Steinberg MR816 vs Apogee Ensamble - The Definative Answer please! (No specualtion)

[smoovemode]

I have read all the threads comparing these two and they end up getting convoluted with other stuff. Can someone, who has used these two interfaces, give me the low down on them and them only? I want to upgrade from my profire 2626 to something with good enough pres to record a professional CD with.

Some things about my setup.

I use a Mac Pro 12 core system
I use Logic as my primary DAW, but I also use Pro Tools
I have not chosen a Mic yet. But, I'm looking at the AKG C414 XLS, Shure CSM44 and Rode NTK or K2. The Mic will be for mostly Vocals and Maybe Sax.
The vocalist I will be working has a very good and very versatile range. She can sound like Chaka Khan or sing oldies with the best of them.

Let me get one question out of the way? There are few different models of the Steinberg MR816 (X and CSX, I think). Are their specs the same, with the exception of the DSP chip that I probably can't use in Logic anyways?

Now to the real deal! I heard someone say that the Steinberg, because of it's yamaha pres, is just as good or better than the Apogee! Is this true or false? In reference to the AD/DA stuff what's the difference between the two?

Thanks

[dxavier]

The question you are asking has no real answer. You want someone to say that one is better than the other, but you will only obtain subjective answers. They are both fantastic sounding interfaces for the price and will both produce professional quality recordings. They are both a good step up from the Profire and you will be happy with either. Simply look at which one provides the best set of features for your projects. You will not be disappointed with either.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Gearslutz.com

[smoovemode]

DX, Thanks for your reply. My goal was to simply confirm that the Steinberg mic pre and converter claims were true. If that's the case, then I would prefer to buy a Steinberg for 1/3rd the price!

[JWF]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

DX, Thanks for your reply. My goal was to simply confirm that the Steinberg mic pre and converter claims were true. If that's the case, then I would prefer to buy a Steinberg for 1/3rd the price!

Im sure both sound great and I would agree with DX you probably cant wrong with either

But ill say from personal experience...I just got the UR824 (USB brother of MR816) and it really does sound great.

I had an Audiofire 8 which I was basically using as a converter box (did a great job too) and I was expecting to use a similar setup with my UR and maybe use a few of the onboard pres when needed......

Well after 5 hours of messing around with it I havnt even tried to plug in any of my outboard pres because the onboard ones sound so good. Ive seen people on this forum claim they wouldnt be affraid to track entirely with these. I can see why.

Converter wise...The Audiofire has pretty good converters for the money but the UR might be a step up.

[smoovemode]

That bit of information just closed the deal. I wanted a interface that could do exactly that. Now all I have to do is get a really good Mic.

[orbro]

Not to rain on your parade but how do you know what the preamps in your Profire sound like if you don't have a mic? The Profire 2626 is a perfectly good piece of kit with nice clean mic pres that can be used to record a "professional" CD.

I'd say that a good mic is going to make a much bigger difference than crossgrading to another low end interface.

[euphoria89]

I've used the profire and upgraded to the 816x. The pres on the 2626 are sterile and boring. Nothing special about them. Sound as bad as the fast track range.

I now use the 816x and it has amazing pres (8x) and conversion that is as good, if not better than rme 400/800 series. It's by no means a low end product. It's up there with the best!

[satissounds]

Originally Posted by JWF

Im sure both sound great and I would agree with DX you probably cant wrong with either

But ill say from personal experience...I just got the UR824 (USB brother of MR816) and it really does sound great.

I had an Audiofire 8 which I was basically using as a converter box (did a great job too) and I was expecting to use a similar setup with my UR and maybe use a few of the onboard pres when needed......

Well after 5 hours of messing around with it I havnt even tried to plug in any of my outboard pres because the onboard ones sound so good. Ive seen people on this forum claim they wouldnt be affraid to track entirely with these. I can see why.

Converter wise...The Audiofire has pretty good converters for the money but the UR might be a step up.

Hi, I have the Audiofire 8 which i use just for the DA conversion. Have you tried the UR enough to say if the converters in it are a step up from the A8 because I'm looking to upgrade next year and would love to know what you think of them. I already have outboard pres so i'm just interested in the DA side.

