banks controlling the DAW and some controlling the interface's mixer functions?

[Anderton]

The Console software has five mixer pages (one for each output pair) and a settings page. We’ve already discussed the Settings page, so let’s move along to the “Matrix Mixer” itself.

Click on the attachment to see a picture of the mixer.

Note that this mixer has a 64-bit signal path (seems like there’s more and more of that going around these days), and operates at a 192kHz sampling rate. So yeah, it’s pretty fine-sounding digital mixer.

To refresh your memory, the rear panel has eight input jacks (four line, four mic, eight line out jacks, control room jacks (which mirror outs 1/2 or 7/8, depending on the switch setting in the Settings page), and SPDIF in and out (essentially I/O channels 9+10).

There are also four insert jacks for the mic pres that go post-gain control and pre-D/A. You can also use these as direct outs for the mic pres, which normally wouldn’t be that big a deal, but you may like the mic pres enough to want to use them to feed other devices. The insert jacks are, as expected, unbalanced TRS types that put the send on one line and the return on the other.

So why are insert jacks important? Cool analog mic stuff, baby! Stuff in your fave vintage tube compressor, Pultec equalizer, TC Helicon or DigiTech voice warping box, or whatever.

Looking at the mixer, you see the 10 audio input channels along the bottom, along with a two-channel return from your DAW (channels 11+12) and the master output. You can rename the labels along the bottom if desired.

The rest of the mixer is pretty conventional. Each input channel has a solo and mute button; mutes and solos are additive. If both are selected on the same channel, then mute wins. There’s always a certain amount of controversy about this choice – some people think that if they’ve chosen solo, then dammit, solo should win while others feel that if you’re trying to mute something, it’s for a reason and that should dominate. There’s also an overload light and panpot.

As this is a Mackie product, Washington State law requires that it have a Rude Solo light…and it does. Additional MIDI indicators show activity on the MIDI in and out lines.

And that’s about it. The big deals here are, of course, the ability to use the mixer for zero-latency monitoring as well as stand-alone applications. Having a separate page for each output means that in a studio situation, it’s easy to set up something like separate headphone mixers – although you’ll only have one possible mix in the Onyx 400F headphone outs, so separate headphone mixes would require running the line outs to separate headphone amps.

It probably goes without saying, but this is obviously a stereo device…surround need not apply. I suppose if there was enough demand for surround capabilities, it would be possible to devise a mixer configuration that accepted up to eight DAW outs and fed them to the eight line outs. Call me wacky, call me crazy...but why do I think that few, if any, people reading this thread are going to complain about lack of surround capabilities?

Also, note that you have to turn off the DSP mixer if you want to monitor your DAW's output at the line outs.

One final point: You can save and load different mixer configurations, which is essential for stand-alone applications as you can’t adjust the mixer controls from the front panel. So for example, you could save a “Keyboard Mixer” setup and load it in before going to the gig.

[DemoKing]

Please see my post about ASIO / Sonar latency above :)

[jameswood33]

This is a great forum and review!!!

I am considering this product, but I am also building a PC computer to go along with it. What kind of firewire does the 400F use? Is it 1394a (up to 400Mbps) or 1394b (up to 800Mbps?) Does this really matter? Also, can anyone suggest a particular firewire PCI card that works well with this product? The motherboard I am thinking about getting is the ASUS P4P800-E, which has a VIA 1394a controller. I need not say more about VIA and pro audio....

Thank you for any and all help.

(keep those "suck" nobs turned down to -11)

-Wood

[Anderton]

<<What was/is your latency at 512 with ASIO in Sonar, using the 64 bit engine, and whats the difference in latency using 32 mode?>>

I believe it's around 11 ms. I'll check next time the music computer is up and doing its thing. There appears to be no difference in latency when using 32 or 64 bits.

<<Also, can you do record and playback in 32 bit, and then switch to 64 bit mode to mix, or does it ahve to start and finish in one mode? I think I am and see where it takes my clarity.>>

You can switch to 64 bit to mix, but it doesn't seem there's any penalty to leaving it on all the time. It's for calculational purposes; I don't believe files are recorded in 64-bit resolution.

<<And lastly, how are the EQs and compressors that come with Sonar 5 now in 64 bit mode? Good stuff? I still cant find a full list of the included 64 bit plugs...>>

I believe the Sonitus plugs have been converted to 64-bit operation. From what I understand (I'm not using the 64-bit version of the software, although I use the 64-bit audio engine with the 32-bit version), the "BitBridge" feature in Sonar allows the 64-bit version to host 32-bit VST plug-ins.

And now, back to Mackie...

[Anderton]

<<What kind of firewire does the 400F use? Is it 1394a (up to 400Mbps) or 1394b (up to 800Mbps?)>>

My assumption is that the "400" in the product name is a clue. The manual doesn't say anything about this, and I think it would if this was a 1394b device. Dan?

<<Does this really matter?>>

Probably not, I don't think Mackie is asking the 400F to do anything extraordinary with respect to bandwidth and 1394a.

<<Also, can anyone suggest a particular firewire PCI card that works well with this product? >>

Well this isn't a recommendation, but I'm using a 3-port no-name FireWire card I bought at Circuit City back in 2000 for $25. I'm pretty sure it uses the TI chip set. I would think that if the 400F can work with that, it can work with anything!

[ticohans]

My assumption is that the "400" in the product name is a clue.

Actually, Craig, I believe the 400 refers to the fact that there are 4 Onyx pre's in the unut. The upcoming 1200F has 12 Onyx pre's, thus my assumption.

[tadpole]

Hi,
Craig, this is just great. I am really enjoying this review.
I use nuendo to score for films and commercials, as well as record pop artists here and there. I used to use a M-Audio FW 1814, which worked okay but operated at consumer level (TS outputs).
Although, I haven't had the Mackie all that long, I really like it. I like the colourless preamps and the solid design. I hope to have it for a long time.
One thing that the M-Audio had going for it was a control panel that could be adjusted from the Nuendo DAW. From Nuendo, you could turn the DSP mixer on/off and control the volume of what was being monitored from Nuendo's mixer.
The mixer software included with the Onyxx 400f works fine and everything that I could do with the M-Audio, I can do with the 400f. The only thing that I miss is the ability to control the dsp mixer from my DAW.
I was wondering if the developers were considering enhancing the software to make it so the direct monitoring and volume volume can be bridged to a mixer in a DAW like Nuendo and Cubase?
Tadpole

[guitwizz]

Originally posted by 88keys:

"This is where words might not be quite enough and leaves the reader often wondering where the product stands. As a keyboard player, the "single coil/humbucker" analogy doesn't do anything for me. How do I know that it's better than my Tango 24 convertors ? Is it worth the upgrade ?"

OK, gotta chime in here again, sorry.... I just heard one today with keyboard, yes its better than the Tango converters.
:rolleyes:

I see it as a frustrating sitch here, that people are wanting the right "words" to solidify their decision , but arent willing to listen to certain "words", and dismiss them as jargon. AND at the same time, complaining that they cant "use" it before they buy it!

I think Craig is doing a very nice job on this review, and is more extensive than a mag review, if for nothing else, for the simple fact that its "interactive". It seems like its not that stupid of an idea for some to email Craig, and gently persuade him to say what they want to hear!! LOL!!!

I guess some short conversion A/B clips would help, or would they?? Might confuse someone even more?

I sound like Craigs lawyer here, which is pretty sad, because I would be better off with him as MY lawyer!!!:freak:

[ironbuddha]

What kind of firewire does the 400F use? Is it 1394a (up to 400Mbps) or 1394b (up to 800Mbps?) Does this really matter?
I think the 400 in the name is purely coincidental, but I'm almost certain that this is a 1394a device. Difference is essentially bandwidth and throughput, not that it should matter for 10in-out. At some point, specs just become bragging rights if they're not actually doing anything functional. I could see 1394b compatability being more relevant if someone were to daisy-chained 3 of these things, or on units that will also be streaming lots adat channels.
Also, can anyone suggest a particular firewire PCI card that works well with this product? The motherboard I am thinking about getting is the ASUS P4P800-E, which has a VIA 1394a controller. I need not say more about VIA and pro audio....
Anything with a TI chipset should be fine.

[Anderton]

<<Actually, Craig, I believe the 400 refers to the fact that there are 4 Onyx pre's in the unut. The upcoming 1200F has 12 Onyx pre's, thus my assumption.>>

Well, that makes more sense than my theory. Remind me not to post too early in the morning!

[eightyeightkeys]

OK, gotta chime in here again, sorry.... I just heard one today with keyboard, yes its better than the Tango converters.:rolleyes:

I see it as a frustrating sitch here, that people are wanting the right "words" to solidify their decision , but arent willing to listen to certain "words", and dismiss them as jargon. AND at the same time, complaining that they cant "use" it before they buy it!


Maybe you should be Craig's lawyer 'cus I have no idea what you just said.

I have a great relationship with my retailer and am able to try almost anything before buying. Even for extended periods of time. It has helped me make better, more relaxed choices on mics, pre's, reference monitors, etc...


I think Craig is doing a very nice job on this review, and is more extensive than a mag review, if for nothing else, for the simple fact that its "interactive"......

This I agree with and many thanks to Craig.
It's the first review of it's kind that I've seen. The fact that I was even able to "ask" for different, more meaningful (to me) words in discribing the sound of the product. What an idea !!!

[Anderton]

<<Maybe you should be Craig's lawyer 'cus I have no idea what you just said.>>

If you have no idea of what he just said, then he should probably be a politician!

<<It's the first review of it's kind that I've seen. The fact that I was even able to "ask" for different, more meaningful (to me) words in discribing the sound of the product. What an idea !!!>>

Actually this is the fourth Pro Review. There's a sticky with links to other Pro Reviews. Come to think of it, maybe I'll post an FAQ about the Pro Review process as well.

There was although a thread before the first one was put up called "Pro Reviews are Coming."

Back to our regularly scheduled show...

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Pleasant


The gauntlet has been thrown!
400f + Lucid D/A: $1300

Please list comparable interfaces for that price that have the following features:
- firewire
- 4 rockin' preamps
- 8 analog ins
- 8 analog outs
- great A/D
- great D/A
- All metal housing
- internal power supply
- 64 bit DSP

Good luck!

The FireFace 800 has converters comparable to the Lucid, (the FireFace has been out awhile and there's widespread consensus on the caliber of its conversion) but you would have to put up with even more features than those listed above!

So, if that's what you want - you can buy it! But it costs $600 more than the 400f - that's almost twice as much as the 400f.

In fact, if what you really want is something that will drive you to the store, you can get that too. It's called a car, and will also likely cost more than the 400f, especially if it comes with satellite radio which is not currently a feature on the Mackie. :)

But - from catching up on this thread after being away for a couple of days - everything Craig said!

In my opinion, the 400f is for people who want it just as it is. And from what I'm reading, at $700, it is not fundamentally flawed, it is amazing. But it is not (and does not cost as much as) an Apogee converter, or for that matter, a FireFace. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Mackie pres sound better than those on the FireFace (after all, there has to be some reason aside from turrets why the designers printed "ONYX" five times on the face plate - message: "these are not your father's Mackie Mic-Pres") you will get better conversion from the Apogee or Fireface. However, you'll pay more for it, the difference is incremental, for some, it is a matter of taste, and for many, may not make a whit of difference.

You know, there was this whole debate when Mackie mixers first burst onto the scene. They were so good for their price, that they bubbled up "above their pay grade." Serious recording folks were using them on records that sold millions of copies. Their success vaulted them into a level unprecedented at their price point, and suddenly they were judged against more expensive gear and suffered by comparison. They had become a victim of their own success because they were being used with and compared against stuff that cost 10 times as much.

However, that they had even forced the comparison was remarkable. They changed the industry, were used by pros on fully-professional projects, and killed alot of their more expensive competitors. I remember talking to someone from Alesis which made that beautiful (and doomed) X2 console for use in what they were marketing as an ADAT "Dream Studio." Few bought the X2 because everyone was scarfing up the Mackies at a fraction of the cost. The Mackies (at $1,000 or so) didn't sound as good as the X2 (at $10,000 or so), but the Mackies sounded good enough, and the price/performance ratio was just too compelling.

Mackie sent me a mixer and I did my own tests. Inserting it into a chain populated by high-end gear, it certainly degraded the sound. No question about it. But this was a comparison between a Mackie vs. boutique components costing many times its price.

Nonetheless, the Mackie has saved my ass on more than one occassion, particularly when fancier, more expense (and yes, better-sounding) gear gets moody and stops working. Out comes the Mackie, ever a yeoman, and professional-level work continues. It's like a versatile kitchen tool I've come to rely on. I don't care if it gets broken, but it never gets broken. It comes off the bench and does its job.

----------------------------------------
Ticohens writes:

iron, if I could throw in my 2 cents here, I think what brittanylips is getting at is that you aren't going to see better quality than the 400F with the Lucid D/A at $1300.
----------------------------------------

Actually, I'm saying the opposite, but I'm also saying it doesn't matter:

Sadly, I think that more money does buy better quality. Not all the time, but often. If you're stressing about conversion and want to spend $1300, I think you will do better with a FireFace or adding the Lucid to the 400f. Still stressing about conversion? Spend more and buy an Apogee. Still stressing? Spend more and buy a Prism. Still stressing? Spend more and get Tim de Paravacini to build you something special. Still stressing? See a shrink.

But I don't believe that that's what Mackie's about. Mackie is not about making Apogee converters, and Apogee cannot make their converters at Mackie prices. And yes, you'll hear a difference, just like you'll hear a difference between a Mackie Mixer and a Neve console.

But that's not the point.

As I see it, Mackie's about doing fully professional work at "consumer" prices. The conversion is good enough and taken as a whole, this looks like an amazing little device. Does that mean you can't spend more money on better components? Of course you can. But as I see it, that's just not what this is about. This is about a versatile kitchen tool, not a fancy whisk, and in my cupboard, there's room for both.

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[eightyeightkeys]

Actually this is the fourth Pro Review. There's a sticky with links to other Pro Reviews. Come to think of it, maybe I'll post an FAQ about the Pro Review process as well.



Thanks for reminding me. I'll have to go check out the other reviews.

[ticohans]

Sadly, I think that more money does buy better quality. Not all the time, but often. If you're stressing about conversion and want to spend $1300, I think you will do better with a FireFace or adding the Lucid to the 400f.

Hey brittany, I don't think that you understood me, either! :)

What I meant was that you seemed to be arguing that for $1300, you'd be hard pressed to do much better than the Mackie 400F and a Lucid D/A. If that is something you believe, let me say that I agree. If you don't think that, well, I'll just make the statement for myself, then. And personally, I'd much rather the Onyx + Lucid combo over the FireFace. (Onyx pre's are much better than the FireFace, the A/D conversion of the Onyx gear is getting great reviews, and a dedicated outboard D/A unit is almost assuredly better than the D/A of any all-in-one box, RME or not. If I can get that and save a few hundred bucks compared to the FireFace, count me in!!!)

Of course, if you can fork over the couple thousand more for the Apogee 16X, do it! Or, if you can stomach the five-figure price tag on the Prism, go for it (actually, renting it would probably be more pocketbook-friendly for the average studio)! You absolutely will get better conversion quality. But, for $700, the 400F is hard to beat,. For some of us, it makes it difficult to justify spending more on other gear for the same reasons that you outlined in your previous post regarding the Mackie gear vs. the Alesis X2.

[Anderton]

Excellent, excellent points and I think you've really added to this process, as well as an understanding about the 400F's place in the universe. Thanks.

But I can't help add a story about Mackie mixer preamps. There was a magazine in Europe that decided to do a shootout of various boutique mic pres, using the Mackie mixer preamp as a reference. Well, they conducted the test very rigorously, double-blind testing, no one knew what they were listening to, etc. They didn't even know what the reference preamp was.

The expectation was that people would describe the boutique preamps as being "x" times better than the reference. Well, surprise: A lot of people chose the Mackie mixer pre as their favorite.

I wish I could provide particulars, but this was a long time ago, and something someone from the magazine told me at a trade show. I had pretty much forgotten about this story, until this thread caused some brain cells to connect and dredge it up.

Wouldn't surprise me if in a similar situation, some would think the 400F was the "boutique" piece of gear.

[guitwizz]

Originally posted by 88keys:


"I can't possibly try too many convertors and especially at one time which would be the most revealing. My retailer probably wouldn't go for that"

This is what I was referring to, on your previous post. There seemed to be a contradiction between the 2. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.

Sorry also If I came off as an asswad, but I deal with patrons, I guess you would call them, at work all the time that want me to tell them if this 200 dollar mic will give them the "CD" sound like Dr. Dre, or Snoop Doogee Houser gets. HEHEHE!

After explaining to them, that their soundblaster, radio shack speakers, and mamas popcorn, needs a bit more than a better mic, they nod knowingly, and ask the same question again......"So which mic will do it"........sheesh......

I dont think anyone here is like that, its just an example of what I deal with sometimes, and Im not anywhere near a great engineer. Just have a hard time training the peoples abouit basic stuff. Its even more fun when they dont listen to you, AT ALL!!

Plus, Ive gained 5 pounds, and Im bloated!!

DO I LOOK FAT?!??!!



:cry:

[tadpole]

Hi All,
I can't help but think that the pro review is getting a bit side tracked. Because someone said that the DA converters are brittle, we seem to have got stuck in abstract land. I remember the pepsi challenge. Let's pass on the converter challenge and agree that they taste good but they taste a little different! The new guy is getting cute...I know, I'll stop.
Can we talk about some different details regarding this unit? I brought up the software mixer interface in an earlier post. Someone must have some thoughts about the mixer's intigration with their given sequencer. It is working well with Nuendo.
And then there's the preamps. I have worked for years on a Neve custom console built for the BBC. The preamps on the console are just lovely, yet they colour the sound. I'm struck by the lack of sound the onyx preamps have. These are preamps without an agenda! I am looking forward to using these with different kinds of mics. It'll let me focus more on the character of different mics.
I've also noticed that I can daisy chain a hard drive with much more success than I had with my old M-Audio FW 1814. Anyone know why that is?
Craig, I'm really enjoying your insights and the presentation with pictures and all. This is great. Please keep it up.
Thanks,
Tadpole

[KernelG]

My 400F arrived today (woo hoo!). Compared to the MOTU Traveler I've been using for 8 months (with zero problems), the 400F has balls. I find the D/A to be cleaner and stronger, with more sense of space. Not a huge difference, but it's definitely there.

After installing, I fired up Logic, switched to 96kHz, loaded NI's FM7 and played some bells, electric pianos, etc. Everything I could find with that pristine high-end. It sounds fantastic to me.

I'll see how it works in session over the next few days. So far, it's batting 1000. Installing was zero effort. If you're on OS X, you can set the clock to be controlled by "Mac" and the Onyx console follows your DAW setting. That's handy, since I didn't want to use both.

So the 400F is definitely a keeper. I will miss the metering on the Traveler. It wasn't much, but at least you could see where a signal was. The 400F also doesn't have sample rate indicators on the front panel, which I like to see when doing DAT transfers, just in case. But the console software will do.

Btw, I'm using this with a $33 Sonnet Firewire PCI card I got from Amazon. No problems. This wasn't necessary with the G5, of course, but I wanted to pamper the Traveler and not share the main Firewire bus with drives, iPods, etc. Bonus: the card put out enough juice to completely power the Traveler via Firewire.

http://static.flickr.com/20/73707306_8bd54f7dd5_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenng/73707306/)

Oh, minor let-down.. The "plug-in bundle" which accompanies Traktor 2 looked interesting to me. Unfortunately, it only comes in VST format for OS X, and they will not work with FXpansion's VST-AU wrapper. It says something about main output null and nothing happens. Too bad.

Thanks for this review topic, Craig! It really helped seal the deal here.

[DemoKing]

Hey Brittanylips- I think that in some cases, things can definately be better for less. Now with coverters, and this coming new age, I think that with the grade of converters in the 400F, if the surrounding circuitry is decent, they could be better than a new apogee. Its not unheard of. On another note, considering the cost of components in the apogee, do you think they have twice as much money in a 2 channel converter box as Mackie does in a 20 converter box with firewire, drivers, a mixer and 4 preamps? Hell no they dont. They are probably using the same converters in fact. Wouldnt surprise me at all. Are they worth 20 times the price? Nope. Could they sell them cheaper and broaden thier audience and sales? Yep. You said they couldnt, I disagree.
They sell for that much money cause people buy them. Pull the market out from under thier feet and then you have $600 Apogee boxes, brand new.

I'm gonna buy me a 400F this week and compare it to my Delta 1010 and see how it fares.

Peace
Paul

[Anderton]

<<I can't help but think that the pro review is getting a bit side tracked. Because someone said that the DA converters are brittle, we seem to have got stuck in abstract land.>>

I think we're pretty much past that. I'm very pleased to see people with 400Fs are posting their reactions.

<<Someone must have some thoughts about the mixer's intigration with their given sequencer. It is working well with Nuendo.>>

Well it's not really integrated in the sense that it plugs in to a sequencer, it's a really a stand-alone app that runs in tandem with the host.

<<And then there's the preamps. I have worked for years on a Neve custom console built for the BBC. The preamps on the console are just lovely, yet they colour the sound. I'm struck by the lack of sound the onyx preamps have. These are preamps without an agenda! I am looking forward to using these with different kinds of mics. It'll let me focus more on the character of different mics.>>

Absolutely. I love the line "These are preamps without an agenda," that sums it up perfectly. If you want to color the sound, you can always add an external unit that's colorful, but you can't "uncolor" preamps.

