Steinberg CSX mr816

[Remeniz]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Why wouldn't you want to bypass the pres? They are really nice pres, but if you want something with a little more flavor, this is the only way to bypass the pres, correct?

I haven't got a really nice mic pre so I guess I was a bit hasty and pre-judgmental with my previous comment. My bad.

When I can afford a really nice outboard pre' i'll check it out and see if there is that much of a difference.

I assumed that an outboard pre would be able to send a decent level into the MR816 without having to use any gain.

[Black Shadow]

I wonder if there'd be a noticeable difference in sound between an external pre bypassing the inputs via the MR816's inserts and the same pre hooked up to the inputs at zero level.

Unfortunately, as I don't have any external pres I can't do the experiment...

[Big_Bang]

I do, and I tell you, I wish all my problems in the world were this.

People are way too paranoid. Its not like you're unable to bypass a dirty, hiss and fizzy, or extremely coloured preamp.

Its clean as a whistle and make no diff at ALL.

[Remeniz]

Originally Posted by Big_Bang

I do, and I tell you, I wish all my problems in the world were this.

People are way too paranoid. Its not like you're unable to bypass a dirty, hiss and frizzy, or extremely coloured preamp.

It clean as a whistle and make no diff at ALL.

This is what I thought. With little to no gain I reckon the pre's are pretty transparent.

[Big_Bang]

Let me just make a slutty addendum... it makes no practical difference at all. Obviously one MUST put this on the stand as not being a proper procedure, BUT, technology has come a long way and I hear absolutely zero degradation, noise, or any artifact that would make me steer away from just slapping whatever and hit rec

And yes, I did, extensively, swap between the returns and directly through the pre's trying to find something. Just turn down gain and engage the pad, and "crank" your outboard to good level and you'll hear nothing but your external outboard's character and tone.

[imaginaryday]

Originally Posted by Black Shadow

I wonder if there'd be a noticeable difference in sound between an external pre bypassing the inputs via the MR816's inserts and the same pre hooked up to the inputs at zero level.

Unfortunately, as I don't have any external pres I can't do the experiment...

just make sure you engage the pad on the mr input.

[Red Baron]

Johnkenn wrote :

"I don't think I've opened the MR editor more than three or four times...I route everything via protools..."

Hi Johnkenn, I also use Pro Tools 9 (PC), and I am interested in Mr 816x, could you tell us in which cases you had to open MR Editor?, because it could not be done by Pto Tools, I hope you remember them.

I thought MR editor is necessary when using DAWs other than Cubase and Nuendo, so when I read you route everyhing via Pro Tools, I came up with that question.

[Johnkenn]

Well - for one, you can use the MR editor to control the no latency monitoring

[Red Baron]

Thanks Johnkenn.

So, the rest of the cases you do everything by Pro Tools 9, right?

[Johnkenn]

Yes. Basically you're just muting the channel in pt and hearing the monitoring using the outputs from the mr editor.

[Red Baron]

Great!

Johnkenn, could you tell me if the USB version of MR 816 is just a rumour or a real fact that it´s going to be released in the near future?

Maybe the wait is worth.

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

Great!

Johnkenn, could you tell me if the USB version of MR 816 is just a rumour or a real fact that it´s going to be released in the near future?

Maybe the wait is worth.

It is out, it is the UR824. It is very much like the MR816, but has two sets of ADAT I/O.

[Red Baron]

It is out, it is the UR824. It is very much like the MR816, but has two sets of ADAT I/O

Thanks Beyersound, I didn´t know that, do you know if UR824 preamps, ADDA converters and headphone outputs have the same quality and sound as MR816?

I guess I was expecting exactly the same MR816 with added USB.

[beingmf]

Originally Posted by Beyersound

It is out, it is the UR824. It is very much like the MR816, but has two sets of ADAT I/O.

Does anybody here actually use it? I have no idea at all how USB (or rather: the CPU) would handle 24 i/o's in 24/96 – which is advertised!?
I simply can't believe it works without major hiccups.

[didier.brest]

22 In + 22 out @ 24 bits x 96 kHz in USB for the Fireface UFX.

[drumdrum]

Originally Posted by beingmf

Does anybody here actually use it? I have no idea at all how USB (or rather: the CPU) would handle 24 i/o's in 24/96 – which is advertised!?
I simply can't believe it works without major hiccups.

I don't think the ur824 is released until November. Another month or so should explain all...

[enossified]

Waking this thread up from the dead.

My application is this:

Motif XF with FW16e interface connected to a MacBook Pro. This is a home hobby setup.

Currently using Live 8 as my primary DAW but trying to like Cubase AI5 more (ha ha) because of the AI integration with the Motif (full control surface for Cubase with scribble strips on the Motif display, acts as a VSTi).

I also own a Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 (8x8 analog plus stereo SPDIF), now using it strictly as mike preamps driving the stereo analog ins of the Motif.