[JWF]

Originally Posted by satissounds

Hi, I have the Audiofire 8 which i use just for the DA conversion. Have you tried the UR enough to say if the converters in it are a step up from the A8 because I'm looking to upgrade next year and would love to know what you think of them. I already have outboard pres so i'm just interested in the DA side.

Yeah. I think the UR is better all around converter wise but DA is probably where the more noticeable difference is IMO.

Just a side note. I finally plugged in an outboard pre with 0 gain and the pad on. Didnt notice any coloration by the UR pre at all. Sounded great. Ill have to test it out with more stuff but I feel pretty confident ill be able to use my outboard gear without a hitch.

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by euphoria89

I now use the 816x and it has amazing pres (8x) and conversion that is as good, if not better than rme 400/800 series. It's by no means a low end product. It's up there with the best!

Don't know about the preamps, but when it comes to AD/DA conversion, one of the few (possibly the only?) scientific or objective test of different converters here on GS seems to suggest that the MR's converters are actually very poor - particularly on the AD side. And certainly worse than the RME FF400 (in fact, worse than most everything else that has been tested so far, although not by much in some cases). The big surprise in there are the ones that come out well (certainly if you go by some of the common wisdom found on Gearslutz).

The thread is here if you're interested in looking at the test method and seeing the results so far.

[ Edit: Just revisiting this thread from the start and realised that I commented on the MR's AD side converters above - I meant the DA side, as discussed later in this thread. ]

[JWF]

Originally Posted by adrianww

Don't know about the preamps, but when it comes to AD/DA conversion, one of the few (possibly the only?) scientific or objective test of different converters here on GS seems to suggest that the MR's converters are actually very poor - particularly on the AD side. And certainly worse than the RME FF400 (in fact, worse than most everything else that has been tested so far, although not by much in some cases). The big surprise in there are the ones that come out well (certainly if you go by some of the common wisdom found on Gearslutz).

The thread is here if you're interested in looking at the test method and seeing the results so far.

I havnt heard the RME stuff first hand (im sure they sound very good) but judging any audio equipment through generated waves, loopback tests and analyzers seems silly IMHO. Who cares if gear performs better on scientific tests if the audible differences are negligble? I know what goes in and out of the UR sounds very good. I know I personally wouldnt worry at all about sending out a signal out for effects and bringing it back in if I wanted to do that.

Im sure there are some who claim they can hear a huge difference between the RME and MR816/UR824 (and i suspect its people wanting to justify their choice of gear..and that goes both ways) but it seems the general opinions on this forum are that the MR816 atleast holds its own against the RMEs and the Apogees sound wise. Id have to hear the RME myself to make that judgement but I know that the UR is a great sounding box.

[smoovemode]

I understand your point and do not disagree at all that the UR sounds great. However, I feel the test have some merit since the person who was so critical about the MR conversion was the owner. I'm sure he would have stood up for his piece if he thought the tests were wrong or thought the MR performs better than it tests. Now, I'm leaning towards apogee. However, I wanted to bounce something off of you guys. Would I be better off getting a converter (like a used rosetta) that has a lot of bang for the buck and then a dedicated preamp (dual or quad) for the mic pres?

i.e New/Used converter @ 500.00 and ISA 428 OR EQUAL combo.

If this is a decent idea. What are some of the name brands of dedicated low price converters that perform like more expensive ones?

From what I've read an audio interface is a combo of converters and pres. So, what's wrong with "separates"? Is there something I'm missing? I don't need 8 pres for my setup. Shoot...I hardly need 4! Do you see what I'm saying?

[JWF]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

I understand your point and do not disagree at all that the UR sounds great. However, I feel the test have some merit since the person who was so critical about the MR conversion was the owner. I'm sure he would have stood up for his piece if he thought the tests were wrong or thought the MR performs better than it tests. Now, I'm leaning towards apogee. However, I wanted to bounce something off of you guys. Would I be better off getting a converter (like a used rosetta) that has a lot of bang for the buck and then a dedicated preamp (dual or quad) for the mic pres?

i.e New/Used converter @ 500.00 and ISA 428 OR EQUAL combo.