Have you tried the instrument input mode? That's really excellent as well. A small thing, maybe, but try it...you'll fall in love with your electric guitar sound all over again.

[tadpole]

"Have you tried the instrument input mode? That's really excellent as well. A small thing, maybe, but try it...you'll fall in love with your electric guitar sound all over again."

Yes, I tried a direct electric guitar and bass. Nice, clean and easy to use. Haven't tried the balanced line inputs on the back yet.

"Well it's not really integrated in the sense that it plugs in to a sequencer, it's a really a stand-alone app that runs in tandem with the host."

Exactly, I wish that you could control it's monitoring features from Nuendo's mixer like the M-Audio stuff. A bridge could be built betwen the two apps.

Tadpole

[Anderton]

<<Exactly, I wish that you could control it's monitoring features from Nuendo's mixer like the M-Audio stuff. A bridge could be built betwen the two apps.>>

Sounds like what the Yamaha/Steinberg "Studio Connections" initiative is all about. Hey Dan -- is this something you might consider pursuing? I think Yamaha is pretty loose about licensing this, yes?

[tadpole]

Dan,

The idea would be to let a sequencer like Nuendo and Cubase enable and disable the onyx 400f's direct monitoring. Turning the direct monitoring off and on in the sequencer would be reflected as an on/off switch of the DSP Mixer in the settings section. Also from the sequencer's mixer, you could adjust the monitoring volume of the track you are recording. The volume changes that you make to the sequencer would also be reflected in the DSP Mixer. In short, the recording program could control the onyx 400f's direct monitoring. It would save the trouble of keeping both apps windows open or available. As it stands right now, when I select the sound card's control panel from within my sequencer - nothing happens. The two apps don't seem to communicate this way.

Also, I really like the looks of the software mixer. It's easy on the eyes and easy to use. I do wish that there was a way to group faders together so one could adjust two tracks at once if monitoring a stereo cue. If you have a stereo guitar coming in on channel 1 and 2, and you want to make a monitoring adjustment, you have to grab one fader at a time.

I also notice that when you save a mixer setup as a .onyx400f program, the buffer settings and the sample rate don't get saved with it.

These aren't complaints. I hope it doesn't sound that way. I really like this thing the more I use it. I just hope that Mackie has some plans to update the software mixer's functions.

Thanks,

Tadpole

[freen-bean]

Originally posted by tadpole
Dan,

The idea would be to let a sequencer like Nuendo and Cubase enable and disable the onyx 400f's direct monitoring.


I heartily second that. See my earlier post on same subject. Shouldn't be a problem, right? I use Logic and I have a MCU. I'd love to be able to set up direct (super low latency) monitor/headphone mixes from within Logic using the MCU. I'm getting a 1200F when they come out, and this feature would be awesome. You'd sell many thousands of these. In fact it would boost your MCU sales as well, but you've undoubtedly thought of that long ago. You've got to do it. It's a slam dunk killer feature.

[tadpole]

Freen-Bean,

The sound cards made by M-Audio can already bridge the software sequencer to the soundcard's control panel. So it's been done with some success. I know that the Tascam FW series has the same limitation as the Onyx. In fact the Tascam software mixer is much more basic than the Mackie.

I don't know anything about programming, but I'm pretty certain that the onyx 400f's software could be updated to be better connected to a DAW.

Tadpole

[mandoman]

So I did decide to go with the 400f over the traveler. I couldn't deny how great the 1640 sounds, and the 400f should sound only better with the better converters.

I was a little nervous ordering this when my dealer said a couple came back defective. I hope Mackie has cleared up any production issues and I get a solid unit. Guess this is the risk I'm taking being an early adopter. I'm sure Mackie will take care of me if I have issues.

Also a little nervous about the stability with Digital Performer, since I've had spotty performance in the past with the 1640... We'll see how it goes.

I'll be sure to report here after it arrives and I've had time to play with it.

[mandoman]

I know the topic has been beaten to death, but I just wanted to agree and say I'm more interested in hearing about how this unit sounds and performs on it's own merits against similarly priced/featured units, not how it will perform with an external DA unit.

I think comparing it to a firepod, motu, and some of the other units in this crowded market is a much more fair comparision. It's a stretch to compare it to a fireface since that's got twice the features at twice the cost.

[DemoKing]

I decided to take the plunge on it too. What the hell. Hopefully I'll get to roll right into it with no problems, as I make half my money by recording and I cant afford problems to hang me up for 2 weeks, especially right now when I'm busy busy busy. I sold my Delta 1010 today and about the time the 400F shows up, I should be getting the check for the Delta. I'm all but postive that I'll be stepping up in sound quality. Driver performace will be another issue all together. The delta drivers are untouchable. Cross your fingers for me everyone.
Paul

[mandoman]

Hey,

Check out the spam Mackie emailed me!

http://www.mackie.com/email/onyx400f/index.html

This thread might get some serious traffic now!

[dernil]

As a member of the 400f engineering team, I'd like to offer the following observations on the D/A "sound".

The 400f has phase-accurate output across the entire spectrum. This is something that we, along with some of the converter companies, have been spearheading. Not to get too technical, but the D/A converters used in the 400f use FIR filters, which provide constant phase regardless of frequency. Some converter designs use IIR filters, which are faster and cheaper to implement, but induce phase shifts depending on frequency. It can be possible to compensate for these phase shifts in DSP, however this adds latency.

This frequency dependent phase shift results (to our ears at least) in "fuzzy" sounds. Many people have become accustomed to fuzzy sound, and are surprised when they hear phase-aligned response, as it sounds brighter. Our opinion is that the D/A converter should reflect "truth", not a preferred sound. What good is mastering on sweet-sounding D/As when your mix won't translate to the masses?

[tadpole]

Dernil,

Thanks for the info!

tadpole

[Rodney Gene]

Originally posted by dernil
As a member of the 400f engineering team, I'd like to offer the following observations on the D/A "sound".

The 400f has phase-accurate output across the entire spectrum. This is something that we, along with some of the converter companies, have been spearheading. Not to get too technical, but the D/A converters used in the 400f use FIR filters, which provide constant phase regardless of frequency. Some converter designs use IIR filters, which are faster and cheaper to implement, but induce phase shifts depending on frequency. It can be possible to compensate for these phase shifts in DSP, however this adds latency.

This frequency dependent phase shift results (to our ears at least) in "fuzzy" sounds. Many people have become accustomed to fuzzy sound, and are surprised when they hear phase-aligned response, as it sounds brighter. Our opinion is that the D/A converter should reflect "truth", not a preferred sound. What good is mastering on sweet-sounding D/As when your mix won't translate to the masses?

What good is 'phase-aligned' response when it it sounds worse?
With all due respect to Mackie...the D/A in the 400f ripped my ears apart in the top end.

It may be more 'accurate' in specs, but it is hard to use in the real world for some of us.

The reference material I used was all old standby discs that I have been using for years as references...Fleetwood Macs Rumours, Lyle Lovetts Joshua Judges Ruth and AC/DC Back in Black.

All of them were 'abnormally' bright and actually peircing on some.
Now I certainly believe your intent is right...but 'translating to the masses' is nonsense here. These D/A converters are just too bright period.

[dernil]

Please provide me the reference you are using to determine brightness (other hardware being tested against), including monitors being used and your 400f serial number. I would like to take this offline to address your issues.

Thanks!

dernil

[blue2blue]

Originally posted by Anderton
Quick update: Sorry about the delay between posts. As some of you know I moved not too long ago, and I could only find a couple of my mics for testing!! So I'm frantically searching through boxes.

...

Okay.

Now this is why we need Craig to do these reviews with a video podcast component.

[Pleasant]

Uh, Oh....Rodney Gene has arrived, and he's bringing his GearSlutz post with him!
:wave:

Hi Rodney, your review preceeds you on this forum. Your opinion is somewhat infamous here.

- Jim

[tadpole]

Rodney Gene,

I have to say that you have brought some real drama with you as well!

I'm just picturing a guy with no ears listening to Stevie Nicks and cursing the onyx 400f. Drama.

Tadpole

[slingerland1936]

The 400f does sound a little bright on output, but it is still a nice box, I used a Imac g5 2.1ghz and used itunes to listen to about 2000 songs through Dynaudio BM5A's, as well as Tracktion2 sessions, the monitors are really accurate and sound awesome with even crap playing through them, I A/B'd the 400F with my other rig (digi 002 rack) and it was close sounding with the 400F being a tad bit more on the crispy side, so I still like the onyx 400F it works fine. I had a big knob but that thing seem to add some high end color as well, My HR824's had to be sold because they were destroying the high end in my ears and everyone else's, even with muddy 40's big band music!
maybe everyone at Mackie cranks their music so loud that they all lost the high end in their hearing.

[spectacular g]

well...

Drama is drama and opinions are like... well you know, we all got em' and were all entitled to them.

Anyway, I took the time to hear this box for myself tonight at the local GC. Listened for a good while to music that I wrote, recorded and mixed. Played back through the same monitors I own.

Not really scientific, but as good as I could do in a pinch.

Sooo...

It sounded different for sure, but not at all in a bad way.

I would say that the sound reminds me of when I really do a good jod of cleaning the windows on my car. You know just squeaky clean and clear almost disorienting at first, but after a bit you get used to it and soon you see everything clearer which is very cool!!!

What I did not hear was overly "bright" or anything close to "grainy" nor did I hear "warm" or "fat". I just heard a really good and REALLY CLEAN and CLEAR portrayal of some music I know well.

I liked it alot, enough in fact that I will have one here tomorow.

Now if Dan can just crack the whip a bit and get those update/upgrades done life will be really good.

Hope this helps.

next time,
jfg

[Anderton]

<<I would say that the sound reminds me of when I really do a good jod of cleaning the windows on my car. You know just squeaky clean and clear almost disorienting at first, but after a bit you get used to it and soon you see everything clearer which is very cool!!!

What I did not hear was overly "bright" or anything close to "grainy" nor did I hear "warm" or "fat". I just heard a really good and REALLY CLEAN and CLEAR portrayal of some music I know well.>>

Same here. It's interesting that a lot of you are experiencing the same sort of sound I'm perceiving. The linear phase aspect certainly is helpful to know about, as I think it does explain some of the "transparency" I'm hearing (and apparently, others are too).

As to Rodney Gene's post, he hears what he hears and that should be respected, period. However, given that most people who've auditioned the 400F are hearing what I'm hearing, and he's hearing something else, I think it's a great idea that Mackie will investigate further. I would not at all rule out the possibility that he may have a unit with a defect, or have run into some failure mechanism which would be of tremendous value for Mackie to know about.

Maybe we'll have a repeat of what happened with the Sonar 5 Pro Review, where a bug was found and fixed, all within the space of the review.

And I'd like to thank all of you again for your participation, and also, props to Mackie for getting involved in something where the outcome is anything but predetermined. But that's what makes it interesting, eh?

[cochese]

I had the Onyx400F for about a week and used it for a project i was producing to lay down guitar tracks. My gear is an Imac G5 2 mghz 1 gig ram running Tiger, Cubase SL3 Mackie 1202VLZPro, Great River ME1NV, Empiriacal Labs Distressor, Royer M121 Ribbon Mic and Shure SM57.

The Onyx worked well for the most part for about a week when I noticed a high pitched noise coming from the control roon output. It seemed to go away if the control was turned full up and got louder when it was turned down and louder still when the phantom power was turned on. This noise was not present at the main outputs. I must also add that I saw on Mackie's forum that someone else had this same noise in their unit. The headphone outputs were very week when monitoring input signal but worked fine for the DAW output stage. I also could only get the signal panned hard right or left when monitoring any of the inputs.

When I called Mackie (which is no easy task) they tried to tell me it was my recording program. I then explained that the unit was doing this when used by itself. at that point he said "oh, I guess you had better return it."

This seems to be a common response with these sort of things. I'll call Apple and they'll say to contact Cubase. Mackie says to call Apple and round it goes.

Anyway when the unit was working properly it worked well. The line outputs had plenty of headroom and the mic pres sounded clean and even worked with my Royer Ribbon mic although in a side by side test the Great River gave the Royer a more detailed sound and more bottom end. Of course the Great River was designed with the Royer in mind.

As for the AD converters I thought they sounded fine through my Event TR8 powered monitors. When I took the tracks I recorded to a bigger studio they sounded even better through their Mackie powered monitors.

Perhaps my unit was just a lemon but at this point I lost confidence in the 400F and replaced it with the Motu 828MarkII which has a longer track record. So far the Motu seems to be working great.

In closing I just wanted to say I have owned three Mackie mixers over the years and they have all worked really well. So I'm not trying to cast any doubts on Mackie's quality but felt people should be aware of a potential problem.

[Anderton]

This has the vibe of a power supply problem to me...something works at first, fails, and affects all aspects of a unit.

[moonz]

Nice indepth review, Anderton...damz..it has taken me a good hour to get through this entire thread!

I'm a Mackie fan, and I thought the 400F looked tempting when I first read the poop sheet on it.

I wonder how the availability is now? I noticed there were a lot of complaints over on Mackie's forum about that. People couldn't find any vendors that actually had any 400fs in stock.

Also...it would be nice to know who makes the 400F's converters, and what the product numbers of those are. If they are using converters made by AKM, for instance, you could look up the chip specs for their products right on the AKM website...if RME has no problem listing what converters their products use I don't see why other companies can't do the same.

respectfully,

-moonz-

[Pleasant]

Originally posted by moonz
Also...it would be nice to know who makes the 400F's converters, and what the product numbers of those are. If they are using converters made by AKM, for instance, you could look up the chip specs for their products right on the AKM website...if RME has no problem listing what converters their products use I don't see why other companies can't do the same.


Mackie not only tells you the converters, they brag about them:

http://www.mackie.com/products/400f/index.html

The chips are the AK5385 and AK4358. The AK5385 is the same AD chip used in the RME ADI-x series. The AL4358 is not the same DA chip that RME uses.

On a slightly different note, I'd like to add that I think it's stellar that the 4 line inputs on the 400f go straight to the AD converters....no gain stage, etc in the way. That'll allow me to use my outboard gear (read: preamps) w/o stuff getting in the way.

- Jim

[moonz]

aha...the copy on the page you point out has been somewhat embellished since I visited there last.

And...I happily stand corrected.

:p

[Moore]

On the topic of WDM drivers.

One issue with my current firewire interface is that when I play, say, a MP3 through the WDM interface, it resets to 44Khz and has to be reset back manually.

This is really just a minor annoyance for me since I am driving it from external sync and when this happens the sync light flashes, but in other situations it could be more serious and result in loss of a recording.

Of course one should mute the Windows audio to prevent this, but accidents happen. I wonder if the Onyx has a better way of handling this. It would be nice if sample rate conversion happened automatically (best) or else the sampling rate got reset afterwards. (Still problematic if it happens in mid recording)

[mlockett]

I can't seem to find any specs on the AD conversion. I see what the chip is; I see spec's for AD + Mic preamp; but not for just the AD.

On the Mackie site they say -3dB for 10hz to 24khz. -3dB is a pretty substantial drop, though where it is specifically, is an issue; I don't care so much about what's happening above 18khz or below 50hz.

Has anyone tested with RightMark Audio Analyzer (or similar); it's free at http://audio.rightmark.org.

[BradSolo]

Craig, and everyone else,

Just thought that I'd state this in case some users don't know.

Windows XP Service Pack 2 has a bug that slows Firewire (IEEE1394) devices to 100Mbps

Here is Microsoft's fix for it

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885222

Download the fix and check your Windows Registry.

AWESOME review and topic!

[Anderton]

<<On the Mackie site they say -3dB for 10hz to 24khz. -3dB is a pretty substantial drop, though where it is specifically, is an issue; I don't care so much about what's happening above 18khz or below 50hz.

Has anyone tested with RightMark Audio Analyzer (or similar); it's free at http://audio.rightmark.org.>>

I downloaded it, but couldn't get it to open either the Mackie or Creaware cards...guess I don't know the program well enough.

So I did a quick and dirty test: I loaded a 20Hz - 20kHz test tone into Wavelab, and sent it out the Creamware SCOPE card analog out to the 400F analog in (I checked both the mic pre and the instrument input, but there was so little difference the attached picture just shows the mic pre). I then booted up Sonar and recorded the Mackie digital out. Obviously, this is a far from a rigorous test because the Creamware analog output is there mostly for monitoring (the analog circuitry is on the card so it's not even in a breakout box; I use the card for its digital I/O), and I didn't record off the 400F analog out because then I would have had to come in through the SCOPE analog in, which would have added another variable. Also I was running the whole shebang at 44.1kHz.

Still, I think this is useful because analog-wise, at least the 400F input/preamp combo is being tested, and that's the harder part to get right compared to the AD. Check out the attachment, and you'll see that the response is ruler flat at the low end. There's a very slight rolloff at 20kHz (a little over a dB) but I assume the SCOPE card is rolling things off a bit anyway due to operating at 44.1kHz.

However, let's assume the SCOPE card is perfectly flat out to 20kHz. Even in that extreme case, the 400F is down only fractionally at the very highest frequencies.

Bottom line: Even at 44.1kHz, and even taking the variables into account, it's pretty clear the 400F response is pretty close to ideal, and depending on how flawed my test setup was, may actually be ideal.

I'm sure someone from Mackie has test graphs, yes? If you email them to me, I can adpat them size- and format-wise for posting and post them here.

[Rodney Gene]

Originally posted by tadpole
Rodney Gene,

I have to say that you have brought some real drama with you as well!

I'm just picturing a guy with no ears listening to Stevie Nicks and cursing the onyx 400f. Drama.

Tadpole

Drama? Because of an opinion?

Geez Tadpole...I sure hope you have a more complex existence than that...honestly. Your opinion of my perpsective means nothing to me. One of the realities about audio and gear is that we do all hear things differently.

If you feel offended because I don't like the same $600 piece of gear as you, you may reconsider a different career... either way don't let it get you down.

You may not like Fleetwood Mac but again...so what?
The reason I bring up the album is because it is a known album that is superbly mixed..not overly bright or harsh.


Uh, Oh....Rodney Gene has arrived, and he's bringing his GearSlutz post with him!


Hi Rodney, your review preceeds you on this forum. Your opinion is somewhat infamous here.

Actually it isn;t my 'gearslutz' post, it is simply 'my' opinion. I have been a member of this forum for 5 years and a member of the original MP forums for 6 years.

As sad as I find it that my 'opinion' of a piece of gear is 'famous'...I hope my ENTIRE opinion is famous...not just the part you deem ...'dramatic'

Either way...it was good test for me having the ONYX here and finding it bright as hell. Luckily I was able to A/B on the spot. That was a big difference. It led me to buy the DAC-1 in the end..which means I may sell my RME Fireface and use the 400F and the DAC-1...which is what I have been encouraging from the beginning.

It may be time some folks found a bit thicker skin...
:wave:

Respect

[Rodney Gene]

(Orignally posted by Ticohans Nov 19th 2005) Rodney, correct me if I'm wrong, but you felt that if the D/A on the 400F had been better, it would be more desirable than the FF800 (better A/D, better pre's, better interface, etc). And yes that is just your OWN SUBJECTIVE opinion on the matter.

Response posted by Rodney Gene, November 19th 2005

Yes...I would...for my own needs prefer an outboard DAC and the 400F. But mostly because I don't need ADAT I/O and I would like 2 FW400 ports.
Otherwise...Better? Worse? Who can say...niether setup will get in your way of making excellent recordings.

Plus...(and this is huge)...The RME is stable and proven. I personally put alot of stock into that..cause all I want when all is said and done is for my gear to fire-up and work. The Mackie drivers and support is new...I may give it a bit longer before I dump all of my options.


:cool: Wow...that is pretty heavy stuff there...:thu: Goodness gracious...

Best of life to all of you...

[mlockett]

Thanks Craig,

This looks good as far as I can tell, but I'm not clear on what I'm seeing in the picture. The Y axis is the dB (obviously); the X axis, I would expect to be the frequency, but the measurements are 0, 2c, 4c, ...10c. Do you know how these translate to frequencies measured in hz?

[mandoman]

My 400f arrived. Here's my experience so far.

No Mac software on the disc!!! What the #$%^??? OK, reading through the Mackie forums, looks like there was a production issue with the disc. OK, guess I've got to download the control software from their website. This would really suck for any mac user on dialup...

OK, so I load the software, than proceed to hook up the 400f to my g4 laptop. Power cable, firewire cable, and some Event powered monitors. First thing I notice is a HIGH PITCHED SOUND coming from my computer near the firewire connection. Dang, what's that sound? Seems to go in and out depending on whether the CPU/Disc is running or idling. OK, maybe something isn't set right?

I tried different firewire cables, different more grounded and isolated conditioned ac power, different sample rates in the control software, and checked Audio Midi Setup. Same problem. I don't get this sound with any other firewire device (ipod, several firewire HDD's, 1640/onyx, motu 828), so I really doubt it's my computer's firewire connection.

Anyway, things seemed to playback ok in Digital Performer and iTunes and the whine does not appear to bleed into my monitors, but I'll need to do more test to be sure of that.

All's I can say is it's not looking good for Mackie on this one. I can't possibly track in the same room as the computer with that high pitched whine. Unless I know forsure I can get a unit that does not have this issue or hear this is a known issue and a fix is in the works, this is going back for a Traveler or maybe even a Firepod, Fireface, or Metric Halo box.

All's I can say is, I'd wait it out on this one several months until Mackie irons out these early production issues...

Sincerely,
Dissapointed

[Pleasant]

Rodney,

You gotta relax, man.

Both Tadpole and I were being light hearted.