For those who don't know the FW16e, it's 16x6 audio (plus 4 ports of MIDI) routed through the Motif but there's only 2 analog ins. The remaining channels send the Motif's multitimbral parts as isolated audio tracks. The 6 returns are for two stereo mixes plus a stereo FX loop. Compared to the Saffire, this is a big deal when tracking the Motif but a step backwards when tracking analog sources. I can switch back to the Saffire for analog tracking but then I'm repatching, switching drivers, etc.

The MR816X daisy chains with the FW16e using the same driver so I can use both at the same time as a single interface. So no repatching to track analog sources (whoopee) and I can routes monitoring through the Motif.

OK now my questions

1. Audio quality
The Focusrite sounds pretty good to me, reviewers all praise the pres, etc. Are the MR pres and A/D as good or better? Final D/A will be the Motif so the MR D/A quality is a non-issue.

2. Daisy chaining/clocking
Anyone actually daisy chained two Yamaha/Steinberg interfaces, does this really work as advertised? Any gotchas with clocking? Using Motif SPDIF with the Saffire, I had to set the Saffire to use the SPDIF clock or else I got clicking. I am not using word clock and probably never will.

3. Cubase AI features
With AI5 I'm partially crippled, no Control Room so I lose the intgrated monitoring functions unless I upgrade to Cubase 6 (ouch...this is a hobby setup). I already get the Motif AI features (editor VST, auto config of FW16e ports) so probably (not 100% sure) the MR Quick Connect and DSP plugins. Is anyone so much in love with QC that they can't live without it now? If it really speeds up tracking in Cubase that would be great as I find configuring tracks currently a hassle compared to the same in Live.

4. CSX channel strips vs. REV-X
How useful are these in mixdown vs. the extra $$$$? Do the strips sound any better than the Cubase EQ and compression? How much CPU will they save me? I read that when using no channel strips, CSX can have three REV-X instances during mixing...does that mean X has fewer REV-X instances? I already get one REV-X with the Motif for FX looping via FW16e.

5. Wasting My Money
Any MR owners have buyer's remorse? Esp. if you were using a Saffire Pro 40 before

Thx in advance...

[cul de sac]

I've been trying to download the latest updates for the MR 816 software but the links on the Steinberg site to their ftp server don't work.

Does anyone know anywhere else that a Mac version of V 1.7.2-2 of TOOLS for MR would be available anywhere else on the net? Or alternatively is there anyone who already has it who would be willing to upload it somewhere for a solid dose of internet karma?

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by enossified

1. Audio quality
The Focusrite sounds pretty good to me, reviewers all praise the pres, etc. Are the MR pres and A/D as good or better? Final D/A will be the Motif so the MR D/A quality is a non-issue.

The MR pres are outstanding, the conversion is very good, especially the D/A. I would say they are definitely better than the Focusrite.

Originally Posted by enossified

2. Daisy chaining/clocking
Anyone actually daisy chained two Yamaha/Steinberg interfaces, does this really work as advertised? Any gotchas with clocking? Using Motif SPDIF with the Saffire, I had to set the Saffire to use the SPDIF clock or else I got clicking. I am not using word clock and probably never will.

I own two MR816x, I have them clocked together with the BNC WC connections, and I have an ADA8000 Adat in to them as well, clocked down the Adat cable. Everything including the driver is solid as a rock with Cubase 6.05.

Originally Posted by enossified

3. Cubase AI features
With AI5 I'm partially crippled, no Control Room so I lose the intgrated monitoring functions unless I upgrade to Cubase 6 (ouch...this is a hobby setup). I already get the Motif AI features (editor VST, auto config of FW16e ports) so probably (not 100% sure) the MR Quick Connect and DSP plugins. Is anyone so much in love with QC that they can't live without it now? If it really speeds up tracking in Cubase that would be great as I find configuring tracks currently a hassle compared to the same in Live.

Quick Connect is a great workflow feature, very handy.

Originally Posted by enossified

4. CSX channel strips vs. REV-X
How useful are these in mixdown vs. the extra $$$$? Do the strips sound any better than the Cubase EQ and compression? How much CPU will they save me? I read that when using no channel strips, CSX can have three REV-X instances during mixing...does that mean X has fewer REV-X instances? I already get one REV-X with the Motif for FX looping via FW16e.

The EQ and comps definitely sound better. Read the manual about the other stuff, don't use them much.

Originally Posted by enossified

5. Wasting My Money
Any MR owners have buyer's remorse? Esp. if you were using a Saffire Pro 40 before

No. Had an Emu 1820m that I liked a lot before, but this is much better overall.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by Beyersound

....the conversion is very good, especially the D/A. I would say they are definitely better than the Focusrite.

Very interesting. There must be some a particularly good sounding analog signal chain in the mr's output stage in that case, which is very possible of course, because the d/a converter chip itself (one chip for all 8 d/a channels) is a fairly low performance chip compared to most other products, even affordable products, that you can buy.