If this is a decent idea. What are some of the name brands of dedicated low price converters that perform like more expensive ones?

From what I've read an audio interface is a combo of converters and pres. So, what's wrong with "separates"? Is there something I'm missing? I don't need 8 pres for my setup. Shoot...I hardly need 4! Do you see what I'm saying?

Certainly a fair point. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. . Just another opinion amongst many.

There's nothing wrong with outboard pres and converters though. Especially if youre looking to just add a few really good channels. At first, I was actually thinking about trying out the 428mkII and maybe the digital card. But I needed a USB interface anyways for my laptop.

I wish I could give you feedback about good converters for the money. Havnt really researched or demo'd any of them to this point.

You could always buy and try or If youre in the states, im pretty sure Samcash and Guitar Center carry Steiny, ISA and RME stuff.

[Killah_Trakz]

Let me chime in and say theirs nothing wrong with the profire it's a dam good card. Problem with a lot of folks is not the gear. It's either the mics n room.

Shit I even heard HD sessions and they sound like shit without a mix. You also have 16 adat inputs. If its that bad find a lynx or an older rme ado unit.

[drumdrum]

Mic choice and its impact on a mix always trumps converter and preamp choice. Always.

Dont get hung up on converter choice. Your microphone will make or break a sound. Converters won't.

I own a mr816x, and don't let that other thread fool you. They are amazing pieces of kit (as also are rme and apogee stuff) and all 3 are more than capable of producing a professional record. I own as 816x and have used a ff800 and ensemble before. Both are also stellar pieces of kit, though the ensemble is more expensive. Ff800 only gives you 4 preamps also, though you say that that would be ok for you so I would still consider it. Preamp quality is subjective anyways, and tbh, its got maybe at most 5% impact on the sound anyways. (the test being, player, instrument quality, mic choice and mic position)

Remember, records are made by people, not converters, so dont worry too much about these 3 brands / products. Get one of these (i recommend the 816x if purely from price point), get some decent mics, and most importantly, learn how to use them. The biggest asset to any studio is the engineer...not the gear.

Best of luck!

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Gearslutz.com

[Nrt]

Originally Posted by adrianww

Don't know about the preamps, but when it comes to AD/DA conversion, one of the few (possibly the only?) scientific or objective test of different converters here on GS seems to suggest that the MR's converters are actually very poor - particularly on the AD side. And certainly worse than the RME FF400 (in fact, worse than most everything else that has been tested so far, although not by much in some cases). The big surprise in there are the ones that come out well (certainly if you go by some of the common wisdom found on Gearslutz).

The thread is here if you're interested in looking at the test method and seeing the results so far.

The thread you pointed is not scientific at all.

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by Nrt

The thread you pointed is not scientific at all.

Well, that's your call. Just thought I'd mention it - it does at least seem to be one of the few threads where some kind of objective test is being attempted as opposed to folks just saying "Ooh, I like this one". I'm still thinking through it and working out the pros and cons of the way that the tests are being done. In the interests of contributing and helping out I'll download the test file and try it through my own interface sometime to see how it goes - the results might suck but that doesn't actually bother me since, for what I do, my system works well enough and sounds fine to me. I'm certainly not going to send it back and replace it if it does turn out poor results.

(And it might - I'm not expecting great things since I've heard of one or two other tests where it doesn't come out all that well and I've seen occasional bitching about it here on GS too, but I still bought it even knowing that, so...)

[Nrt]

Originally Posted by adrianww

Well, that's your call. Just thought I'd mention it - it does at least seem to be one of the few threads where some kind of objective test is being attempted as opposed to folks just saying "Ooh, I like this one". I'm still thinking through it and working out the pros and cons of the way that the tests are being done. In the interests of contributing and helping out I'll download the test file and try it through my own interface sometime to see how it goes - the results might suck but that doesn't actually bother me since, for what I do, my system works well enough and sounds fine to me. I'm certainly not going to send it back and replace it if it does turn out poor results.

(And it might - I'm not expecting great things since I've heard of one or two other tests where it doesn't come out all that well and I've seen occasional bitching about it here on GS too, but I still bought it even knowing that, so...)