I think the image of you sitting back listening to Stevie Nicks with your ears blown-off by the 400f DA IS pretty funny. That's all he meant.

I read, enjoyed, and took seriously as did many here, your review of the 400f. It has been cited many times in this thread. That's why I, jokingly, referred to it as "infamous".

We're all very impressed with your tenure on this and other forums.

- P

[KernelG]

No Mac software on the disc!!! What the #$%^??? OK, reading through the Mackie forums, looks like there was a production issue with the disc. OK, guess I've got to download the control software from their website. This would really suck for any mac user on dialup...

Yeah, it would. You only really need the control panel, which is not bad @ 1.3 MB. Downloading the 32 MB Tracktion and plug-in bundle would take a while. With broadband, they were a minor annoyance (mostly the time it took to figure what to get and where), though I would have checked for new versions anyway.

OK, so I load the software, than proceed to hook up the 400f to my g4 laptop. Power cable, firewire cable, and some Event powered monitors. First thing I notice is a HIGH PITCHED SOUND coming from my computer near the firewire connection. ... Unless I know forsure I can get a unit that does not have this issue or hear this is a known issue and a fix is in the works, this is going back for a Traveler or maybe even a Firepod, Fireface, or Metric Halo box.

I have seen this issue reported on PowerBooks with PreSonus devices as well. Not sure what it is, but just so you know.

[mandoman]

Originally posted by KernelG

I have seen this issue reported on PowerBooks with PreSonus devices as well. Not sure what it is, but just so you know.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm a bit leary of the presonus stuff as well, but more because I've heard they don't work well with powerbooks, they need a g5. CPU overhead? Too bad, the firebox is a sweet little box for super portability.

Dang, I really want the 400f to work nicely as the pres are great and it's got almost the ideal feature set, but as it stands...

[Anderton]

Hmmmm...I've heard about the whine issue as well, although not in relationship to the Mackie. Maybe there's a relationship to power consumption, or lack thereof, given that the 400F is AC-powered?

Does it change depending on whether you use batteries or the adapter? I recall reading something about that as well. Try it both ways, then try borrowing a self-powered FireWire hub (or daisy-chain with another FW device) and see if the problem persists.

As to the download thing, there was a new Windows version on the web site when I received the 400F, so Windows owners would need to download the control panel/drivers too. I'm starting to think all companies should just give up trying to provide a current CD with any unit, and say either "Get the stuff from the web, or call us and we'll ship you the latest version of the software using 2-day delivery."

Finally, about Gene's "hearing" thing...I tend to believe what people say. The big deal is to find out WHY. For example, there was an interview in Guitar Player with Eric Johnson where he talked about some batteries sounding different than others with effects. People had a field day making fun of him.

But not so fast. Carbon-zinc and alkaline batteries have very different internal impedances, and when used with older effects that had shoddy power supply rejection, the battery type COULD make a difference in the sound. There may be something unique about Gene's setup which, if "decoded," might shed some light on how digital audio is perceived. There's no way whatsover I would describe the 400F sound as "piercing," but all I can speak to with authority is what I hear.

On the other hand, the Sharpie around the edge of the CD :) ...I'm really not sure I buy that.

[Anderton]

I did a little googling around...seems the "firewire whine" is not an isolated problem, nor confined to any one interface.

Here's a thread talking about the G4 "whine" problem with the MOTU 828 Mk II and Edirol FA-101 FireWire interfaces:

http://www.macmusic.org/agora/forums/?s=&lang=EN&act=ST&f=5&t=24040&st=0&#entry162096

And one about G4 whines in general...one guy thinks it's related to the inverter used to power the backlight on the LCD, but I don't see how this would relate to FireWire:

http://macintouch.com/pbg4reader24.html

More about whines with bus-powered interfaces, with some interesting comments from a former E-Magic tech support person:

http://www.bigbluelounge.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18138&sid=0391ea59712759cbfd0cdfdd1e1e795b

It's disturbing that no one really seems to have an answer.

[loveschools]

I need another guide for total ignorants. I've got a little money, and want a better interface for my G5 dual, G4 power book, and wintel computers.

Back when the Spike first came out, I bought it, and was disapointed, except for one track recordings. Is the 400F much better than Spike?

I'm more interested in Video productions now, than I was in audio only productions. I do think audio is as improtant as video in a production though.

I'd rather be a producer, or talent, than an engineer. That is, I'd rather have the tools for many specialists to produce high quality multi-media productions than to be a specialist.

I'm not a millionare, and the specialist, and talents, I am working with are not either, but I do want (and some degree have) equipment that qualifies me to sit in on courses on video production at a major university that I work for.

Ok, I'm in the wrong place and will get flamed. I do hope I can get some info though. I'm just a grassroots independent film producer, (ok, i'm just a wanna be) looking for more info.

I'm about ready to buy the 400F, but wonder if I'm making a mistake like I did with the Spike, when I had less money.

I just want to raise hell, by lowering heaven, that is, I want to raise the street people to the ivory towers, and lower the ivory towers to the street people. I'm working class with a little more money due to an inheritance.

Is the the 400F what I need to produce better sound on my computers? Thanks for the info so far. Is there another site I should go to?

Thanks again,

[Rodney Gene]

Originally posted by Pleasant
Rodney,

You gotta relax, man.

Both Tadpole and I were being light hearted.

I think the image of you sitting back listening to Stevie Nicks with your ears blown-off by the 400f DA IS pretty funny. That's all he meant.

I read, enjoyed, and took seriously as did many here, your review of the 400f. It has been cited many times in this thread. That's why I, jokingly, referred to it as "infamous".

We're all very impressed with your tenure on this and other forums.

- P

Thanks bro, I understand.
I haven't actually read this thread...I just responded directly to the link invitation sent to me from Mackie.

I happen to land on the thread to see one of the Mackie desingers say this..."This frequency dependent phase shift results (to our ears at least) in "fuzzy" sounds. Many people have become accustomed to fuzzy sound, and are surprised when they hear phase-aligned response, as it sounds brighter. Our opinion is that the D/A converter should reflect "truth", not a preferred sound. What good is mastering on sweet-sounding D/As when your mix won't translate to the masses?
"...

OK, I can accept the intent behind that post... But anybody in this business who say's.."it must be the users fault"...they lose credibility to me. IMO, It is OK that a project studio level device is not the very best thing out there or MAY exhibit some 'less than prefered' behavior...it is OK to me that it comes in at 'really good' or 'bargain for the money". That should be celebrated IMO. It was in my best interest (for other reasons not stated) that the 400F could replace my Fireface 800...but alas it could not...not on it's own.

And to brother Craig...I would be surprised if I had a bogus unit (although I definitely got the first run of them). I also experienced a clarity and crispness that bordered on sterile ( that I was excited about at first)...but in the end it wasn't friendly at all...it was piercing. My Benchmark DAC-1 (which is KNOWN not to be flattering) has many of the same qualities, except the top end and upper mids sit correctly and smoothly with reference material...(I am positive that George Massenburg didn't overlook cymbals and guitars that bite your ears off)

Not to mention my first experience with Mackie converters was with the FW card on the 1620 mixer..and that D/A was really scooped and bright. Not usuable for serious recording IMO.

Also...and this is crucial...I was able to back to back the units in my own room (which is an excellent sounding room). This means I was able to hear the differences in an enviroment I am familiar with...and I WAS LISTENING for those 5% subtlties like the top end. That was my GOAL.

As I have said in other posts...If I had the 400F only, it would not stop me from making great recordings..I would simply get used to it's sound like I have had to with my monitors, preamps, rooms etc...
But I did and do have a better choice.

I wouldn't expect this box to the answer to my prayers, but It would be insulting to think that it is not the answer to others.

We each have our needs and opinions.

Happy Sunday to everyone and I hope you all take the oppotunity to create today... and take a rest from talking about gear.

Respect,

[mandoman]

Originally posted by Anderton
Hmmmm...I've heard about the whine issue as well, although not in relationship to the Mackie. Maybe there's a relationship to power consumption, or lack thereof, given that the 400F is AC-powered?

Does it change depending on whether you use batteries or the adapter? I recall reading something about that as well. Try it both ways, then try borrowing a self-powered FireWire hub (or daisy-chain with another FW device) and see if the problem persists.


The whine persists whether or not the powerbook is plugged into ac power or not. I've also tried putting a harddrive daisy chained between the powerbook and 400f with the same results.

Thanks for the links. Looks like this has been an issue with some other firewire interfaces. Too bad there isn't a solution out there.

Any Mackie engineers care to comment, have they heard about this? I'm wondering if getting another unit will solve my problem? I do plan to get another powerbook soon (after MWSF), wondering if that would help?

[MikeRivers]

I came in here late, just following a link from a periodic mailing that I received from Mackie. I've been following comments about the 400F on the Mackie forum and it's interesting to see Craig's review unfolding, together with the feedback and side discussions. It takes a while to get very much said, though. Better if we were all sitting around a 400F in a bar.

I don't have a 400F here, but I have a bunch of other Mackie stuff including an Onyx mixer with a Firewire adapter card, and an 800R. I'm basically an analog person - I mix with a real mixer and plug in real stuff to a patchbay, but it's hard to avoid at least using digital as a recoring and playback tool so I have a passing interest in what's coming along.

I wanted to add a few thoughts to some of the comments here.

Brittle Sounding A/D Converters
What you hear is what you hear, and what you get used to, provided it's pretty decent, is often what you like best. I'd like to point out that digital stuff distorts in ways that analog stuff doesn't. While we can tolerate, and even find pleasant, certain forms of analog distortion, very small amounts of certain types of disortion unique to digital processing can sound pretty unpleasant. The fact that there is no apparent irregularity in frequency response doesn't mean that we can't perceive some annoying goings-on with the high end.

While I hae heard plenty of differences in digital reproduction, it's been a while since I've heard something that really sounds bad, if the source is well recorded. I don't expect that I'd have a problem with the 400F, but then I don't record cymbals in ways that they'd tear my ears off if something wasn't right in the playback. I hope that this issue doesn't become a "bandwagon" and that people will be biased before actually listening.

That said, there's some value to having one D/A converter (and appropriate switching and patching) through which you can listen to everything that you do in your studio. It's the only way you can accurately compare, for instance, a CD pressing with the original recording. So while I don't think it should be necessary to buy an outboard D/A converter before firing up your new 400F, it's something that you shouldn't toss of as a unit that you'll never need.

Firewire Connector Adapter
The 6-to-4-pin adapters that I've seen hanging on the rack in computer stores have been solid, a hunk of plastic about 2 inches long with a big connector on one end and a little one on the other. Attaching a fat Firewire cable with its large connector and then attached to the adapter puts a lot of strain on the tiny connector on a typical laptop computer (Mac users may gloat here - the only laptops I've seen with a full sized connector have been Macs). If the cable isn't well supported, as is often the case with a portable setup, it could fall out easily. Worse, the connector on the computer is subject to more stress than it was designed to take. Replacing it will be expensive.

While it's generous that Mackie will be supplying such an adapter, I'd recommend that if you need a small plug to connect the 400F to your computer, spend the $15 for a cable with the proper connectors on each end. It's probably too late for Mackie to change gears now, but it would make more sense for them to supply a big-to-little cable and an adapter to convert the 4-pin end to a 6-pin plug. While the 6-pin socket will still have more than the normal strain on it, it's more likely to survive than a 4-pin socket.

Jacks with Plastic Bushings
Craig likes 'em. I don't. The box should be an extension of the cable shield, and the only way you can have this is for the jack to be solidly connected to the box. One of the things that Mackie has done right in the past is to use solid jacks, and Pin 1 problems are rare on their mixers.

The box shouldn't be the only route to audio ground, and a reasonably heavy wire running directly to a common ground point is also important for noise-free operation. You indeed do need a solder tab for this. But you can't assume that the wired path to ground is direct and heavy enough to carry what turns out to be a surprising amount of current in some cases. When I get in a new piece of gear these days, I test it for hum that can be induced through its ground, and fix (or return) it if there's a problem.

The AES has finally published a standard for design of grounding systems. You can read more about it by downloading a PDF copy of AES48-2005 here: http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/courtesy.cfm?ID=44

That's the ideal, and in some designs, it makes sense not to implement all of the recommendations of the standards. Screwing jacks solidly to the chassis is easy to do, however, and almost always solves more problems than it might cause. I don't know if there's a problem, but on general principles, I would have preferred jacks with metal bushings. Plus it's one less piece of plastic.

ASIO Driver Update
It's good to hear that the next generation of the ASIO driver will accommodate stacking multiple units. A well infomred little birdie told me that TI was going to (or already has) decided to get out of the audio interface chip business, so there wasn't much incentive to pursue new driver development on a wide scale basis. Kudos to Mackie for taking this on. Hopefully what comes of this development will allow the 400F and 1200F to work together in the same system, making Dan's suggestion to "buy both" more reasonable.

Mic Preamps and Ribbon Mics
Someone asked whether the preamps were appropriate to use with ribbon mics. What mics, and on what source? The usual things we think about with ribbons are that they have somewhat lower sensitivity than condenser or other dynamic mics, so they require more gain when used with a quiet source. The 400F has about 60 dB of gain, and I find that to be a bit on the shy side when I want to use one of my Beyer M160s on an acoustic guitar or fiddle at a distance greater than a couple of feet. The Royers are about the same. I haven't tried any of the latest batch of copies, but reports I've read don't indicate that their sensitivity is typical of other ribbon mics. A Coles 4040, on the other hand, is a pretty hot mic.

A lot of people get uncomfortable if they have to crank the gain all the way, and if the preamp noise comes up significantly at full gain, that's a problem. I don't find that to be the case on the 800R or Onyx mixers that I have, so I presume that the 400F is similar. So if that's enough gain for your mic on your source, no problem. The buzz a few years back was that ribbon mics should see a low impedance load, and a number of preamp manufacturers responded with switchable input impedance. The 800R has an input impedance switch on two channels, and I find that most most mics sound best at the highest impedance setting. So I predict that if the gain is adequate, the 400F preamps will work fine with any modern or even vintage ribbon mic.

I guess that's enough ranting for now. I'll probably dropo back in now and then to see what else turns up.

[Dan Steinberg]

Hi there everyone. Thanks for all the contributions that are making this such a great thread! Here's some answers to some questions that have popped up since the last time I posted.

Referring the idea of controlling the 400F with a Mackie Control, Imagodel asked "I really dig this idea. Any way to have a single MCU control multiple 400F's at once?"

Good question, we'll see. We are still working out the details of MCU mode and I am not yet sure if this would be possible. It would require the user to make a "daisy chain" of the midi cables going between the MCU and the (2) 400F's, and we'd have to see if there are any technical gotchas to that route. With a single 400F and MCU, there's only 2 midi cables between the two pieces and we know that works.

Spectacular G inquired about multiple unit support, asking " For instance was this unit designed with this feature in mind from day one? Will I need to run two instances of the control panel?"

We've had this in mind for a while. You will not need to run 2 instances of the control panel. The control panel, upon launch, will sense if there are 2 units on the chain, and if so, will generate "tabs" on the left hand side to allow you to choose which unit you are controlling. Clicking on a tab will also flash the unit's lights so you know which physical unit goes with which tab.

"How much DSP horsepower is still yet to be used?"

We've made sure leave some available for effects. I will be honest though, that the existing mixing functions use a lot, so what's left might be more appropriate for "meat and potatoes" stuff (useful for giving you the channel and effects loop stuff you'd want in "MCU mode" rather than super DSP hungry top shelf effects (like people have been saying they want). But, time will tell.

I would like to stress again and be frank that "MCU mode" and adding effects might or might not make their way into this product, depending on customer demand and available resources, so please make sure to buy the product on its own merits as it stand today and not for features that we all hope might show up. Multi unit support though, is coming.

Ticohans asked " Speaking of which, are there any updates coming out soon, for which I should hold off my purchase?"

The only update that is definitely in the pipeline is the 1.06 driver and control pnel which will add multi-unit support. No need to wait until it comes out to buy though, it will be a free download for you when it's available.

Ironbuddha asked " Any idea on how this product compares to the audiofire units from the 400f's co-designers at Echo? The design of the 400f appears to be a direct sibling of the audiofire 8, save only 2 different mic pres and 96khz as opposed to 128kHz. I'd be interested in how these two units compare."

The audiofire 8 is a great unit, as is all the stuff from the fine folks at Echo. Some differences are:

-Audiofire 8 has a street price of around $100 less than the 400F, so it is somewhat more affordable.

-Audiofire 8 is a bit narrower than the 400F, so although it can be rack mounted, it is a bit more portable than the 400F for stowing in a bag.

-400F has 2 more mic pres, 1 more headphone out, and a control room level pot

-Comes with Tracktion 2 (Audiofire 8 comes with 1.6 but users can upgrade to 2 for a reduced price)

-400F goes to 192k, Audiofire 8 goes to 96kHz.

-Audiofire 8 has a different mic pre design, it's not the Onyx pres (although knowing the guys at Echo I bet theirs sound great as well)

Sutoman asked " Am I crazy, or is it too much to ask that adapters be included with the Onyx series so their product can be used out of the box immediately after purchase?"

A fair point, and we are looking at doing a running change where we'll add a 4 to 6 pin adapter. Another post (later in the thread) mentions how these adapters can put a strain on the actual motherboard's Firewire connector, and this is true, so in the end we'd maybe consider the included adapter as a way to "tide you over" until you can order a 4 to 6 pin cable.

While we'd love to include both a 6 to 6 and a 6 to 4 cable in the box, it's just too expensive.


Freen then had some questions on MCU mode and the DSP mixer, asking

" It would be very useful, indeed. Especially if it meant being able to create super-low latency headphone/monitor mixes while tracking. Presumably this feature would also be included on the 1200F?

-If an MCU mode comes out, we would also try to have it for the 1200F. With it's superior channel and mic pre count, we agree that it would be especially useful for that product.

That's where it would really come in handy. Two questions related to this:

1. Would these interfaces be able to function in this MCU controlled mixer mode while simultaneously handling DAW I/O?

Not sure yet, we'd have to see what is technically possible.

2. While controlling the interface (400F or 1200F) in this mixer mode, would the MCU be unavailable to control whatever DAW was being used? Or could it somehow switch modes and control both the interface mixer function and the DAW? Bank switching with some banks controlling the DAW and some controlling the interface's mixer functions?"

The MCU would probably not be available to the DAW at the same time, you'd most likely have to choose one or the other. While your banking suggestions is a good one, keep in mind that for that to be possible, it would mean that each software company would have to go back and re-do their MCU implementation to allow for this. I don't see them doing all this extra work to help us sell a certain piece of Mackie hardware better.

Jameswood asked " What kind of firewire does the 400F use? Is it 1394a (up to 400Mbps) or 1394b (up to 800Mbps?) Does this really matter?"

It uses 1394a (although as another posted, the 400 stands for 4 mic pres, not Firewire 400F). And no, it does not matter, because Firewire 400F was fast enough to satisfy the product's goals, which was 10X10 at 192kHz, plus MIDI.

The only 1394b interface out there I am aware of is the RME Fireface. It has a very high channel count so it might need 1394b to achieve what it does, or on the other hand, they could just use 1394b to make people think their interface is cool. Stranger things have happened :)

Controlling the 400F's DSP mixer from within DAW software.

That is not something that we had been considering, but I am reading all the posts about it to learn of what you guys have in mind. I should say that this type of thing is sometimes hard to do, because you have to convince other companies (like Steinberg) to do work on their code, to ultimately help sell your company's product. That's often a hard battle to fight and I am impressed that M Audio was able to make it happen.

One thing I would encourage folks to do, if you have a powerful enough computer, is to actually try turning the DSP mixer off and seeing if a 64 sample latency, going through the software, works for you. If so, then you can work purely in the DAW and not even worry about using the DSP mixer and how it interacts with the DAW software. I actually like to think of the DSP mixer as "plan B" for people who have a computer too slow to just work with a low latency, or for people who even the lowest DAW buffer is not good enough. But we should not assume you have to use the DSP mixer when tracking, we designed nice low buffers so that it is hopefully a choice.

Tadpole mentioned " I do wish that there was a way to group faders together so one could adjust two tracks at once if monitoring a stereo cue"

You can actually do this with the 1.05 console available on the website, just press the shift key while adjusting either one and they will move as a group. The 1.06 console will add a visual "link" button, since the current method is a little too "hidden knowledge" for our tastes (although this key command was put into the 1.05 release notes which I know you all read carefully, right ? :)

"I also notice that when you save a mixer setup as a .onyx400f program, the buffer settings and the sample rate don't get saved with it."

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, we will look into what we can do about that.

Madnoman mentioned " o Mac software on the disc!!! What the #$%^??? OK, reading through the Mackie forums, looks like there was a production issue with the disc. OK, guess I've got to download the control software from their website"

Unfortunately correct. It's a hybrid disc (Mac users only see Mac materials and same for Windows) and apparently our duplicator did not duplicate it correctly, only the windows side made it through (which is odd because we tested a test pressing and it was fine).

The situation is being corrected now for future builds, and all I can say is we apologize for the inconvenience in the meantime. The ironic thing is there's nothing on that disc you'd want anyway, the control panel, drivers, and version of Tracktion available on the website are all now newer than what's on that disc. I liked Craig's idea of just not including discs anymore, they always seem to be out of date by the time they hit your house :)

Regarding the high pitched whine, Craig mentioned " I did a little googling around...seems the "firewire whine" is not an isolated problem, nor confined to any one interface."