From my experience, conversion differences are by FAR the smallest and least audible, if audible at all, things to worry about in recording. I say that because even the worst converters (which this would have to be one of, in the d/a section only though) still sound virtually perfect and transparent to most people (including me typically).

Hence my point that it must be the output stage's analog circuits that sound good, since the output d/a converter chip itself couldn't possibly be adding anything particularly special to the sound other than slightly more noise than most other audio interfaces would have.

It's interesting when someone points out d/a as sounding great. In this particular case it can't be the d/a that sounds special since that same chip in other products sounds uninspiring.

So despite the very average at best d/a conversion accuracy in this product, it sounds really good to many people, which is truly what counts.

It's getting to the point where I'm actually considering picking one up. I already have vastly superior conversion in a much older cheaper and less feature laden product, but conversion alone doesn't make an audio interface great. And having some built in dsp would be nice, although I don't really need more good sounding neutral mic pres as I already have a dozen of those in my yamaha board (which are possibly exactly the same mic pres in fact, and yes I really like them in my rm800 board).

And of course, if someone disliked the sound of the output stage for whatever reason (or just wanted to know that they had better d/a conversion on paper for whatever reason), then it's easy enough to use a different product for d/a conversion.

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by dkelley

It's getting to the point where I'm actually considering picking one up. I already have vastly superior conversion in a much older cheaper and less feature laden product, but conversion alone doesn't make an audio interface great. And having some built in dsp would be nice, although I don't really need more good sounding neutral mic pres as I already have a dozen of those in my yamaha board (which are possibly exactly the same mic pres in fact, and yes I really like them in my rm800 board).

Actually the pres in the MR816 are very different, and much upgraded from the ones in the RM800.They are true class A (they run pretty warm because of it), the development of them started with the DM2000, and PM-5000, then the N12. They also have around 70db of nice clean gain, plenty for ribbons, SM-7, etc. The analog stage is really good sounding (not sure of what opamps are used), the pres are much better than most onboard pres out there.

[JWF]

Originally Posted by Black Shadow

I wonder if there'd be a noticeable difference in sound between an external pre bypassing the inputs via the MR816's inserts and the same pre hooked up to the inputs at zero level.

Unfortunately, as I don't have any external pres I can't do the experiment...

I have the UR824 (USB version of the MR). I record my external preamps through the preamps on the UR padded. It does not effect the sound in the least bit (atleast to my ears).

In fact just tonight, when I had some free time, I decided to test out how the UR converters handled sending stuff out and back into the box using the preamps padded. I did this since Ive got some new outboard gear for bus work coming in soon.

In a nutshell, I exported a file from Reason (all ITB) and imported into Cubase. I setup 3 external FXs. Basically each external FX was just a trip out of a set of outputs and back into a set of inputs with no gear in between. I put all 3 of these FXs on the same channel. I exported a file with all of the FXs bypassed and one with all of them active (basically 3 trips out of the box). I listened quite a bit and had a hard time hearing any difference and I mean at all. I was actually surprised as I figured atleast a small difference would be noticeable. I put them into fubar2000 and did an ABX test. I did three separate tests and scored 6/10, 3/10 and 6/14.

Now granted this isnt a scientific test but I like to think I have a decent ear for things. Im thinking I might make a thread soon posting the clips and see if anyone else can figure out which clips are which. There might be a few people who can but the difference seems anything but obvious.

[Shannon Adkins]

Originally Posted by JWF

I have the UR824 (USB version of the MR). I record my external preamps through the preamps on the UR padded. It does not effect the sound in the least bit (atleast to my ears).

In fact just tonight, when I had some free time, I decided to test out how the UR converters handled sending stuff out and back into the box using the preamps padded. I did this since Ive got some new outboard gear for bus work coming in soon.

In a nutshell, I exported a file from Reason (all ITB) and imported into Cubase. I setup 3 external FXs. Basically each external FX was just a trip out of a set of outputs and back into a set of inputs with no gear in between. I put all 3 of these FXs on the same channel. I exported a file with all of the FXs bypassed and one with all of them active (basically 3 trips out of the box). I listened quite a bit and had a hard time hearing any difference and I mean at all. I was actually surprised as I figured atleast a small difference would be noticeable. I put them into fubar2000 and did an ABX test. I did three separate tests and scored 6/10, 3/10 and 6/14.

Now granted this isnt a scientific test but I like to think I have a decent ear for things. Im thinking I might make a thread soon posting the clips and see if anyone else can figure out which clips are which. There might be a few people who can but the difference seems anything but obvious.

Yes do that. I think it would be very helpful and informative...especially in light of the loopback thread. Thanks!

[JWF]

Originally Posted by Shannon Adkins

Yes do that. I think it would be very helpful and informative...especially in light of the loopback thread. Thanks!

I will. I just dont want to look like a total fool if everyone guesses right! lol.

Ill put them up soon though.