This is our experience as well, it's not an innate issue of the box itself (so far we have only had 2 reports of it out of hundreds of units sold). As far as we can tell it seems to boil down to some combination of the user's computer, electrical power in their environment, and unique setup. We want to figure this out as much as you want us to, and hopefully we will be able to.

As always, if there is any question someone has that I'm forgetting to address, speak up and don't be shy!

[mlockett]

Originally posted by Dan Steinberg
As always, if there is any question someone has that I'm forgetting to address, speak up and don't be shy! [/B]
AD spec's. On the Mackie site, I see specs for preamp + AD, but not AD. As a user who has decent external mic pre's, the AD is a bigger consideration, and -3dB seems drop in frequency response (between 10hz and 24 khz) seems much larger than competing products. Is this correct? Are there specs without the preamp, are there specs or graphs for 40hz to 18khz or numbers related to what listeners here?

Thanks in advance.

[mandoman]

Originally posted by Dan Steinberg
Regarding the high pitched whine, Craig mentioned " I did a little googling around...seems the "firewire whine" is not an isolated problem, nor confined to any one interface."

This is our experience as well, it's not an innate issue of the box itself (so far we have only had 2 reports of it out of hundreds of units sold). As far as we can tell it seems to boil down to some combination of the user's computer, electrical power in their environment, and unique setup. We want to figure this out as much as you want us to, and hopefully we will be able to.

Hi Dan,

So are you saying that if I return the 400f for another unit it likely won't correct the 'firewire whine'? You say you've experienced this 'whine' too. Can you elaborate? What setup do you guys have where you experience this whine?

Any other powerbook users on this thread have this issue?

I really want to like this unit, but small issues like this and other issues that mac folks have experienced are making me very hesitant keeping this unit.

Please let me know what I can do to help troubleshoot this issue on your end to help you better understand this issue.

Thanks!
Mandoman

[Augdog]

I think there are two different types of "high-pitched whine" issues with the 400f. I am not experiencing the "firewire whine" that mandoman has. However, I am experiencing a high-pitched whine that comes out of the control room outputs. It is barely audible, but still loud enough to be distracting. This whine is not present at either the headphone outs or any of the line outs, so I'm wondering if it has something to do with the design of the control room volume pot. It is most noticeable when the control room volume is off, and it lowers slightly when the control room volume is at the halfway point.

Otherwise, I'm really enjoying the unit so far. The sound quality is excellent, and the asio driver performance at low latencies is almost as good as my Delta 1010. Just curious, if the 400f wdm driver worked better in Sonar could I use the 400f and the Delta 1010 at the same time? That might be a reason to improve the performance of the wdm driver in Sonar. Also, I'm looking forward to the possibility of DSP effects for the 400f's digital mixer - - that would be great. I'd especially like a reverb to use for monitoring the vocals wet while tracking. Also, I think it would be a good idea for the matrix mixer to allow the selection of which daw outputs get sent to a particular pair of outputs rather than having daw outs 1 & 2 hardwired to physicals outs 1 & 2, daw outs 3 & 4 hardwired to physical outs 3 & 4, etcetera.

[chords are good]

Wondering if anyone has A/B’d the 400f to the Metric Halo devices.

The 400f is a strong candidate (I own a Mackie analog 8bus and a pair of HR824s) but a buddy of mine is lobbying hard, suggesting either the 2882 or ULN. Raves about the MH converters and mic pres are hardly rare but I’ve yet to see a comparison to the Onyx pres or converters. Neither has the perfect feature set for my needs but I must prioritize quality mic pres and converters.

Thanks to all for this forum,

sr

[Anderton]

<<Craig likes 'em. I don't. The box should be an extension of the cable shield, and the only way you can have this is for the jack to be solidly connected to the box.>>

The box is grounded, and therefore is part of the shielding. It's like on XLR connectors, where the shield is separate from ground. There's a reason why it's done this way, but with 1/4" jacks, you don't have that "fourth pin" option. Hence the need for electrical isolation, so you can control exactly how the audio ground line will connect to electrical ground, and where it will connect.

<<The box shouldn't be the only route to audio ground, and a reasonably heavy wire running directly to a common ground point is also important for noise-free operation.>>

Except that if there's a difference in resistance between the shield ground going to ground through the box, and a ground wire running to ground, then for a given amount of current flow there will be a voltage differential. It may be very small, but when you're dealing with high-gain preamps, it can matter.

Now, I'm not totally against "ground plane"-style grounding where you have so many grounds in parallel that the resistance becomes very, very small. In fact I prefer it for line-level only devices, and that kind of approach may be solution to the whine issue, which is starting to sound more and more like it's ground loop related. But as soon as a high-gain mic pre makes it in there, the grounding issues become multiplied. One of the easiest ways to control this is by insulating a jack's ground sleeve and choosing exactly where the ground line is going to go. An additional advantage is that the ground wire is dedicated a particular jack; signals from other jacks aren't going to flow along it.

[Anderton]

<<<<I should say that this type of thing is sometimes hard to do, because you have to convince other companies (like Steinberg) to do work on their code, to ultimately help sell your company's product.>>

Well I know that Steinberg and Yamaha are committed to the Studio Connections initiative, and I'm quite sure they recognize that the only way it will gain traction is if it gets 3rd party support. So your timing is excellent if you want to go for better integration with at least Cubase and Nuendo! I think they'll welcome you with open arms.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by Anderton
The box is grounded, and therefore is part of the shielding. It's like on XLR connectors, where the shield is separate from ground. There's a reason why it's done this way, but with 1/4" jacks, you don't have that "fourth pin" option. Hence the need for electrical isolation, so you can control exactly how the audio ground line will connect to electrical ground, and where it will connect.There are two problems that we have to deal with. The electrical connection between Pin 1 (or the 1/4" jack sleeve) and the audio ground point is to prevent interference carried by the shield from getting into the audio. This is what's important when you have high gain circuits.

The other problem is EMI getting in from the outside world. An ungrounded jack essentially leaves a hole in the shielding. It wasn't a big problem in the past other than perhaps for gear installed close to a braodcast transmitter, but today EMI is everywhere. The AES standard attempts to address both the "hole in the shield" and the "Pin 1 problem."
Except that if there's a difference in resistance between the shield ground going to ground through the box, and a ground wire running to ground, then for a given amount of current flow there will be a voltage differential. It may be very small, but when you're dealing with high-gain preamps, it can matter.Yes, this does indeed sound like a ground loop. And it's one of the reasons why, for any single product, strict adherence to the standard might not be the best decision. Sometimes it will be connected to a device that isn't properly grounded and/or shielded and things might actually work out better if the shield isn't carried through the box. We used to lift shields to mitigate this problem, but with today's great creeping EMI monster plus no longer having tape hiss to mask low level interference, we have to do better. Neutrik came out with a new XLR design that provides a better EMI shield to give manufacturers a new tool for applying the principles expressed in the standard. But like all solutions based on an industry standard, it will take a while before everything plays nicely together. Now, I'm not totally against "ground plane"-style grounding where you have so many grounds in parallel that the resistance becomes very, very small. In fact I prefer it for line-level only devices, and that kind of approach may be solution to the whine issue, which is starting to sound more and more like it's ground loop related. But as soon as a high-gain mic pre makes it in there, the grounding issues become multiplied. I love talking with Grant Carrington (Gordon Instruments - super tweak preamps) at AES shows because he's just so thorough. Last year he re-did the grounding on his preamp following all the recommendations in the AES standard and, at least when measured with his test equipment, lowered the noise (not just hum) by a couple of dB. Whether someone who connects a Gordon preamp up to one of the line inputs on a 400F will see this improvement remains to be seen.

As far as the whine, it could be a Pin 1 problem (which is not quite the same as a ground loop - re-read the June 1995 AES journal), and this isn't the sort of thing that can be solved by an isolated or solidly connected jack, if the noise doesn't come in through a jack. These are tough nuts to crack. It could be an internal radiated EMI problem, or an external one.

Is there a cell phone, cordless phone, Bluetooth device (wireless keyboard?) or computer monitor nearby? Maybe it's EMI from the computer. Maybe it's coming in on the power line, or the Firewire cable. It could be totally unreleated to the power supply. Has anyone observed that the whine goes away when the 400F is disconnected from the computer, or perhaps moved to a different room?One of the easiest ways to control this is by insulating a jack's ground sleeve and choosing exactly where the ground line is going to go. An additional advantage is that the ground wire is dedicated a particular jack; signals from other jacks aren't going to flow along it. Star grounding (what you're describing) is often a good approach, but it can get complex. Are there real wires there, or are the jacks mounted on a circult board, and the "ground wire" is a trace? And while using isolated jacks may indeed be the easiest approach (and this is really important to a manufacturer with a target price point) it may not be the best way. But that's a decision that Mackie made, and I hope they make it intelligently. We don't always need the best, but we always need "good enough"

I didn't mean to hijack this discussion over a cause, and how design decisions are made. I was just pointing out something that I, just on general principles, thing should be done differently. But then, Mackie doesn't pay me to design their equipment, or price it out.

[Charm]

Perhaps this is a minor issue for many potential users, but I'd be concerned about the firewire cable length - if I recall correctly, the max allowable firewire cable length is 5 metres?

This matters to me because of how I've chosen to deal with computer noise - rather than buy a super-quiet computer, I keep the "processing" part of the computer in the room next door to the audio interface, with only the keyboard, mouse and monitor in the room with the interface (achieved by means of an extender system that allows the the signals for these three devices to travel a long way via network-type cabling). This means I need a long cable between the computer and the audio interface - the one in current use is 10 metres - and this fact influenced my choice of audio interface.

I believe you can buy "repeater" hardware that lets you chain 5-metre firewire cables together. Could this Onyx system (and/or the Onyx mixers fitted with the firewire card) be run successfully with the audio interface at 10 (or more) metres cable-length from the computer, either by using some sort of repeater system or by other means?

[Joe Cole]

Spam alert....

sorry of this is inappropriate.....


although this is not exactly the Onyx 400f... there is a retailer in the US and Canada that has a special from now until Dec 31.... buy a Onyx 1220 mixer and get the firewire card for free.

Worth a thought... beside the dsp mixer, pretty much the same gear, but you get the mixer and card for substantially less then the 400f alone.

pm me if you want the site url.

I am kicking myself for buying a Focusrite unit instead of this deal myself.

[mandoman]

Originally posted by Joe Cole
Spam alert....
although this is not exactly the Onyx 400f... there is a retailer in the US and Canada that has a special from now until Dec 31.... buy a Onyx 1220 mixer and get the firewire card for free.


I think all dealers have this offer. I think this was also touched on already earlier in this thread. I for one would love a 1220 if the firewire card only included spdif io.

[Anderton]

<<I believe you can buy "repeater" hardware that lets you chain 5-metre firewire cables together. Could this Onyx system (and/or the Onyx mixers fitted with the firewire card) be run successfully with the audio interface at 10 (or more) metres cable-length from the computer, either by using some sort of repeater system or by other means?>>

The FireWire limit is pretty well-known and, I believe, fairly strict. It's not like MIDI where the MMA recommended a length but you could at least double that without problems.

Having said that, I believe that yes, you would need to use some kind of boosting system to have FireWire work reliably over longer distances.

[tadpole]

Hi Craig,

I was tracking an acoustic guitar today and noticed something funny. I used a 20 foot extension on the headphones and the result was ugly. I tried an alternate extension and also plugged into the 2nd headphone out and the result was the same. A hissing, crackling and wierd sound. I unplugged the extension and went directly in and it sounded wonderful again.

I understand that the length of a cable can degrade a signal but the sound was unusually aweful.

Did you notice this happening with your system? When you get the chance, would you mind checking it out?

Thanks

tadpole

[DemoKing]

You must be kidding...
Extension cables go bad constantly. I go through them like women. Brand new? Doesnt matter, probably bad, probably stepped on or pulled while they were on the floor. Buy some more, and a few spares to go with those because they wont last long in a studio environment. Happy shopping.

[Batters]

1. Post for Dan, partly related to this 400F design thread, if you could take off-line, whilst I have your attention ?

I’m warming to the idea of the 400F for use with a DAW, offering the inputs /outputs for monitoring ( for active speaker setups) and dual headphone monitoring.

However, a large proportion of us “small home project users” only require two mic/instrument inputs and would like the money, say spent on these two rather than any more.
I don’t even require external processing units ( no effects send/receive on the 400F)
as I’d rather use the likes of a UADs PCI card, more cost effective, and non of this DA AD conversion lark).

I have read the posts for using Mackie MCU(midi only) for controlling the 400F, ideal for remote recording. But, when is Mackie going to start making the next generation of MCU/400F combined DAW control surface and recoding hardware for the small project studio guys? I’m still looking for an integrated Control surface/recorder mixer solution.

The newly M-Audio Project MIX I/O seems like a great deal, but alas it doesn’t operate at 192Khz like the 400F. So I’m still waiting and waiting and waiting.

Sorry to “but in”, but I thought it was worth the question.

As there as so many MCUs out there already, I can see the benefit of Mackie using this approach to maximise the functionality of them, rather than existing clients having to purchase further hardware.


2. One further Question on the converters:
With regard to the posts on comparing the 400F with more expensive units;
If all the expensive units are using the same chips for the converters; then isn’t the accuracy of the digital clock the most important factor to consider next in this debate ?

Assuming that small budget studios won’t be able to afford a dedicated Master Digital clock unit, and use the 400F as the master clock reference ? If I’m not mistaken, no one has mentioned the 400F clock accuracy in this thread yet ?

[tadpole]

"You must be kidding...
Extension cables go bad constantly. I go through them like women. Brand new? Doesnt matter, probably bad, probably stepped on or pulled while they were on the floor. Buy some more, and a few spares to go with those because they wont last long in a studio environment. Happy shopping."

DemoKing,

I never mentioned that the extension was brand new, only that both worked and that I tried two pairs.

The funny thing is that this setup works well with my cheapo marantz stereo output without any noise. Why would it work so pooly with the onyx 400f?

Has anyone tried a regular stereo trs extension with any luck?
Tadpole

[mandoman]

Originally posted by tadpole

Has anyone tried a regular stereo trs extension with any luck?
Tadpole

I tried a super cheezy 'coiled' headphone extension, maybe 6' or so, and it worked fine.

[mandoman]

Craig,

Some people are reporting on the Mackie board of low gain on line level inputs 5-8. Mackie specs those to 40db of gain, I would think that's enough to cover most prosumer -10db devices and even some consumer devices. Please include a low down on those inputs when you get a chance.

Thanks!

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by DemoKing
Hey Brittanylips- I think that in some cases, things can definately be better for less. Now with coverters, and this coming new age, I think that with the grade of converters in the 400F, if the surrounding circuitry is decent, they could be better than a new apogee. Its not unheard of. On another note, considering the cost of components in the apogee, do you think they have twice as much money in a 2 channel converter box as Mackie does in a 20 converter box with firewire, drivers, a mixer and 4 preamps? Hell no they dont. They are probably using the same converters in fact. Wouldnt surprise me at all. Are they worth 20 times the price? Nope. Could they sell them cheaper and broaden thier audience and sales? Yep. You said they couldnt, I disagree.
They sell for that much money cause people buy them. Pull the market out from under thier feet and then you have $600 Apogee boxes, brand new.

I'm gonna buy me a 400F this week and compare it to my Delta 1010 and see how it fares.

Peace
Paul

Hey, whatever works for you!

I've been away for the past few days and am in a bit of a rush, so I'll just add a few thoughts and then catch up on all this down the road.

Two quick points:

One, it costs more to produce high performance converters than low performance ones, just like it costs more to produce high performance cars than low performance ones. It would be great if that weren't true, but it is. The profit margins for Apogee are not as great as you might think, and they really can't slash their prices down to Mackie's.

Second, the same component in two different pieces of equipment sounds different. Again, you'd hope not, and the tech revolution constantly raises performance as it lowers price, but all is not equal. Old-tech analog components (from wiring to power supply) are still part of the equation, and they don't obey Moore's Law.

When the MOTU HD192 came out, I recall that MOTU publicized the fact that it used the same converters as the Digidesign 192 I/O. However, as much as MOTU's HD192 was a bargain and sounded great, it didn't sound as good as the 192 I/O.

-Peace, love and Blips

[blue2blue]

Originally posted by composer
I have read about the brittle ness as several other forums including Mackie....however these posters at Mackie are new users, so this leaves me suspect. However, at gearslutz, these users are long time members.

...

I like GS, but there are some deep cultures of bias, there. It has to be remarked that there are a lot of people talking, there, but not all that many knowing -- depending on the forum.

But there are some real heavyweights, too. Including some legendary figures. (Hell, Angelo's over there all the time. :D ) Overall, it's a great place, but think of it as a wiki without even social rules... what's the phrase? Caveat lector? Reader beware.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by Batters
If all the expensive units are using the same chips for the converters; then isn’t the accuracy of the digital clock the most important factor to consider next in this debate ?That's important, too. But there are many other design factors, and that's where the "craft" comes in. These days it's possible to make a pretty darn good A/D and D/A converter set by buying some decent quality chips and powering them up, remember, half an A/D or D/A converter is an analog design. The things that make great analog designs great apply just as much to converters as to preamps or power amps or mixers.Assuming that small budget studios won’t be able to afford a dedicated Master Digital clock unit, and use the 400F as the master clock reference ? If I’m not mistaken, no one has mentioned the 400F clock accuracy in this thread yet ? The purpose of a master clock is to synchronize several units that have to work together in a system. If a single device sounds better with an external word clock than with its internal clock, that's a sign of a poor design (and, admittedly, some older and funkier products do indeed sound better with an external clock than with their internal one).

I have used the Wavetek 110 function generator (that's gotta be at least 35 years old) from my shop as a variable frequency word clock for my HDR24/96 when I've needed to vari-speed a track and I don't find that it degrades the sound - a real credit to the converters in the Mackie AIO-8 analog I/O cards. If that ain't a crummy word clock, I don't know what is.

A master clock can make a system work, but (claims of the Big Ben aside) there's no reason why it should make well designed digital equipment sound better.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by mandoman
Some people are reporting on the Mackie board of low gain on line level inputs 5-8. Mackie specs those to 40db of gain, I would think that's enough to cover most prosumer -10db devices and even some consumer devices. Please include a low down on those inputs when you get a chance.Funny, we're reading the same posts on "that other" forum. (and the one about the headphone extension cable, too) The way the input sensitivity is specificed for the 400F is kind of ambiguous. Knowing how much gain is available at the line inputs (or mic inputs for that matter) is of no value if you don't know the basic sensitivity of the A/D converter.

Craig certainly has the tools necessary to measure how many volts, dBu or dBV it takes to reach full scale at the maximum and minimum setting of the input gain controls. That would be useful information.

My guess is that at full gain, -10 dBV into a line input will give a record level in the ballpark of -10 dBFS. That should be enough for real "prosumer" studio gear, but, as I pointed out on the other forum, real consumer gear (he was using an iPod as a sounce) these days typically has a nominal line output level closer to -20 dBV, and doesn't have as much headroom as the -10 dBV studio gear of days of old (geez, has it really been 30 years?).

The reason why the -10 dBV operating level was established was so that semi-pro studio gear could operate with 20 dB of headroom using cheap ICs and cheap power supplies. But with today's low power portable devices (and the installed things with which they have to be level-compatible) and popular music being compressed so that very little headroom is required, designs are less adaptable than they used to be.

[freen-bean]

Very good of Dan to address our questions.


Originally posted by Dan Steinberg
The MCU would probably not be available to the DAW at the same time, you'd most likely have to choose one or the other. While your banking suggestions is a good one, keep in mind that for that to be possible, it would mean that each software company would have to go back and re-do their MCU implementation to allow for this. I don't see them doing all this extra work to help us sell a certain piece of Mackie hardware better.
!


I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that this could be achieved without requiring DAW developers to rewrite their MCU implementations. Could there not be an MCU firmware update that would add an additional mode of operation, such that hitting a button or combination of buttons would toggle whether the MCU were controling the DAW or the interface mixer function? Does MCU DAW control use the entire range of possible MIDI channels/controllers? Is there any data that could be transmitted by an MCU that is not used by it's DAW control implementation? If not, what about some kind of middleware app between the MCU and the DAW that would allow one to control whether the MCU talks to the DAW or to the DSP mixer control software, through which the MCU could control the interface's mixer function? Technically, I suppose this wouldn't be simultaneously controlling both--but easy mode toggling is just as good for what I'm talking about.

Again, thank you for addressing these questions. And you've got a good point about 64 sample buffer settings providing low-latency already. I can't always run that low, though.

[Anderton]

<<Craig certainly has the tools necessary to measure how many volts, dBu or dBV it takes to reach full scale at the maximum and minimum setting of the input gain controls. That would be useful information. >>

Actually, I'm sorry to say I don't have the tools...haven't had a functioning lab for about 10 years, although I still have a Tektronix scope. I hope to re-assemble something decent, I need to get a function generator and a few other things...

[Anderton]

Well, I've been using the 400F as my primary interface since this thread started. I must say that it hasn't misbehaved, but there are few things you've asked me to check that I haven't done yet. One is to try it with my laptop and see if I can get the famous "whine," which so far has thankfully stayed far away. The other is the long headphone cable, and the line levels.

SI plan to wrap up my portion of the review in the next couple days with some final conclusions and a summary of what I've found. However, that doesn't mean the end of the thread -- it will stay around as long as people have something to discuss.

I will be starting another Pro Review soon, though, and I think y'all will find it interesting as well. As always -- thanks for your participation! This has been a gas.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by Anderton
Actually, I'm sorry to say I don't have the tools...haven't had a functioning lab for about 10 years, although I still have a Tektronix scope. I hope to re-assemble something decent, I need to get a function generator and a few other things... Just do what I did - get Neutrik to send you a Minirator and Minilizer for review, then take a looooooooong time to write the review. ;)

[PianoMania]

Got my 400f yesterday. Upgrading from an Mbox with imac G5, 2gig. everythings working great, no whines or problems. Just pluged in and started using. I record primarily acoustic grand piano and the upper end is definately clearer. This thread assited in my choice and is much appreciated.

[blue2blue]

Okay... I'm actually still back on page 4 or 5 on my thorough reading of this thread but I've just scanned the back two pages or so...

I haven't read all the "whine" issue stuff but it suddenly occurred to me that I ought to comment on my own MOTU 828mkII "whine issue"...

I find that, with my MOTU 828mkII connected by FW to my laptop, the laptop's audio plugged into an input on my everyday listening setup (a Yamaha 'prosumer' receiver and some NS10m's) and any of the MOTU's analog outs also plugged into (another input of) the Yamaha receiver that I get an intermittent whine/electronic 'whirring' -- basically whenever there's any mouse action on my computer.

All I have to do is disco the audio output of one or the other to the Yamaha (which also has a TV with its questionnable audio wiring and grounding plugged into it, just to make the soup a little spicier) and the whine goes away. (Strangely, disconnecting the FW between the computer and the MOTU does NOT cut the noise.)


Anyhow, I figure it's some kind of ground loop issue, complicated by the panoply of digital and analog signals in a laptop (not to mention the inclusion of a TV in the overall picture)...

FWIW...

[Anderton]

That makes a whole lot of sense, given that it seems to be intermittent, product independent, and difficult to pin down...almost the textbook definition of a ground loop problem!

[blue2blue]

Originally posted by Anderton
That makes a whole lot of sense, given that it seems to be intermittent, product independent, and difficult to pin down...almost the textbook definition of a ground loop problem!

You forgot the other classic symptom of ground loop problems... the afflicted engineer's head spinning around and around and split pea soup flying out his mouth...


;)

[amplayer]

This may be a silly question:

Why is there such a huge difference between the 87 dB S/N and the 129 dB EIN in the specs?

I realize these are 2 completely different specs, but with an EIN of a whopping -129 dB, I don't get how ordinary S/N should only be 87 dB. Where is all the noise coming from?

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by amplayer
Why is there such a huge difference between the 87 dB S/N and the 129 dB EIN in the specs?

I realize these are 2 completely different specs, but with an EIN of a whopping -129 dB, I don't get how ordinary S/N should only be 87 dB. Where is all the noise coming from? You pretty much answered your own question - they're two different measurements. EIN is actually a computed number and represents the ideal noise level contributed by the input before you add any gain. S/N is the difference between the maximum possible output level and the noise present under (presumably) known conditions.

EIN is the measured noise output minus the gain, It's really only significant for the first input stage, but, for marketing reasons, seems to be getting attached to mic preamps (the whole box) because it's a nice low number. If the EIN is -129 dBu and you have 60 dB of gain (as measured by conventional means), you have 129-60 or -69 dBu noise just sitting there at the output with no input. That doesn't look very impressive, so they have to come up with a different way of saying it that doesn't look so dreadful.

Add 20 dB of headroom to that and you have: a noise floor of -69 dBu and a maximum output of +20 dBu, giving a S/N ratio of 89 dB. Close enough?

It really isn't all that simple because you're really comparing apples and oranges, but that's sort of the way it works. You can make the S/N ratio look better in most cases by simply reducing the gain because you're amplifiying the input noise less and the noise output isn't swamped by input noise.

The really important specification is the one that manufacturers don't publish - how much noise comes out under realistic operating conditions. Actually, this is test data and not a specification - a spec is something that you start with and then design and build to meet it, or figure out a way to measure it so that it looks like you're meeting it. ;)

[UstadKhanAli]

Hello Mike!!!

[Anderton]

Yeah, he's handy to have around, isn't he? :)

[harryjames]

First, thank you Mr. Anderton and Mr. Steinberg for your insightful technical review on the new Mackie 400F. I have no recording gear whatsoever and have been researching and haggling over various equipment and ways to accomplish what I am after. What surprises me in ALL these posts is nobody discusses Tracktion2 at all??!!! I have tried the demo and it appears to be as good a contender as any DAW. They all suffer the same latency issues regardless of hardware. Let's hear about the Tracktion2 tests using the 400F, afterall, it DOES come bundled with the 400F. FYI, I am considering using a 400F, Tracktion2 with a pair of Yamaha HS50M NFM's for reference and mixing. I'm still kicking around which large diaphram mic. $300 doesn't sound like $2000 grand. Also, with all this latency, including using Tracktion2 on my P4 3.2HT 800FSB with XP stripped downt to a flying gas can; latency really turns me off; to the point I am strongly considering buying a Yamaha AW2400 and just using my laptop to "trigger samples" into the AW2400. As well the AW2400 has most DSP users would want on every channel strip and there is no latency or any of the PC/Mac maladies mentioned here in this post. Please understand; I am not bashing. I got real turned on when I first saw the Mackie 400F. But I would appreciate some feedback from ANYone who could provide truly useful information to me. I understand that software recording and using RTAS, VST adds a new dimension to "creativity" and I do not discount this at all. Last year I came close to buying a Digi002 and for the same reason I halted that purchase. So in my thinking the AW2400 provides a rock solid recorder with mix automation, great AD/DA's and decent pre's (no matter what pre's you have you need a tube pre-amp in most cases anyhow) and in a 12-track or 24-track mix, I don't see "triggering samples" via MIDI from the lappy using [Tracktion2 and Sampletank2 for example] being a problem outputting those into the AW2400. So all I need for my lappy would be a $40 USB/MIDI from M-Audio or elsewhere. Any and all feedback is appreciated. I have a $3000 budget max. Thank You.

[harryjames]

Thanks to everyone who is sharing their 2 cents in this forum. I didn't mention in my other post that I got very close to purchasing Mackie's 1640 Onyx mixer; but again; I was leary about latency monitoring in the grand scheme of things. I was dissapointed to learn that using the Mackie 400F and turning on the built-in 10 channel mixer basically defeats your DAW. I am finding it hard to believe that as sophisticated as the DAWs and other software tools [including RTAS, VTS, etc] have become, they cannot integrate with external hardware "in real time." This is beyond my comprehension as a songwriter. And I agree with an earlier post that when the 400F mixer is "on" you should have DSP control as well. At least the basics; compression, 4-band EQ, gating, de-essing, etc. Wow that AW2400 is sound better already. I do own and still use my Mackie 1202; only one of the phantom pre's still works ;;heh;; I think the power supply is on its way out. I got my money's worth ten years ago. But back on point, why put a "dry" 10 channel mixer in the 400F when you have to bypass the HOST DAW??! To be fair to Mackie; being able to connect several keyboards to the 400F and feed them to "where ever" is a plus in the I/O department. But it doesnt appear to be an I/O solution for my recording needs after all I have written.

[DemoKing]

I think you have it all a little skewed. You dont NEED that mixer, really, other than to route signals through it to where you want them to go and how. You dont need effects, as that is what the DAW is for. Everyihtg will still be done in the daw, mixed, and shot back to the soundcard, which will simply act as a DA and route it to whatever outputs you decide. The built in mixer is no big deal, and why does anyone really need to pay extra for reverbs and stuff like that in an interface when I have top notch reverbs available in Sonar 5, or any other program for that matter. Sonar for instance has a new 64 bit mixing engine. Mix there, where you should be mixing in the 1st place. UNless you have a big money console. I dont believe you do.

Latency isnt an issue either, these days, with a fast daw with good drivers. I can do software monitoring with my Delta 1010 through Sonar on a 3 year old computer at 2.9 ms latency. If yo u have a problem with latency, just monitor off the board or something, rather that with the DAW. Its so simple really, I think you just dont understand it all and need some hands on to figure it out for yourself. I think the 400F even has latency free monitoring on input. I dont see the problem here.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli
Hello Mike!!! Hey, stranger!!!!

[Anderton]

Let me clear up a couple misconceptions here.

First, latency depends heavily on the computer itself, and the complexity of the project. For example, while tracking, I usually have a bunch of "frozen" tracks and record with under 5 ms of latency (for perspective, the same delay as moving five feet further away from a speaker compared to sitting right next to it). But on mixdown, when I'll be using a ton of plug-ins and complex automation, I might bump the latency up to 10-15 ms so the computer can handle the load without "sweating."

Using the Onyx 400F DSP mixer does NOT disable the DAW in any way. What it allows selected channels to do is bypass the DAW, so latency doesn't come into play. In other words, if you're singing into a track, rather than listen to the output of the track, use the mixer to monitor the track input - presto, no latency. You won't hear the vocals with any effects you've added in the DAW, but I'm not sure that's such a big problem, as I tend to record vocals dry and do any processing during mixdown.

As to why I haven't covered Tracktion 2 much, it's quite a deep program that would deserve the same kind of treatment as we did here on Sonar and Ableton Live. Trying to cover it here would be like doing two pro reviews in parallel. And don't make too much of the fact that it's bundled with the Onyx 400F; it sweetens the deal of course, but there's no special synergistic engineering technique that lets it have zero latency or whatever. It's performance is pretty much the same as any well-written ASIO application with the 400F -- very little latency with a decent computer.

Now, having said all that, there is a reason why devices like the AW2400 and Roland/Korg/etc all in one recorders exist: For one thing, they don't involve a computer (at least not overtly), and some people are more comfortable with a dedicated machine than pressing a computer into service as a recording device. It's not a decision to be made lightly, as each has pros and cons. And of course, some people use both: All-in-one for live recording, then they bounce the tracks into a computer for editing.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by harryjames
I am finding it hard to believe that as sophisticated as the DAWs and other software tools [including RTAS, VTS, etc] have become, they cannot integrate with external hardware "in real time." Don't blame the software manufacturers, blame the hardware manufacturers - or to be more real world about it, blame the customers. They want "world class" specifications and low cost. The ASIO specification does indeed provide the hooks to control monitor switching in the hardware but nobody makes an audio interface that takes advantage of it.

In order to do that, they'd need to do what real tape decks did and put relays (or the solid state equivalent) in the audio path so that when recording the audio input is switched directly to the audio output, and when playing back, the audio output is fed from the D/A converter. This requires more hardware (more cost), some mixing capability in the audio interface, and the switching potentially reduces the S/N ratio by a couple of dB. That's enough to send the customers over to another brand. But back on point, why put a "dry" 10 channel mixer in the 400F when you have to bypass the HOST DAW??!So that you can do what you can't do with the DAW alone - monitor your inputs, whatever it is, without the delay of a round trip to the computer and back. You can still mix in the DAW, in fact if you have more than 10 tracks, you'll have to do some mixing in the DAW. But if you have eight tracks of drums, you can send those to one pair of returns to the mixer on the interface and have direct hands-on control of that in your monitor mix.

Consoles are a darn good idea. A console isn't just a funnel for all your inputs, it's a set of controls and indicators at the heart of your control room. If you're going to try to do without one, it's nice to have at least some of those functions still available even though the box they come in now isn't nearly as impressive looking to the visitors.

[wolfledge]

Due to some sort of incompatability with my old sound card - which has works with most of my software - I started researching what new sound cards I should be looking at.

I have been over a number and stumbled on this thread.
What a FANTASTIC thread!

I have been reading Craigs work since 1986 -
"Midi for Musicians" sits on the shelf behind me.

My current sound card has 8x8 In x Out at 20bit 44Khz.
For my home projects it has been fine - until
some software updates for a well known VST
started to hang - and the drivers for the sound card are no
longer supported..

So the discussion of ASIO and the WDM on this is of interest.
I would not want to fork out money and repeat the current problem.

Has anyone tested the ONYX 400F using WinXP SP2 and
Native Instruments KONTAKT 2 -- or REAKTOR 5?

I have read every post here tonight - impressive expertise has been contributing here.

One other concern --
@192Khz - how much disk is consumed per minute of audio?

[harryjames]

Thanking all three (3) of you for your replies. I am a hands on kind of guy and I am sure because I haven't got to touch these things "in the DOing process" adds to my confusion or misunderstandings as to how these things work. I understand software DAWs and how ReWire, RTAS, VST works and when I lay down my initial song I like to record with effects and require 4 inputs for stereo keys and phantom mic with stereo effects returns. For me effects are part of the performance. Going back after the fact and editing/adding effect to say a dry vocal is not how I wish to record. I do understand the benefits to recording dry tracks, omping, mixing and post effects. In my little experience meddling with USB and firewire devices and a couple DAWs, I just didn't care for the latency I experienced using headphones and made it difficult for me to enjoy the process. When I first saw the Mackie 400F, I got the distinct impression that it would be a great I/O to use with Tracktion2 (which I was already pleased with its easy of use including ReWire) and that I could monitor the DAW mix, with effects, while recording, through the 400F with "no latency." As to the comment inferring I am some consumer wanting $100 grand equipment for $1000 bucks bucks; (not an exact quote) this is not the case. I am very appreciative that one now can purchase a quality 24 track recorder for $2grand. I just have found it very challenging [if not impossible in my area] to physically get a hands on demo of any of these devices. Which makes it harder to grasp how these things work. I appreciate everyone's input here. Many of you obviously already are using DAWs such as Sonar and hardware I/Os including the 400F, and for what it's worth, latency doesn't appear to bother you. This is why it was my thinking to use my laptop to trigger samples and record them to a dedicated recorder. My laptop is a P4 3.0HT 800FSB 2gRAM 4-pin firewire, and of course I would buy an external 7200rpm 16mb cache 8ms HDD for dedicated recording whereas my lappy has a slow-but-steady 5400rpm 80gb. I understand making the choice to go computer based versus dedicated recorder is not an easy one. And I agree they each have their own nemesis'. There's a lot of bells and whistles RTAS and VSTs that would be useful and certainly spawn creativity and allow for creating genres of music I don't even currently write or play. This aspect of computer recording interests me. And with exception to MIC recording, computer generated noise [such as fans] is not even an issue then. This is why I have waited to research more and to try my best to make a quality decision as to what gear purchase. It's not about the best or perfect; but what works for me. Sooner or later I gotta go with something and get recording too and I understand those dynamics. I have a couple DSP RUs so buying the 400F I definately need to get a rack cube and get everything wired up; which in that case I would also get a line conditioner and probably a good mic preamp. Anyhow, thanks again. My hat's off to Mackie for their Onyx products including the 400F and even my 1202 mixer that is still plugging along. And thank you for this forum. This will help me to make a decision. ;;cheers;;

[sekim]

Has anyone done a multi-generation loopback recording test with this box that can post their findings? Granted this test reveals total A/D/A system performance, but given that nobody is complaining about A/D - but only the D/A - I'd think this test could certainly reveal whether the D/A is mis-representing or not. If it is, it's going to be very obvious after a few generations.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by harryjames
For me effects are part of the performance. Going back after the fact and editing/adding effect to say a dry vocal is not how I wish to record.It sounds like you'd be a good candidate for an outboard effect processor. To try to stay on topic here, this is what the Inserts on the 400F are for. If you have a device that gives you the vocal sound that you want to record, you can connect it in line between the mic preamp and the A/D converter via the Insert so that your vocal will be recorded with the effect.

The disadvantage to this is that you're stuck with what you recorded. If your projects are fairly simple and you have them well thought out, you can work that way - we did for years and years. But if you figure that you'll add 30 more parts and then start mixing, you might decide that the processed vocal that you recorded no longer fits.

When I first saw the Mackie 400F, I got the distinct impression that it would be a great I/O to use with Tracktion2 (which I was already pleased with its easy of use including ReWire) and that I could monitor the DAW mix, with effects, while recording, through the 400F with "no latency."You could, if you used the Inserts and an outboard processor. But once you send the audio as data out to the computer, you're at the mercy of the computer as to what you hear in the monitor. If it takes 100 msec to crunch the numbers that gives you the effect you wan tto record, that's how long (plus other delays) it will take for the processed signal to get back to your ears.

When you have a dedicated piece of hardware that has nothing to do but process your vocal in real time on that pass, and you can route its output both to the recording software and to the monitor, you get very little latency in the monitor path. If the DSP in the 400F was pressed into service creating effects as well as mixing and routing audio, there would almost certainly be some delay - probalby not as much as the route through the computer and back, but enough to be annoying. As to the comment inferring I am some consumer wanting $100 grand equipment for $1000 bucks bucks; (not an exact quote) this is not the case. I am very appreciative that one now can purchase a quality 24 track recorder for $2grand.This is indeed amazing. And for the same $2K, you also get a digital editor, a mixer, effect processor, and even some musical instruments. But when you try to use all of that stuff simultaneoulsly, you suffer a speed hit. If you were to use the computer only as a recorder and take care of your effects and monitoring in the classic way, you'd get rid of latency. But that costs more money. Maybe not $100,000 (not everyone needs an SSL 900 console to control their DAW) but it does expand your $2K investment. I just have found it very challenging [if not impossible in my area] to physically get a hands on demo of any of these devices. Which makes it harder to grasp how these things work.This is a real problem. A few major cities have shops where they have a dedicated showroom for DAWs and a few knowledgeable people on staff who will spend an hour with you giving you a good tour. But your normal music store clerk knows little beyond brand names other than perhaps the particular softwar that he himself uses (if any). But this is really no different than when you needed to choose between an Ampex, Otari, or Studer recorder and an API, Neve, or maybe Soundcraft console. You couldn't really go into a shop and demo them effectively, you bought based on research, knowledge of others, budget, and to a certan extent, gut feeling. If you were in an "Ampex" market, you probalby wouldn't buy a Studer recorder because potential clients would ask for an Ampex. Today the equivalent is not buying Tracktion because the clients want ProTools. But if you have no clients, your choices are far more flexible - however that makes it harder because you have so many options.

Do some netwoking. Find other musicians in your area who are recording themselves, ask what they use, and offer to bring over a pizza, a six pack, and your guitar, and get a a demonstration of whatever he or she is using. It's not like booking studio time - most musicians are firendly. And there are SO many of them.

By the way, latency bothers me terribly. Thiis is why I use a dedicated recorder and console, and if I want to monitor with effects, I can easily patch those into just the monitor path and make final decisions later. With a digital recorder, there's still the time it takes for A/D and D/A conversion, but that's on the order of 1 msec round trip, and is usually tolerable. On the other hand, I've been accumulating gear for 40 years now, and I can assure you that I've invested well over $2K. ;)

If I were to start out fresh today, I'd still use a mixing console (rather than a hardware control surface) and I'd use a multi-channel interface (as many channels as I wanted to mix tracks - 24 is enough for me, thank you) and keep my outboard processors and mic preamps. I'd use the DAW as a recorder, and occasionally an editor while tracking to clean up stray noises that are distracting, or to edit in the best take if we've done multiple takes. When mixing, I'd take advantage of plug-ins on the DAW if they're effective, or use outboards if that's what I want in the mix. But that's just me.

[DemoKing]

"and that I could monitor the DAW mix, with effects, while recording, through the 400F with "no latency."

You CAN monitor the DAW mix through the 400F with no latency. Playback is NOT the problem, there is no latency there because you dont hear or know it. Your latency will be ONLY the track you are recording, during the recording process. It will be fine on playback. While playing back your mix (which you'll hear no latency on) use the 400F to monitor any incoming signals with no latency. Problem solved. If you want the effects there already, like Mike said, use an outboard, but thats no way to go these days. If you get the best take ever, and the effect fucks it up later, too bad. And, any effect will cause latency someway or another, no matter how or where you put it.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by MikeRivers (that's me!) The really important specification is the one that manufacturers don't publish - how much noise comes out under realistic operating conditions. Actually, this is test data and not a specification - a spec is something that you start with and then design and build to meet it, or figure out a way to measure it so that it looks like you're meeting it. ;) [/B]A disgruntled former 400F owner over on the Mackie forum replaced it with an RME Fireface 800 and pointed me to the web page to compare features. While there, I found the data that I said was really useful that practically nobody publishes. Now I know someone who does, at least for the line inputs:

Input/Output level for 0 dBFS @ Hi Gain: +19 dBu
Input/Output level for 0 dBFS @ +4 dBu: +13 dBu
Input/Output level for 0 dBFS @ -10 dBV: +2 dBV

I don't know why they call the lowest sensitivity "Hi Gain" - it must mean something different in German. ;)

[harryjames]

pardon my short term memory; but thank you to both King and Mike for your input and confirmations of what I *was* actually thinking. Maybe I initially posed my quest incorrectly; I am aware of no latency playback; when you spoke of using outboard gear the bells rang true for me. I already do have some outboard gear and I do wish to dabble and perhaps by dabbling with a software DAW I shall grow an addiction to the zillions of RTAS and VSTs that can be used in computer recording. As of now I have a much clearer picture as to what I am going put together; thanks to your *confirmations* which IS what I was thinking I just dont have the hands-on experience with ProTools and other other DAWs using plugins, and freezing tracks and all that to deal with CPU load and latency issues. I imagine it is actually a science in itself to get good at doing that. To me it's fair to say just as a good engineer on a mixing console can make all the difference in the world to someone's already recorded material, the same applies to those who dive into software DAWs. Even though you may have unlimited tracks, and tons of RAM, and resources are low, and you got tracks frozen and say you have a mix of 6 tracks to monitor while you record you next mono or stereo track, it takes thought and planning. I am sure you can just cut and paste your way into latency and CPU overload hell very easy when using plugins and soft synths. I've done a lot of soundclip editing using Soundforge and now that I wish to finally pour my songwriting into concrete I know I would prefer using outboard gear, a dedicated recorder and then use a DAW to create whatever I cannot create utilizing the other equipment. I already have an Alesis MIDIverbIII and MIDIVerb4 so I've decided to buy the Mackie 400F, a Yammie MOTIF ES and the AW2400 because 24 tracks is enough for me too. This should avoid latency pains and still give me the editing flexibility when I choose to utilize it. As per your comments about "thinking ahead", "planning" "making changes later" and "effects that are in concrete that dont work later in the entire mix"... I understand all of that. Actually I am an excellent arranger and have an uncanny sense of putting these thing together without ending up those problems during mixdown automation and mastering a burn. I know my personal story has veered off the forum topic which is, "the Mackie 400F" but then again, I am going to purchase one. No doubt it is a wonderful I/O unit and Mackie brilliantly constructed a quality piece of pro audio gear at a pricepoint that makes musicians and songwriters jump; or at least it sure did me. So again, I thank all of you and this forum for helping me to finalize my initial hardware purchases to set up my home studio which is actually in my 26ftRV. So my initial setup is going to be Mackie400F wired and racked with my 2 other RUs, Yamaha's AW2400, a pair of HS50M's, HS10Wsub, my Korgi3 and MOTIF ES-6, and even though Tracktion2 comes with the 400F, I'm gonna buy the standalone bundle version so I can doodle with all the plugins. Whereas the AW2400 has easy connectivity with my PC, I have a feeling I will be using the software DAW for some things and working mostly with my hardware and outboard gear. Funny thing; I found it was just easier to add $1000 into my budget than it was to try and decide which method to record would satisfy my needs the best. Thanks to AmericanMusicalSupply, I can buy all my stuff cash and get the AW on 5 payments of $200. So sometimes some creative financing helps a whole bunch. For now I will use my AudioTechnica phantom head mic and my new AT4040 and see if will actually really need a tube preamp for the AW's mic pre's. You guys are great. Thanks again!

[Pleasant]

Originally posted by MikeRivers
[B]It sounds like you'd be a good candidate for an outboard effect processor. To try to stay on topic here, this is what the Inserts on the 400F are for. If you have a device that gives you the vocal sound that you want to record, you can connect it in line between the mic preamp and the A/D converter via the Insert so that your vocal will be recorded with the effect.

The disadvantage to this is that you're stuck with what you recorded.

There is an alternative. One could use the Inserts as a direct out by only inserting the patch cord (to the effect processor) partway into the Insert....you can read about this in the Mackie manual. This effectively splits the signal allowing it to pass both into the effect processor AND to the DAW. One could then route the output of the effect processor back into an input of the 400f, and monitor this signal with the heaphone monitor.

So, you get a wet monitor signal as well as a dry signal being recorded at the DAW.

I plan to do this with the 400f -- when I finally get around to buying it. :bor:

Have a good,

- P

[Anderton]

For this section, I spent some time checking out comments in other forums (Mackie, Gearslutz) about the 400F because I wanted to get some more background on some of the negatives that were touched on here. It was quite revealing.

Obviously, Mackie has already sold quite a few of these yet the number of people having problems seems relatively small. Of course, those with issues are most likely to post in forums, either because they’re upset or they’re looking for solutions (or both). Those who don’t have problems just go on their merry way making music. So let’s address the main problems that were mentioned, and my take on them.

Low input gain on Line Ins 5-8. I tested several electronic synths, and was able to kick the meters into the -10dB range on peaks. That’s not really all that bad – you’re basically throwing away less than 2 bits of resolution – but then again, that’s why the 400F has two instrument inputs for devices with high output impedances, and two additional inputs with preamps. Using these, I was able to peg the meters with just about anything, including a Zen portable player. Clearly, the line ins are optimized for typical pro studio gear (DAT machines, mixers, etc.) as opposed to stage gear, although I was able to pin the meters easily with the DigiTech GNX4.

Is the line in gain a problem? Maybe if you have four mics on drums and also want to run an electric piano and guitar processor designed to plug into guitar amps. But overall, I don’t find this is a big deal, given the inclusion of the four mic pres.

Problems with long headphone extension cords. I wasn’t able to duplicate this, nor find additional confirmation from others. The only explanation I can think of is that the headphone extension cord used by the person who mentioned this had so much cable capacitance that it somehow loaded down the output stage and created some kind of oscillation, but that’s a long shot. I wouldn’t worry about this one.

”Brittle” sound. Those hearing a negatively bright tonal quality seemed to be in a distinct minority. Although many people, myself included, have commented on the bright, clean high end, this is generally seen as a positive, not a negative. Personally, I like the 400F’s high end, as it’s very appropriate for most of the music I do. I can understand that some might like a “warmer” sound, but hey, that’s why different products exist.

High frequency whine. This is the big mystery. Some people hear an audible, annoying whine when using the 400F; most don’t, but that doesn’t help those who do. Even more frustratingly, there are reports of whines with other interfaces – again, not consistent – with Apple G4 PowerBooks mentioned frequently, but with other laptops as well. Some people might hear a whine with the 400F but not a different interface; others might hear a whine from another interface, but not the 400F. The one interface that seems to have none of these problems is the RME FireFace 800.

So what does the RME do that the others don’t? Beats me. But I suspect the whine issue reported with some 400F (and other) interfaces has less to do with the interface and more to do with the computer. I also feel this might be an instance where RME’s tendency to “overengineer,” and charge accordingly, makes up for marginal operation at the computer itself.

Over the years I’ve often speculated on why I have so few problems with my Windows software and peripherals. I install a lot of beta software, do a lot of uninstalls, and my registry probably looks like the inside of a serial killer’s brain. Yet it just keeps running. The only real problem I’ve had recently (although it was maddeningly hard to track down) was due to installing a new DVD drive that turned out to be defective.

But I always use computers that were integrated for music applications. My last two computers were designed by ace computer guru Pete Leoni and they have done yeoman service. Pete always said the most important part of the computer for good audio performance was the motherboard, and almost equally important was the way you handled graphics (e.g., AGP over PCI, simple board instead of hot rod game board). I’ve done most of the standard recommended software tweaks, but not even turned off all the unnecessary services and such. (I’m also still on SP1, which may be important: If you have SP2, you need to install a fix from the Microsoft web site for proper FireWire operation.)

I’d almost be willing to bet that some of the people experiencing “whine” problems are using on-board FireWire rather than from a plug-in card. And I’d also almost be willing to bet that the company making the computer tested the FireWire port with some digital camcorders and left it at that. I get the general feeling that on some PCs, FireWire is more of an afterthought than USB. Then again, it seems a lot of whine problems occur with G4 PowerBooks, so who knows – if anyone should know the ins and outs of FireWire, it would be Apple.

What’s even weirder is you’ll see someone say “Oh yeah, I had a whine like that but I disabled wireless networking and it went away.” So someone with the whine disables wireless networking, and it doesn’t go away. Welcome to the bleeding edge.

Bottom line: None of my research has indicated that anyone has a definitive answer as to why some devices whine and some don’t. Although it doesn’t seem that any whine shows up in the record path, I would suggest that if you’re concerned about the possibility of a whine situation, try before you buy and order from a company with a solid return policy. I never experienced any kind of whine under any of the circumstances people suggested, so obviously, I couldn’t try different things to get rid of it (although I did try different things to try to get it to happen, without success).

That’s pretty much it for negatives. Now let’s cover some other aspects.

[Anderton]

One aspect that doesn’t excite me too much is the stand-alone mixer option. Yes, the 400F is light, small, and solid; I could definitely see it as a keyboard mixer or other utility mixer (and there’s nothing wrong with a 64-bit audio path, either), but I’d get real nervous about not having some kind of real-time hardware control. That’s why it was interesting to see Mackie’s Dan Steinberg mention that Mackie is considering enabling operation with the Mackie Control Unit (MCU). Whether that actually happens or not is up in the air, but MCU control would add another element to the 400F and open it up for more possible applications.

Now let’s go to the undisputed positives. Clearly, the mic pres are exceptional, and even more so at this price point. They really do sound great – or rather, don’t sound great, because they really don’t “sound” at all. If the goal of a mic pre is to be a “straight wire with gain,” this is probably as close as you’ll get without spending a whole lot more. Prefer a creamy tube sound with a somewhat attenuated high end, coupled with a little warm midrange ringing from a quality transformer? That’s not the 400F. We’re talking clean, quiet, clear, transparent, detailed…great stuff.

And as I mentioned previously in this review, when used as guitar instrument inputs the preamps are within spitting distance of the Radial Labs’ JDL class A direct box, which to my ears is about as good as it gets.

But good mic pres aren’t worth much without good A/D and signal path. In one forum, in a blind shootout of two boutique A/Ds and Onyx A/Ds, a surprising number of people preferred the Onyx (which uses the 24-bit/192kHz AKM 5385 and 4358 phase-accurate audio converters) compared to far more expensive A/Ds. And the internal processing is 64-bit, floating point. As Cakewalk has been more than happy to point out since the release Sonar 5 with its 64-bit audio engine, this does make a difference.

I’m not sure that 192kHz is a huge selling point, but it’s there if you want it. I did test out 96kHz, and yes, it is a bit better than 44.1kHz. But the sound quality is good enough at the lower sample rates that in some cases you may stick with 44.1/48kHz to save a little space and let your computer work less hard.

The console software does the job, looks good (well yeah, that does matter) and the ASIO drivers are excellent. The WDM drivers work superbly with Adobe Audition and other apps that don’t try to tap into the depths of the WDM protocol, like the way Sonar does. In fact, I feel it’s essential to use Cakewalk’s Sonar and Project5 with ASIO instead of WDM, given that you have the choice to use either one.

The construction and overall build quality also get very high marks. Even the knobs are nice, and the drop-in power supply and FireWire boards simplify service for those elements most likely to cause any problems in the long term.

The icing on the cake is cross-platform operation, and the inclusion of Tracktion 2 – a fine program in its own right, along with a useful set of plug-ins – as part of the package. Couple that with a friendly yet reasonably detailed manual, a company forum that offers assistance and tolerates dissent, and the fact that updated drivers have already appeared, and I’d have to say it’s clear that Mackie is behind this product. Their participation in this Pro Review is, I believe, another indication that they sincerely want to connect with their customer base.

[Anderton]

The genesis of this review was at the Fall 2005 AES in New York, when I first saw the 400F. I was explaining the Pro Review concept to Mackie’s Kyle Ritland, and he immediately “got it.” He suggested doing the 400F. I was a bit skeptical that it would get a huge response; the previous Pro Reviews covered fairly complex products, whereas hey, what’s the deal with an interface? It’s just ins and outs.

Wrong. Clearly, the 400F got serious attention for what it offered given the price point. Participation in this review was strong from the very beginning, and got another shot in the arm when Mackie sent out an email to their user base touting the review. Credit to Mackie for that: The fun, edgy, and somewhat scary thing about Pro Reviews is that no one knows how they’re going to turn out. Mackie might have sent thousands of people here just as someone discovered that the 400F self-destructed if you turned all the knobs up to maximum. But I guess they had confidence in their product, and based on the reactions here, that confidence seems justified.

So what about the RME FireFace? Clearly, it sets the current standard against which FireWire interfaces are measured. I’ve reviewed it, and it’s an exceptional piece of gear. But it’s also very pricey. What the 400F does is come in with some serious sound quality, feature set, and construction chops at half the price. Granted, no one reported whines with the FireFace, so the extra bucks do buy you some added bullet-proofing. But I suspect that for most studios, the 400F will do everything they and need at a much lower entry price.

Finally, a Pro Review is nothing without the people who participate in it. I’d like to thank all of you for your comments, the high level and civility of discourse, and the useful insights. Kudos to Dan Steinberg for restraining his enthusiasm enough to avoid sounding like a marketing guy (I know it was tough, Dan!), and Kyle Ritland for getting behind and supporting the Pro Review concept in the first place. Also, a huge thank-you to Mike Rivers for adding his considerable expertise. I’ve always appreciated that he uses his knowledge to enlighten rather than intimidate.

This completes my official “review,” but does not mean the end of the thread: Feel free to keep discussing the 400F. As long as the thread has some steam, we’ll keep it going. After a while we’ll un-sticky it, but you’ll always be able to access it from the thread Links to All Existing Pro Reviews (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1070486).

The PreSonus ADL 600 preamp will be the subject of our next Pro Review, which starts next week. It’ll be interesting, because we’re taking a 180 degree turn: This is a preamp that’s intended to color the sound rather than be transparent, but do so in a subjectively pleasing way. Have they succeeded? We’ll find out.

[Ninjä]

First of all. Thanks to all of you for participating in what must be the greatest review I've ever witnessed in my life.

I just recieved my unit and have been very pleased with it overall. The preamps are maybe the best I've heard on a "soundcard" and I definetly fall into the category of people who find the DA converter very crisp and clean indeed. Definetly not "too bright" for my taste.

I do however fall into the category of people falling victim to the high pitched whine from my firewire port. I've tried connecting the unit to both the FW400 and FW800 port on my mac and the problem persists both places. I've tried removing just about everything without the sound going away. I've also tried all the FW cables I own (some of which should be pretty high quality). I might add that the building I live in is fairly new and modern, and that such the power wiring is pretty state of the art for a normal apartmentbuilding. I also live in Norway where (and I say this without any form of prejudice) I believe that the quality of power seems to be higher quality than over seas (less spikes, and what have you).

I've tried a bunch of different firewire units and the 400F is the only one with this problem.

What strikes me though is that my mac is fairly "standard" (Apple G5 DP 1.8, 2GB ram, two uad-1 cards), and so any problems I might run into are probable to occur elsewhere. I also don't want to point fingers, but it does seem strange if this isn't a problem related to the Mackie interface as, as you all know Apple designed firewire and for them to not implement it correctly is highly unlikely. I do hope that Mackie will check into this scenario and that it might be possible to remedy it with a software update.

Thanks again.

[harryjames]

Please excuse me for being "vague" but with an M-Audio firewire product my PC's built-in 4pin firewire did the "whine" thing. i bought a PCMCIA 6pin firewire "with AC power" and using AC power the whine dissapeared. using the same PCMCIA firewire w/o the AC assist, the whine remained. apparently must have something to do with buss power or something. i am no electronics engineer by any means. As for the Mackie 400F I will be ordering mine from American Musical Supply next week. This forum review has been an excellent source of information. I applaud the creators and every one who has contributed here. I can't wait to sing through those clean Mackie mic pre's! ;;Merry Christmas;;

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by Pleasant
One could use the Inserts as a direct out by only inserting the patch cord (to the effect processor) partway into the Insert....you can read about this in the Mackie manual. This effectively splits the signal allowing it to pass both into the effect processor AND to the DAW. One could then route the output of the effect processor back into an input of the 400f, and monitor this signal with the heaphone monitor. There are almost always are ways to work around limitations, as long as you don't run into other limitations - like suppose you're using all the inputs as real inputs?

By the way, while I know it says in the manual that you can do that, I don't think the people who wrote the manual ever tried it with the actual hardware. The jacks that Mackie used in the older compact mixer line (CR-1604 up through the VLZ Pro series) would do a pretty good job of holding a plug that was pushed in only as far as the ring contact. The jacks that they use on the new Onyx mixers will not. A "halfway-inserted" plug flops around in the jack and the ring contact doesn't quite reach down to the bottom of the "V" in the plug. It's a very unreliable connection. I suspect (but don't know) that the same jacks are used on the 400F.

The way to solve this problem is to build some cables with a TRS plug on the mixer end and connect the tip adn ring together. That way you can insert the plug all the way wihout breaking the channel signal path.

[MikeRivers]

Good wrap-up. Your observation (and I'll bet this isn't the first time you've recognized this) is very true - that "we, the people" hear more from users with problems than users who are happy (or don't realize yet that they have the same problems). Also, Mackie sells a lot more units than RME, so the number of RME participants are fewer - which means fewer reported problems as well as praise. Valid statistics on the "test group" are pretty hard to obtain.
Originally posted by Anderton
Low input gain on Line Ins 5-8. I tested several electronic synths, and was able to kick the meters into the -10dB range on peaks. That’s not really all that bad – you’re basically throwing away less than 2 bits of resolution – but then again, that’s why the 400F has two instrument inputs for devices with high output impedances, and two additional inputs with preamps. Using these, I was able to peg the meters with just about anythingThe sensitivity that you reported is about what I expected. But DAW people rarely havet VU meters that represent loudness fairly well, they watch peak reading meters to avoid digital clipping. A -10 dBFS eyeball average recording produces a waveform display that's barely a squiggle down the middle of the "track." This is perceived by many as "not a very hot recording" when compared to a graphic-filling ripped commercial CD that's been heavily limited, pushed to full scale peaks and has a much lower peak-to-average ratio than a raw studio track. And if one sets the playback volume based on that full scale track, a track that's 10 dB lower on peaks and has a lower average level than a commercial recording will sound pretty wimpy by comparison. Unfortunately too many people judge the quality of an audio device by how far they have to turn up the volume control. This is a perception that goes away with experience.

Putting this rant aside, I really think that, based on your experiments, the line inputs need more sensitivity. A low impedance line level output on a synth should be able to drive an audio interface to full scale. It's OK if you need to use maximum gain (or minimum attenuation) to do this, but you should be able to do it. On stage, we usually use a DI bewtween the instrument and the mixer and connect it to a mic input, but the DI's primary purpose in this application (as opposed ot connecting directly to a guitar pickup) is to provide a balanced run back to the mixer rather than an unbalancd run from the typical electornic instrument output.

Today many synths have balanced outputs, but we still use DIs on stage rather than using a balanced line level run to the mixer simply because our snake goes to mic inputs rather than line inputs. There's no need to do this in the studio, however, where you can run a balanced cable at line level, or even an unbalanced cable if it's an older synth, for any reasonable studio length. By using a DI and a mic input, you're providing the gain that Mackie should have provided on the line inputs, given the expected application of those inputs. <grumble, grumble>

Interesting that the instrument inputs on the 400F having more gain than the line inputs. Since analog circuitry is something that Mackie designers do well, I would have expected that this would be common with the Onyx mixers. The instrument inputs on the mixers are unbalanced and have about a 1 megohm input impedance (an excellent match for instrument pickups) but they have practically the same gain as the line inputs. Although I've found that they have plenty of gain for the few electric instruments that I have around here, perhaps those less heavy-handed than I have wished for more gain so they provided it in the 400F. I think the instrument inputs on the Onyx mixers sound great, maybe even better than on my Great River preamp. It sounds like you were also impressed with their performance.

But . . . they're unbalanced. If you have a synth in the studio that has a balanced output, you lose the benefits of a balanced connection. For a short run and with no grounding problems, this won't matter. Still, they're so close to getting it right. Too bad they didn't go a little further.
I’d almost be willing to bet that some of the people experiencing “whine” problems are using on-board FireWire rather than from a plug-in card. And I’d also almost be willing to bet that the company making the computer tested the FireWire port with some digital camcorders and left it at that.I think you're right about that. I think the only people who test computers with audio interfaces are guys like Pete Leoni who custom build computers for audio applications. Still, I think the whine problem is real and I'm glad to hear that Mackie was able to reproduce it and will give it some thought. It really does have the characteristics of a grounding problem, which can affect some external devices and not others.

I'm not excited about 192 kHz operation either. I haven't looked at the specs of the 400F, but I did notice that the noise performance of the Onyx Mixer+Firewire noise and distortion specs were slightly poorer at 96 kHz than at 48. We got over the "marketing bits" scare but now I think we're getting into a "marketing sample rate" scare. While there's no disputing that the sample rate is really 192 kHz (as opposed more than a bit or two beyond 15 being significant for the early 24-bit converters) there's no clear evidence that there's any sonic improvement (though there are some theoretical arguments, both pro and con). It sure sells more disk space, however, and more DVDs for backup. ;)

[amplayer]

Originally posted by MikeRivers
You pretty much answered your own question - they're two different measurements. EIN is actually a computed number and represents the ideal noise level contributed by the input before you add any gain. S/N is the difference between the maximum possible output level and the noise present under (presumably) known conditions.

EIN is the measured noise output minus the gain, It's really only significant for the first input stage, but, for marketing reasons, seems to be getting attached to mic preamps (the whole box) because it's a nice low number. If the EIN is -129 dBu and you have 60 dB of gain (as measured by conventional means), you have 129-60 or -69 dBu noise just sitting there at the output with no input. That doesn't look very impressive, so they have to come up with a different way of saying it that doesn't look so dreadful.

Add 20 dB of headroom to that and you have: a noise floor of -69 dBu and a maximum output of +20 dBu, giving a S/N ratio of 89 dB. Close enough?

It really isn't all that simple because you're really comparing apples and oranges, but that's sort of the way it works. You can make the S/N ratio look better in most cases by simply reducing the gain because you're amplifiying the input noise less and the noise output isn't swamped by input noise.

The really important specification is the one that manufacturers don't publish - how much noise comes out under realistic operating conditions. Actually, this is test data and not a specification - a spec is something that you start with and then design and build to meet it, or figure out a way to measure it so that it looks like you're meeting it. ;)

Ok. This sort of makes sense.
Now a slightly different (possibly stupid) question: Since a whopping -129 dB EIN can only get you an 89 dB S/N because of the preamp gain, then what does it take to make 24-bit conversion necessary? That is, with a S/N of 89 dB, why bother with 24-bit conversion when clearly a 16 bit converter would be fine?

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by amplayer
Since a whopping -129 dB EIN can only get you an 89 dB S/N because of the preamp gain, then what does it take to make 24-bit conversion necessary? That is, with a S/N of 89 dB, why bother with 24-bit conversion when clearly a 16 bit converter would be fine? That's a pretty good question, actually. I do almost all of my live recording, 2-track or multitrack, at 16-bit resolution and I don't seem to be suffering any great hardships from it, but I use 24-bit for more critical work.

First off, you don't always use all the gain of the preamp, so it's often possible to achieve a S/N ratio of better than 89 dB. You'll never get to the theoretical 144 dB or so, but decent analog circuitry ahead of good converters can achieve a usable dynamic range exceeding the 96 dB theoretical limit of 16-bit recording. I say "usable dynamic range" rather than S/N ratio becaue our ears and brains are pretty good at extracting intelligence below the noise floor. Of course you have to turn the listening volume up so that you can't listen to anything other than reverb tails and noise without blowing your speakers, but it's nice to know that there's something down there.

Another advantage to using 24-bit resolution is that you can allow more headroom without losing anything but volume (which you can make up later). It's no big deal (as Craig ponted out in his discussion of the 400F line input sensitivity) to record 10 dB below full scale. This means that when someone unexpectedly bellows into a mic, you have another 10 dB to go before your A/D converter clips.

Another advantage of increasing resolution is that when you go through the "make it louder" exercise, compressing the signal, and then boosting it, the low level information that you're boosting is quieter.

Or course when the final product has less than 5 dB of dynamic range and you listen in the car with the windows rolled down, there isn't a whole lot of point to high resolution recording. ;)

[sekim]

Again, has anyone conducted a multi generation loopback recording test on this box? I'm interested in buying, but I'd like to see something that can QUANTIFY whether or not the D/A is misrepresenting anything. This test will prove whether the alleged brightness of the D/A is perception or reality, since *if misrepresentation is occuring* then the error will be *cumulative* accross the generations. It will become both obvious and *measureable* if the alleged problem actually exists. I just don't want to buy one and have to do this and possibly do a return if others own this box and can do it and let us all know how it came out.

[blue2blue]

Great write-up, Craig -- although I'm still absorbing it.

On the whine issue -- if it's at all similiar to the whine I experience under certian circumstances with my MOTU 828 mkII, I'd strongly recommend others so afflicted to the same kind of isolation testing that one might use to approach a more common audio ground loop issue.

In my case I get the impression -- but I'm no circuit whiz -- that some kind of ground loop issue seems to be causing 'contamination' of audio signals with sounds associated with activity on screen (mouse actions, browser windows changing.) But it only occurs with certain combinations of equipment connection -- just like a conventional ground loop.

My specific problem, which I outline somewhere above, is a whirring, whining noise when there is video/mouse activity -- but ONLY when both my MOTU and the laptop's internal speaker/headphone out are both hooked up to the same 'prosumer' amp/tuner (which has a bunch of other stuff plugged in -- including the output of a DVD player AND a digital cable box. The all DO resolve to the same outlet -- but it's a complex set of interconnections.

Anyhow, simply breaking the audio connection from the laptop headphone out OR the MOTU main outs to the amp fixes the whining/whirring which shows up (apparently) in the output of BOTH units... (maybe I should switch over to another sound source and see if the whirring contams ALL the signals on the amp...)

Anyhow, in my case, on my MOTU, it can be avoided. Others may not be so lucky

[mandoman]

So I've had more time to play with the unit on the road and in the studio.

I took the 400f over to my friends house and set it up to record some acoustic bluegrass in stereo. Unit is fairly portable: powerbook, external firewire hdd, 400f, cables, mics, stands, mandolin, and a six pack - just barely able to make it with only one trip from the car. Anymore gear would have been two trips.

Setup was a breeze, though I think I would prefer to get a faster 7200 internal drive and a bus powered unit to cut down on cables for this type of recording.

I typically use a pair of LDC's either omni spaced or M/S. This time I went for omni spaced plunked right in the middle of the jam. Recording into digital performer was a breeze. No hickups at all, at least I hope not, I only recorded two channels!

The resulting recording sounds pretty incredible. I compared this directly to a similarly recorded setup from a year or two ago recorded on the same mics into a presonus digimax/828 rig. The 400f recording is noticeably more clean, open, and clear sounding. Not to dog the presonus recording, that's good too, but there is definately an improvement with the 400f.

Oh, almost forgot to mention. At the end of the recording, I realized that I hadn't noticed any 'firewire whine'. At this point the fan on my powerbook was blasting away after a 3 hour recording session, but even so, I never once noticed a firewire whine. So, my conclusion with that is, the firewire whine is definately ground related. So, my suggestion to Mackie is for the next production revision, please work on your power supply grounding...

I also have played a bit with the unit in the studio. One of the first things I tried to do was hookup a Pod XT Live to the line ins. I barely got any signal hooking it up this way. I had to hook it up to one of the mic pres to get enough gain out of it. I also tried an hhb burnit - both through spdif and rca outs (9db out) - got full 0db from the spdif and only -10db from the rca. I have to say, I'm pretty dissapointed in the sensitivity on the line ins 5-8 - Mackie could have provided a little more gain on these ins. This probably won't be an issue for me since I usually never use more than 4 channels, but anyone out there that has any non pro (ie non 4db) gear to hookup and is already utilizing the 4 mics pres may be a little dissapointed. I know MOTU's products allow for 4db and -10db devices...

I tried guitar rig 2 with the 400f and was not able to get the best latency with even minimal effects (~60% cpu). I only got about 18ms. I can't knock Mackie though as my computer is pretty dated, a 667Mhz g4 10.3.9, and guitar rig is a cpu hog. I desperately need a new computer to get that latency down! Regardless, I hope they continue to improve their drivers to achieve lower latencies. I will say the front panal Hi-Z guitar in is a nice feature and sounds great with guitar rig despite the high latency.

With my cd player hooked up to the line ins, the eq really didn't sound quite right. I thought this might be the bright DA issue that others are complaining about so I decided to do a comparison. The four setting were:

1) CD track wav ripped on computer and played from quicktime over firewire
Same CD track played on HHB burnit and:
2) Monitored directly from HHB
3) Connected via 400f Spdif (clock set to spdif) and monitored through control mixer
4) Connected via line-in 5-6 and monitored through control mixer.

The best sound was 1 - clip from computer. I don't think the sound was too bright. It was very clear and 'crisp' sounding, but not too bright.

Next best sound was 2 - monitored directly from the HHB. This bit sounded a little darker than 1, but still pretty clean. Sound is pretty good considering these are pretty old DA converters.

Number 3s, spdif, sounded horrible at first - sounded like some digital clipping was going on. I had to turn down the software control mixer down about 5db to get rid of the clipping. Mackie, you need adjust the software control panel because spdif in should not clip period. With the gain turned down, the sound was ok, but not great. I thought it was a little muddy sounding.

The worst of the lot was 4, monitoring from line-in 5-6. Not too surprsing since you got DA (hhb) ADA (400f) going on. For casual listening the sound is ok, but for critical listening, it may not cut the mustered. Muddy with rough edges.

Conclusion? The DA itself sounds good - crisp and clean. However, the 64 bit digital mixer needs some work - it should NOT clip with a spdif input and it could sound better. Fortunately, this is the type of thing Mackie should be able to easily fix in software.

Control Panel software is as straightforward as it gets. Not sure what I'd improve except maybe two meters per channel, one showing the raw input level and the other showing the the output level. The lack of metering and ability to change settings on the unit itself is a bit of a bummer, but than again, I wouldn't want to clutter the unit too much. I think an ideal compromise would be to allow 2 to 4 different flash settings that could be saved and recalled without a computer. Some extra memory, a button, and couple of leds could have accomplished this.

I'll briefly mention the Tracktion 2 software. I opened it up, and it really seems alien at first. I like the concept - everything in plain view on a single page and low cpu overhead. I think the only thing keeping from using it is lack of Audio Unit support. I think this is on Mackie's list to eventually include. With AU and VST support, it has some serious pluggin potential. Get it to work with Garageband loops too (doubtful) and I would not hesitate to give Tracktion some serious attention.

Us Mac users will soon be going through a rough time with the transition to Intel processors. If Mackie comes out with native x86 OSX tracktion binaries early, that's another thing that could get me to start using tracktion, because I know MOTU is going to lag with Digital Performer in this regard.

Finally, I have to mention the overall feel of this unit. I love it! It feels nice and sturdy. All steel and aluminum baby! Two headphone jacks that sound great and are loud too, plus a seperate control room out. Very well thought out. This feels more like a nice analog unit, not something digital.

Overall conclusion? Well, pretty much the same as before I bought the unit.

The good:
Excellent sounding Mic Pre's and AD
Crisp and clean DA
Tracktion has potential
Great build quality
2 headphone outs and seperate C/R volume

The bad:
Grounding issues and firewire whine
Not enough gain on line ins 5-8

The ugly:
64 bit mixer needs more tweaking

I may still return this unit as the firewire whine really bugs the heck out me. I am getting a new computer soon and hope that will correct the issue, but probably after my return window closes with my dealer. So, I may have to return the unit. When I get my new computer, maybe demo a Traveler and 400f side by side to make my final decision? Another option is to just get a Traveler for portability/bus power/swiss army knife connectivity and pair it with an 800R for when I want the sweet pres. But that's an expensive dream...

I think Mackie has a real contender on their hands. Just replace that lame 'Spike' with a 200f - 2 onyx mic pres, 2 line ins, 2 spdif, 2 headphone out, compact bus powered firewire 6x6 interface, and they will have the whole market covered. I'd buy a 200f forsure, nod, wink, nudge ;-)

Thanks Craig for your wonderful review and to all involved for such a wonderful forum.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by sekim
Again, has anyone conducted a multi generation loopback recording test on this box? I'm interested in buying, but I'd like to see something that can QUANTIFY whether or not the D/A is misrepresenting anything. This test will prove whether the alleged brightness of the D/A is perception or reality, since *if misrepresentation is occuring* then the error will be *cumulative* accross the generations. While this is a relatively simple test to do at home, it doesn't represent anything that we do in real life. Multi-generation testing was improtant back when we had to bounce tracks, but that's no longer important.

I think that it's possible that someone does have a legitimate beef about the D/A cound of the 400F (or he might just be an anti-Mackie crank) and it's certainly reasonable that it sounds different from some other D/A converter that he has. They all sound different. What would be useful is not just to confirm that it sounds different than something else (no big surprise there) but that there's something about how it sounds that's unpleasant and that might (or might not) be able to be fixed.

It's easy to measure frequency response. If it has a high frequency rise or an irregularity (microphone manufacturers do this intentionaly to give their mic a characteristic sound) it would be easy to tell. Harmonic distortion is also easy to measure, and it's typically absurdly low with digital eqipment. So while these things can be measured, it almost doesn't matter unless there's something dreadfully wrong. I would expect that the analog output stage gets a bit ragged at very high and very low levels, but this isn't where we normally listen.

Mostly what makes digital devices sound unpleasant is the presence of things in the output that aren't related to the input. Intermodulation distortion can sound pretty nasty. In analog systems, we put in two frequencies and look at the output for frequencies that are related to the sum or difference of the input frequencies. But in a digital system, we don't have to put in two frequencies to have intermodulation - there's already lots of frequency-related stuff floating around that can interact with the intended audio. So you have to look at the full spectrum of what's coming out when you know what's going in.

Still, we're talking about pretty low ampltudes so it takes more than casual test equipment or procedures to detect, and more important, analyze what's going on. This is why you rarely see this sort of data in product reviews, particularly with MI products. Recycling the signal may make it more apparent that something's wrong, but it probalby won't point out what's wrong.

Just proving that it sounds different from another D/A converter is easy. Deciding if the difference is going to ruin your day (or your project) is personal and subjective. Because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean that it will be a problem for you. Someone on another forum said that the great George Massenburg "got screwed" (the poster's words, surely not George's) because he mixed a project monitoring through a Lavry D/A converter. Yet Lavry is one of the most respected manufacturers in the business and George would know if there was something wrong with his unit or setup.

Is this guy who loves his RME converter ever going to book your studio? Will George Massenburg? (George loves good music and will work with whatever meets the client's budget - if he has the time and inclination) What's most important is whether you're getting something you can work with and that you can afford. If the nature of the reported brittleness is such that you can't stand to listen for more than for short periods of time, then obviously it's not for you. But if the top end sounds a little brighter than what you're used to, you can get accustomed to that fairly quickly.

Remember, if you wait for the ideal product to come along and be validated by everyone, you'll never buy anything. This isn't going to be your last purchase. If you have a fair amount of experience already and are looking to expand your system, you can probably make a fair judgement with a couple of hours of listening.

It's up to you.

[snaildarter]

First - great review by all.
I'm currently torn between an Onyx Mixer with FW and the 400F.
Can anyone compare spec's and fundamental differences between the two interfaces and associated AD/DA chipsets?

Does it already have - or is Mackie considering upgrading the FW interface available for the Onyx mixers to the chipset used in the 400F?

[mandoman]

Originally posted by snaildarter
First - great review by all.
I'm currently torn between an Onyx Mixer with FW and the 400F.
Can anyone compare spec's and fundamental differences between the two interfaces and associated AD/DA chipsets?

Does it already have - or is Mackie considering upgrading the FW interface available for the Onyx mixers to the chipset used in the 400F?

The functional differences are detailed earlier in this thread, but not sure what the exact converters are used in the firewire mixer card. Would be nice to know.

I do have both 400f and 1640/onyx card and I'd say on the recording side, the results are very similar @ 24/44.1k, thanks in part to the the mic pres. Not so sure on the output side.

Mackie's recent free firewire card promotion on their 1220 mixers could be a sign they are clearing out inventory in time to bring out a new card. Winter NAMM is just around the corner...

[sekim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeRivers
[B]While this is a relatively simple test to do at home, it doesn't represent anything that we do in real life.

Processing with outboard gear and external summing, both of which require round trips thru the A/D/A, which is what this test checks, certainly represent "real life" to me, but to each his own I suppose... A definitive answer to the question is easily obtainable, too bad nobody is doing it to put the matter to bed once and for all...

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by sekim
Processing with outboard gear and external summing, both of which require round trips thru the A/D/A, which is what this test checks, certainly represent "real life" to me, but to each his own I suppose... Well, OK, one trip, but the gear you're processing through is almost certainly worse than a round trip thorugh the converters, so why worry?

As far as external summing goes, you're only making a single pass out of the D/A converters (unless you're mixing back through the unit's A/D converter). Besides, most DAW external summing boxes cost more than a 400F, so you probably want to use a really, really good set of D/A converters (which the 400F's might actually be - I dunno) with it rather than a sub-$1K do-it-all box.

You can exaggerate any small fault to the point where it becomes objectionable, but as long as you don't do that, it's not a problem. A definitive answer to the question is easily obtainable, too bad nobody is doing it to put the matter to bed once and for all... What's easily obtainable? The result of a multi-pass test? What will that put to bed?

A good quantitative evaluation of the converters requires test equipment that apparently none of us has available. A couple of trade shows back, I was talking with the Prism folks, who make a pretty sophisticated and fairly expensive PC-based digital and analog test set. I remarked that I'd love to have one, but that I'd never make enough money with it to pay for it. The guy from Prism suggested that they might consider some sort of a long term loan program for reviewers, but I never heard back from him. Maybe I should bug them next time I see them. I'd be happy to test it if I had the unit to test and the equipment to test it with. Until then, I'll just have to trust those with the real world experience.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by snaildarter
I'm currently torn between an Onyx Mixer with FW and the 400F.
Can anyone compare spec's and fundamental differences between the two interfaces and associated AD/DA chipsets? Forget specs, at least at the chip level, at least for now. Look at the functional differences. They're SO different that if you need one, you wouldn't have much use for the other.

If you're mixing live sound and want to bring home multitrack recordings of your shows that you can mix in your computer later, the Onyx mixer is the one to get. If you're working in a home project studio, the 400F is the one to get. If you do both, consider getting both, or the Onyx mixer without the Firewire card, and and some other interfacie for your computer that will give you more I/O routing flexibility than the Onyx mixer setup.

It's highly unlikely that Mackie will update the Onyx mixer Firewire card with the 400F converter chips because they're totally different. And for the purpuse to which it's most suited, there would be no great advantage to improviing it from the pretty darn good that it already is. At least that's my opinion.

[sekim]

Originally posted by MikeRivers
What's easily obtainable? The result of a multi-pass test? What will that put to bed?

Yes, the results of a multi generation test.

If someone tells me "I couldn't measure or hear a significant difference after 6 generations", this puts the whole issue to bed as far as I'm concerned since this is typical performance for today's technology. But if someone said "after 6 generations it was +4dB @ 10K and +8dB @20K" then I'd know there is a problem.

Given the nature and interest level concerning this thread and the number of folks that own the box, I thought it was worth asking the question. If this isn't info that would help you in making a purchase decision that's totally fine, but it definitely helps me.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by sekim
If someone tells me "I couldn't measure or hear a significant difference after 6 generations", this puts the whole issue to bed as far as I'm concerned since this is typical performance for today's technology. But if someone said "after 6 generations it was +4dB @ 10K and +8dB @20K" then I'd know there is a problem. Yeah, so would I. On the other hand, if there was that sort of error build-up after six generations, it should be measurable at the first generation, and that's what I'd like to be able to measure. First, by doing that, you get a more accurate assessment of what the actual problem is, and scond, while you may be able to come up with some hypothetical cases, most people wouldn't be making six passes through the same path. While knowing the result of this test might make you comfortable, I don't think it would really matter to most other potential users,

If you read "Frequency response at 44.1 kHz sample rate was flat within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 5 kHz, rose to +0.3 dB at 10 kHz and 1 dB at 20 kHz before dropping to -36 dB at 21 kHz." would you be suspicious? Most people would be completely happy to know that the respnse was flat within 0.3 dB over the normal audio range. Now if the response continued to rise at higher sample rates, and was up 2 dB at 35 kHz, that might be reason for concern by some, but not all of us.

What would concern me more is if I found significant sidebands around a single frequency, or unexplained frequencies generated by the device in an intermodulation test.Given the nature and interest level concerning this thread and the number of folks that own the box, I thought it was worth asking the question. If this isn't info that would help you in making a purchase decision that's totally fine, but it definitely helps me. I hope you get a volunteer. Anyone?

[harryjames]

I will be purchasing one after New Years and will give it a test drive. I am a plug in gear, sit down and linear record kind of guy.

I have high expectations with the 400F and as well, I realize that there are adjustments that need to be made as digital compositions grow in tracks and plugins.

My plans are to use the 400F and Tracktion2 on my laptop which is 3.0gHz HT 800FSB, 512RAM (will max to 2gb in FEB 06) and will use external USB/firewire 7200rpm Seagate 300gb HDD 16mb cache, 8ms burst rate.

Shall report back during or after ONE recorded song. Don't take me long to know what works and what doesn't.

Still got my eye on AW2400 and prolly will end up buying that as well. Having both the outboard gear as well as the PC end can be a plus.

Again, thanks to every one. All of your information has been and continues to be USEFUL.

;;cheers;;

[ftngrave]

I've been reading this review for the last several days and it's difficult for me to know where to start. I am a songwriter, composer of currently mostly chamber music, and for over a year now have gotten more and more into electronic music. This last year I was able to study and work in a studio where there was always somebody available to address any technical difficulty I might have been having. Anyway, I am about to make a few various purchases to setup my own personal recording studio with my computer (which has pretty decent capability)-and reliability, and "for things to just work", is pretty important as I already have a future deadline for a project. So, my above interests were mentioned to show that I have discovered that I'm a bit of a unique consumer in that I have a plurality of things I want to perhaps achieve with an interface, an small example being I could want to record a string quartet as well as my band. My biggest concern with the Mackie Onyx 400F is its stand-alone mixing capability and the included software that routes I/O's, adjusts levels, ect. Mr. Anderton I believe stated, "It probably goes without saying, but this is obviously a stereo device…surround need not apply. I suppose if there was enough demand for surround capabilities, it would be possible to devise a mixer configuration that accepted up to eight DAW outs and fed them to the eight line outs. Call me wacky, call me crazy...but why do I think that few, if any, people reading this thread are going to complain about lack of surround capabilities?" I had almost ultimately decided on the Mackie right before I read this. I actually talked to Mackie on the phone a couple of days ago to specifically make sure all 8 outputs could be assigned for separate monitoring and they said that it could. I'm pretty sure also I got this quote from the mackie web site, "The 400F's eight individual outputs can be used for surround mixing, or for sending four discrete stereo headphone mixes to a headphone amp like one of our new HM Series (coming soon)." Perhaps only the simple included mixing software cannot do this, but it could obviously be done with most multitrack editors? Would Tracktion 2 allow one to configure the daw outs to more than stereo for example? Someone said elsewhere, "Also, I think it would be a good idea for the matrix mixer to allow the selection of which daw outputs get sent to a particular pair of outputs rather than having daw outs 1 & 2 hardwired to physicals outs 1 & 2, daw outs 3 & 4 hardwired to physical outs 3 & 4, etcetera." Are not the daw outputs whatever is assigned to channels 1 and 2, then 3 and 4, and so on? Couldn't different tracks be assigned to outputs 1 and 2, and then 3 and 4 for example for a four monitor setup that would each have different sounds coming out? Or do all output pairs have to have exactly the same stereo mix? If not, then the most recent quotation would just be an annoyance for the user to keep in mind as he went along what was assigned to the daw outputs. I dont' personally have 8 monitors, but would like to configure surround setups, what non-songwriters call spatialization, in performance spaces that do. Hopefully my question is somewhat clear and someone can help. To me, the Presonus Firepod seems quite affordable and reliable but it doesn't really operate as a standalone mixer, and surround routing would be a big plus for me (although I wouldn't do more than stereo without a computer). Or if I decide that i can wait until later purchases to record many simultaneous inputs or to have surround mixing/output, I might just go with the focusrite saffire with the assumption that perhaps I am looking for too many different capabilities with a firewire interface right now (the Mackie is the most expensive that I'm considering). As for the high whine problem, I'm going to be using a plug-in firewire card with a windows operating desktop for now, so I can only hope that I will not be one of the unlucky few. Mr. Anderton also said, "I tested several electronic synths, and was able to kick the meters into the -10dB range on peaks. That’s not really all that bad – you’re basically throwing away less than 2 bits of resolution..". Although the 4 line inputs it seems could have had more included gain, does this mean then that some old gear w/ only unbalanced support would at least provide a decent signal? Anyway, hope some of you can address my questions. I've really appreciated every one's insight as I've been silently following the review. Something no one's mentioned that I just thought of, I believe the included Tracktion 2 doesn't have a lot of plug-ins that comes when one buys it separately; Mackie's web site says it's missing Soundfont-1, M-Clav, M-Pad, ZR-3, AmpliTube LE, Sample Tank 2 SE, RM IV, Free Alpha, Slayer 2, Claw, Hexaline, DualDelay, NastyShaper, and Mabento.

[MikeRivers]

First, a request. When posting a long message like yours, please, please, please use the ENTER key on your keyboard to separate your text inot paragraphs. Yes, you have to hit it twice. It's really difficult to read this much text without giving the eyeballs a break now and then, and it's difficult to reply to it as well. Look at a book or newspaper if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Mr. Anderton I believe stated, "It probably goes without saying, but this is obviously a stereo device…surround need not apply. I suppose if there was enough demand for surround capabilities, it would be possible to devise a mixer configuration that accepted up to eight DAW outs and fed them to the eight line outs.Understand that other than when you're recording in a good acoustical environment, using a surround mic setup such as a Soundfied microphone or a "tree" array (which would actually be a good idea for chamber music), surround mixing is completely artificial and arbitrary. That's one of the fun things about it. You can put any sound wherever you want it in the sound field. In stereo, we take all the recorded tracks (say 24) and assign them proportionally to two outputs, left and right. Those are sent to two speakers. When mixing for surround, you have the same 24 tracks, but you can assign them to any (or all) of six or eight or some other number of outputs. While you have just a one-dimentional (left-right) pan pot to adjust the proportion of the level sent to the two output channels for stereo, in surround, you have a two dimensional (let's not talk about height now) pan pot that can assign a track proportionally to four outputs (left front, right front, left rear, right rear) and perhaps also manage what goes to the center and LFE channels. This is all a job of the mixer.

The built-in mixer on the 400F isn't really designed for final mixdown, it's designed for monitoring while tracking, for which we usually use headphones in the studio. Usually when tracking, even if we intend to mix the final product in surround, we tend to monitor in stereo just because it's more convenient. So this is the "mixer" that Craig was addressing.

The 400F does indeed have eight outputs which can be fed from the DAW mixing program. If your DAW supports surrond mixing with two-dimensional panning, possibly phantom center derivation, and discrete center and LFE channel assignments, those can all be fed to the individual outputs of the 400F, which can be connected to your surround speakers. In a setup like that, you would probably want to connect your main L-R speakers to a pair of line outputs on the 400F rather than the dedicated control room outputs, and use an outboard device (a buch of those appeared on the market about 3 years ago) called a "surround controller" that lets you switch a set of speakers between stereo and surround, and gives you a single volume control that adjusts the level to all speakers simultaneously. Perhaps Mackie will offer one of these in the future.

It would be possible to build this capability into the 400F, of course. Since its mixing is all done with DSP, it might even be possible to do this as an upgrade - Mackie did such an upgrade (sort of) to the d8b digital console when they came up with the Version 3 operating system, and expanded it a bit with Version 5. You had to use the bus outputs to feed the speakers rather than the control room outputs but you could send any channel to any speaker or combination of speakers.

So what you're thinking about might be possible, but as Craig points out, most people who want to mix for surround will probalby not do it until they have the tracks recorded, and willl use the surround mixing tools in their DAW to create the mix, which they'll then send to the dedicated line outputs of the 400F. In this case, you want the 400F to just pass those outputs on to the speakers and not do anything else. One feature that would be pretty easy to add that might be helpful is to switch the Control Room Volume control to a surround mode where rather than act on the pre-assigned L/R control room outputs, it acts on all of the line outputs simultaneously. But that's about as far as I can see the 400F go for surround support.
I actually talked to Mackie on the phone a couple of days ago to specifically make sure all 8 outputs could be assigned for separate monitoring and they said that it could. I'm pretty sure also I got this quote from the mackie web site, "The 400F's eight individual outputs can be used for surround mixing, or for sending four discrete stereo headphone mixes to a headphone amp like one of our new HM Series (coming soon)." That's all correct. What you didn't ask (and what they didn't tell you) was how you could control that surround mix. Perhaps only the simple included mixing software cannot do this, but it could obviously be done with most multitrack editors? Would Tracktion 2 allow one to configure the daw outs to more than stereo for example?Yes, you can assign tracks any output devices that you have available in Tracktion, and in just about every other DAW.Someone said elsewhere, "Also, I think it would be a good idea for the matrix mixer to allow the selection of which daw outputs get sent to a particular pair of outputs rather than having daw outs 1 & 2 hardwired to physicals outs 1 & 2, daw outs 3 & 4 hardwired to physical outs 3 & 4, etcetera."Lots of things would be nice, but a manufacturer has to consider who's going to be using what capability and stop adding features when most of the users are satisfied with the feature set. Otherwise the product would cost too much for just about everyone. Are not the daw outputs whatever is assigned to channels 1 and 2, then 3 and 4, and so on? Couldn't different tracks be assigned to outputs 1 and 2, and then 3 and 4 for example for a four monitor setup that would each have different sounds coming out? Or do all output pairs have to have exactly the same stereo mix?Sure, you can do that. You can assign any track to any single output or pair of outputs (with a pan control to split the signal between them). For example, you could connecte 400F outputs 1-2 to your front left and right speakers, and any track that you assigned to outputs 1-2 could be panned between the left and right front speakers. Similarly, you could connect outputs 3-4 to the rear speakers, and any track assigned to outputs 3-4 could be panned between the two rear speakers.

If you wanted to position a sound somewhere in the middle of the square defined by the speakers, however, you'd need to be able to pan between outputs 1-3 and 2-4 to move it forward and backward, This means that instead of assigning a track to outputs 1-2 or 3-4, you'd have to be able to assign it to all four outputs and your pan control would have to work both in the left-right and front-back directions. This is something that would have to be done in your DAW mixer. I don't believe that Tracktion offers surround panning, but maybe it does. I don't use it enough to have discovered this if it's indeed present.

Then there's the center and LFE channels. Those are usuall discrete so those are just direct assignments from track to output with no panning. That's simple enough. So you could do some rudimentary surround mixing but not full sourround mixing.

Of course if you recorded with a microphone that had discrete outputs for all of the surround chanels, you'd just record its four or five outputs to individual tracks, assign each one to a separate 400F output, connect your speakers, and you have surround.

So, there's plenty of potential there. Levels and whines are things that are unique to your own setup and you'll have to sort those things out when you get there. But since you're not planning to start out doing surround recording, you have time to grow and learn. Unless you give up your own studio, this isn't the last purchase you'll make. It's quite possible that by the time you're ready to make the move to surround mixing you'll have outgrown the 400F anyway.

[doug osborne]

(please learn how to use your enter key to make some paragraphs - your post is really hard to read)

The 400F, as well as any six-or-more-channel audio interface, should work for surround. This is dependant on the software, where you route tracks to physical outputs. The interface's physical outputs are then connected to an appropriate speaker system.

AFAICT Traktion is not surround capable (although you could do a primative surround mix with its AUX sends), but SONAR, Samplitude, and Nuendo (among other PC-based programs) are surround capable.

[amplayer]

OK Mike. Unfortunately, now I'm convinced I need one. I just want to know where my HC discount is. :D

[DemoKing]

2 things...

First, why does it have 2 firewire jacks in the back?

Second... how about a few people let us know what firewire card you installed, where you got it and how much, and what problems or experiences you have had with it.
I need a card, but I cant find anything that says "TI chipset" and shit like that. Maybe you guys know some model numbers or something.

[DemoKing]

And a 3rd thing.... I have a midi trigger keyboard, and am digging up a box to covert triggers to midi. The 400F has one midi in. Whats the best route to go to to get both going without having to unhook one everytime I want to use the other? I know motu and M-audio make things like this, anyone have any experiences with em though?

[Anderton]

<<First, why does it have 2 firewire jacks in the back?>>

So you can daisy-chain multiple FireWire devices. I believe Dan mentioned an update that would allow using multiple 400Fs, having the extra jack would be ideal for that.

<<Second... how about a few people let us know what firewire card you installed, where you got it and how much, and what problems or experiences you have had with it.>>

I bought mine in 2000 and I doubt it's even being made. It cost me $25-$30 IIRC and was made by Siig. I've seen cards at Best Buy and such that do mention the chip set on the packaging. Most of the external cards use the TI chip set. If you have doubts, contact the company or email customer service.

As to extra MIDI ports, you can use a MIDI merger, but it's probably easier and cheaper to install a separate MIDI interface (USB or card).

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by amplayer
OK Mike. Unfortunately, now I'm convinced I need one. I just want to know where my HC discount is. :D Hey, I want to know where my HC commission is.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/Smiley%20Land/Hats03.gif

[ftngrave]

Thanks a lot for the info Mike. I just want to clarify a few of the things you covered. It is now clear to me that the built in mixer is not meant for surround. To clarify, this is because it seems that any of all the recorded tracks you have on your DAW can EACH only be assigned and distributed to two outputs?

I understand that surround mixing would work if your DAW supported assigning a track to any number of outputs, plus pan control that supports more than one dimensional movement.

My other question concerns the onyx built in mixer or even the Tracktion 2 software that someone else says is not surround capable. In the somewhat near future, I am interested in say, 4 separate outputs where the music/sounds for the 4 tracks could bounce around the outputs as to where they were assigned, but not move smoothly as in panning in different directions. Although my question seems to maybe imply that even some panning might be possible. My question: with either the built in mixer or Tracktion 2, couldn't one duplicate certain tracks-let's say, a line of music ultimately mixed down within tracks 1 and 2 could be duplicated to be ultimately mixed down within tracks 3 and 4-thus this duplication within assigning tracks in the DAW would get around only being able to apply certain tracks to only 2 outputs?

If, like the above example, I only wanted to have 4 separate outputs with any of my tracks assigned to each, and I also only wanted to be able to change where each of the 4 mixed down tracks appeared out of the 4 monitors while the music progressed over time, then couldn't I achieve this by duplicating tracks and assigning them to other tracks?

I hope this is clear. My implication with these questions is that one could have multiple outputs without surround capability within the DAW, given that one didn't wantt to do surround panning.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by ftngrave
It is now clear to me that the built in mixer is not meant for surround. To clarify, this is because it seems that any of all the recorded tracks you have on your DAW can EACH only be assigned and distributed to two outputs?I'm really beyond what I can tell you for sure here as I don't have a 400F. But looking at the block diagram and the manual, this seems to be my conclusion, and the conclusion of others who have had their hands on the unit. There are two sets of outputs from the DSP block. One is a set of 8 outputs going to an 8-channel D/A converter which feeds the line outputs 1-8. The other is a pair of outputs going to a two-channel D/A converter that feeds the control room and headphone outputs.

From what I can tell from the single screen shot of the Mixer control panel (pg. 26) there are only DAW Outputs 1-2, over at the right-hand end of the mixer. If you click on the OUTPUTS 3-4 tab, do you see DAW Outputs 3-4 in that mixer position, or do you still see DAW Outputs 1-2? I suspect that it's just 1-2 - in orther words, you can make a mix to each of the four output pairs that consists of DAW Outputs 1-2 (a stereo mix that you make "in the box") and some combination of inputs.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mikerivers/UploadedFiles/400FMIX.JPG

If indeed there are more than DAW Outputs 1-2 available then you could use those other outputs to generate other pairs in your surround mix. I don't think they're there, but if they were, then surround mixing would be more obvious and better publicized.

I'm sorry but I cannot answer the rest of your questions without actually playing with the unit. You'll have to find someone who has one and can try what you're looking to do.

Do you have a local dealer who can set up a demo for you? Perhaps that would be a good way to learn what you want to know. And maybe the dealer would know something. You could try calling Mackie, ask for "Pre-Sales Support." Tell them where you live and ask where you can go to get a good demo. Maybe a rep will bring one to your house.

[amplayer]

Originally posted by MikeRivers
I'm really beyond what I can tell you for sure here as I don't have a 400F. But looking at the block diagram and the manual, this seems to be my conclusion, and the conclusion of others who have had their hands on the unit. There are two sets of outputs from the DSP block. One is a set of 8 outputs going to an 8-channel D/A converter which feeds the line outputs 1-8. The other is a pair of outputs going to a two-channel D/A converter that feeds the control room and headphone outputs.

From what I can tell from the single screen shot of the Mixer control panel (pg. 26) there are only DAW Outputs 1-2, over at the right-hand end of the mixer. If you click on the OUTPUTS 3-4 tab, do you see DAW Outputs 3-4 in that mixer position, or do you still see DAW Outputs 1-2? I suspect that it's just 1-2 - in orther words, you can make a mix to each of the four output pairs that consists of DAW Outputs 1-2 (a stereo mix that you make "in the box") and some combination of inputs.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mikerivers/UploadedFiles/400FMIX.JPG

If indeed there are more than DAW Outputs 1-2 available then you could use those other outputs to generate other pairs in your surround mix. I don't think they're there, but if they were, then surround mixing would be more obvious and better publicized.

I'm sorry but I cannot answer the rest of your questions without actually playing with the unit. You'll have to find someone who has one and can try what you're looking to do.

Do you have a local dealer who can set up a demo for you? Perhaps that would be a good way to learn what you want to know. And maybe the dealer would know something. You could try calling Mackie, ask for "Pre-Sales Support." Tell them where you live and ask where you can go to get a good demo. Maybe a rep will bring one to your house.

I thought you worked for Mackie. Can't you get one?

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by amplayer
I thought you worked for Mackie. Can't you get one? I did work there as a contractor for six months about five years ago. I occasionaly do a documentation job for them now and then, but no, I don't work for them. About all they do for me now is send me a Christmas card. ;)

I supppose that if I wanted to play with a 400F they'd lend me one, but since I don't really need it and if I had it, I'd just be better informed when it comes to posting on forums. That sounds too much like work. :eek:

[Anderton]

<<If you click on the OUTPUTS 3-4 tab, do you see DAW Outputs 3-4 in that mixer position, or do you still see DAW Outputs 1-2? >>

You indeed see 3-4...if you click Outputs 5/6 you see DAW outputs 5-6, etc.

You could indeed use the interface for surround, as there are enough outs and such. But there is no surround-oriented control (e.g., surround panning, Sub controls, etc). That would all need to be in what's feeding the 400F, as well as what follows it.

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by Anderton
You indeed see 3-4...if you click Outputs 5/6 you see DAW outputs 5-6, etc.

You could indeed use the interface for surround, as there are enough outs and such. But there is no surround-oriented control (e.g., surround panning, Sub controls, etc). That would all need to be in what's feeding the 400F, as well as what follows it. Thanks for checking. I figured somebody out there could look at that screen. So if you have a DAW program (not Tracktion) that offers surround panning, you could assign outputs 1-4 to the four corner speakers, 5 to the center, 6 to LFE and set all the 400F playback output levels equal (or whatever it takes to balance the speakers).

If you want bass management as well as (or in addition to) a discrete LFE channel, that would need to be external, but there are a number of subwoofers that have inputs (and high-passed filtered outputs) for the surround channels and send the bass to the sub.

So what's the big worry? Sure you can do surround mixing through the 400F (just not with it). :love:

Sequoia has a surround panning mode. What else out there that a 400F owner could afford can do surround panning? Samplitude, maybe? Some flavor of Cubase?

But . . . (there's always a but) the 400F mixer lets you create a mix of the 8 inputs plus DAW outputs 1-2 on outputs 1-2, and a mix of the 8 inputs plus DAW outputs 3-4 on outputs 3-4, etc. So let's say you have some backing tracks and now want to overdub two singers in the same pass. Each singer wants to hear the backing tracks and somehow they manage to agree that the engineer's mix is good enough for both of them. But each one wants to hear himself louder than the other singer in his headphones.

So you connect outputs 1-2 to Don's headphone amplifier, turn up DAW 1-2 and the two singers' mics. Crank Don's mic input up a few notches and he's happy.

Now, you want to send outputs 3-4 to Phil's headphones. So you select Output 3-4, Crank up Phil's mic input a bit higher than Don's and then scratch your head. You see faders for DAW outputs 3-4, but your backing tracks are assigned to outputs 1-2 and you've already got that mix happening in the DAW. So how do Phil and Don get the same mix of backing tracks when only one of them has the faders for those tracks on his "headphone mixer?"

You'd have to assign the DAW tracks to both outputs 1-2 and 3-4 and I'm not sure you can do that on most DAWs (at least not without going into a surround mode). I suppose you could bounce your mix to a pair of tracks or a stereo track, make a copy of that mix, un-assign the outputs from all the raw tracks and assign one mix to outputs 1-2 and the other mix to outputs 3-4.

Whew! Am I missing something simple?

[ftngrave]

I appreciate all the feedback. With the Onyx interface, of course with a DAW program that supports surround, you could have surround.

For my example, which would be to use outputs 1, 2, 3, and 4 to have ANY or ALL recorded tracks (voiding surround oriented panning or control)-even on DAW software that doesn't support surround, it seems to be possible. And the following examples of assigning what occurs on each of the 4 outputs over time would allow one to have different individual tracks "bounce around the outputs..but not move smoothly as in panning in different directions."

For 1-2 and 3-4 to have exclusively different tracks, each track would simply be assigned to one of the two output pairs (which we now acknowledged was possible with the interface routing); for 1 to have an exclusive track that's not heard on 2, one would simply pan all the way to 1. For 1-2 and 3-4 to have the same tracks, I would assume you could duplicate the track on your DAW software, and assign one of them to the 1-2 output and its clone or duplication to the 3-4 output.

This configuration to have two separate output pairs with one track is similar to your example of two separate output pairs with one stereo mix-"I suppose you could bounce your mix to a pair of tracks or a stereo track, make a copy of that mix, un-assign the outputs from all the raw tracks and assign one mix to outputs 1-2 and the other mix to outputs 3-4." Thus my thinking is that most simple DAW multitrack software could use the routing of the Onyx's included mixing software to do this.

I hope this overall example makes sense, and if you, Mike (or anyone else), are still with patience, please comment on it.

[composer]

Confused, read about from 6 on...

If I have SX 3, which supports surround will it do surround or not?

Thanks!

[DemoKing]

Regarding the needing-more-midi ports problem I have... my drum module has a midi in, out, and thru... can I plug the out from the module into the 400F, and plug my keyboard into the thru and not have to screw around with changing plus every time? If so, that rocks. I'm assuming thru just passes signal on, I'm not very knowledgable on midi implementations....

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by composer
If I have SX 3, which supports surround will it do surround or not?I dunno. What does the Cubase manual tell you about hardware requirements for mixing in surround? If it will let you assign a track to four or more outputs and it has at least a two-axis pan pot for the track, then, yes, you can use the 400F with it.

And what do you mean by "do surround?"

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by DemoKing
Regarding the needing-more-midi ports problem I have... my drum module has a midi in, out, and thru... can I plug the out from the module into the 400F, and plug my keyboard into the thru and not have to screw around with changing plus every time? I don't follow what you said, but I don't think so. MIDI THRU is a copy of whatever goes in to the MIDI IN.

If you have MIDI data on the computer for both the drums and keyboard, you could connect MIDI OUT of the 400F to MIDI IN on your drum module, then MIDI THRU from the drum module to MIDI IN of the synth. If you connect the MIDI OUT of the keyboard to MIDI IN on the 400F, then you can enter MIDI data into the computer via the keyboard.

[ftngrave]

Mike, does my last post simply not make sense? Or do you just not know of any information that would be helpful to do what I am describing?

[MikeRivers]

Originally posted by ftngrave
Mike, does my last post simply not make sense? Or do you just not know of any information that would be helpful to do what I am describing? Sorry, but I couldn't figure out what you were asking, or describing.

What is it that you would like to do?

[amplayer]

Anyone know pricing and availability of the Mackie 1200F?

[DemoKing]

My 400F is offically on the way now. I need to order a firewire card, anyone have suggestions?

Locally, there is a shop here that will order anything you want and put it on a rent-to-own plan for 1 year. You can get Bogner amps, just about anything. Makes it nice when you cant afford something outright. Also makes it hard to resist buying things. I could have taken the 400F home for $150 if I wanted to.

Time to order my Brent Averill 312a now :)

Paul

[harryjames]

Originally posted by Anderton
<<Second... how about a few people let us know what firewire card you installed, where you got it and how much, and what problems or experiences you have had with it.>>

FYI I know that CompUSA also sells a PCMCIA 6pin firewire for laptops. The card can be powered by the buss and also by A/C power and is also made by SIIG.

Until my 400F arrives and I use it with MY lappy I wont have anything to report.

;;cheers;;