I have a Mytek 8x192 which got the best score on that stuxxd null test, but I KNOW it doesn't mean anything. Period. You really have to think about the method that used there. That is the thread for ignorant novice. Don't worry about bad score of your interface.

[smoovemode]

Let's say I get a mic pre and it's da/ad card? Would that bypass the interface and would that proprietary card out perform something like an apogee Rosetta?

Guys, thanks for your input. You are correct, I believe a mic is my next purchase. But, I read this review about a converter and the guy said it changed his life and made the music sound better. I now realize that was his opinion...lol

[adrianww]

Hey - Nrt, it's OK. I haven't even tested my interfaces yet - just thought I'd do it sometime to give the guys there an extra data point or two. Not bothered how the results turn out - they're my interfaces and they suit me just fine at the moment.

In terms of the testing method, well yes, I've got my own concerns about it and need to look into the details more closely. However, it doesn't change the fact that someone is at least trying to come up with an objective test for converter/interface transparency. As opposed to people just pulling opinions out of thin air because they happen to prefer the sound they get out of one unit (or because they have just spent X amount of money on something and want to feel justified).

At the end of the day, while there might be valid concerns about variability in different people carrying out the tests, etc. it is still at least slightly more scientific than someone just saying "Well, this one is the best 'cos it sounds warm and fuzzy" (which is what a lot of interface/converter threads seem to end up as). Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with anyone saying that they prefer the sound of one unit to another - in fact, I might well agree with them. I do, however, start to twitch slightly when someone says "This one is better because I think it sounds warmer (or fatter or nicer or whatever)". That is absolutely and utterly unscientific (and also has nothing to do with audio transparency).

[Nrt]

Originally Posted by adrianww

Hey - Nrt, it's OK. I haven't even tested my interfaces yet - just thought I'd do it sometime to give the guys there an extra data point or two. Not bothered how the results turn out - they're my interfaces and they suit me just fine at the moment.

In terms of the testing method, well yes, I've got my own concerns about it and need to look into the details more closely. However, it doesn't change the fact that someone is at least trying to come up with an objective test for converter/interface transparency. As opposed to people just pulling opinions out of thin air because they happen to prefer the sound they get out of one unit (or because they have just spent X amount of money on something and want to feel justified).

At the end of the day, while there might be valid concerns about variability in different people carrying out the tests, etc. it is still at least slightly more scientific than someone just saying "Well, this one is the best 'cos it sounds warm and fuzzy" (which is what a lot of interface/converter threads seem to end up as). Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with anyone saying that they prefer the sound of one unit to another - in fact, I might well agree with them. I do, however, start to twitch slightly when someone says "This one is better because I think it sounds warmer (or fatter or nicer or whatever)". That is absolutely and utterly unscientific (and also has nothing to do with audio transparency).

Hi adrianww, my point is the test is "pseudo-science". Utterly unscientific and subjective opinion is more useful than pseudo-science at least for me...

[Funny Cat]

Originally Posted by Nrt

Hi adrianww, my point is the test is "pseudo-science". Utterly unscientific and subjective opinion is more useful than pseudo-science at least for me...

Ummm...care to explain just how that ad/da loopback test was "pseudo-science"?

I mean yeah, there was one well established poster who said that the test was "flawed" because different cables were used on some of the loopbacks. Now this may or may not validate his claims but as far as I'm concerned this was the most well thought out, fair & controlled "scientific" converter shootout that's been posted on GS to date.

And by the way, your Mytek converters did not get the "best score" in that shootout. They were listed 7th after several other more transparent converters.

[Circuitt]

"After all this is only a test of transparency and not what sounds best"


"Particular credit goes first to Kraku for starting the thread and collecting so many converter samples from people"
that's a lot of variables.

If you like how it sounds, use it.
splitting hairs here in the grand scheme of things.

[CJ1973]

Huge steinberg fan here but have been using Ff800 and its been great. My suggestion is focus on what is the closest source to the instrument and then gradually move back on that priority rating.
Mic choice first, preamp second, converter third.

[Nrt]

Originally Posted by Funny Cat

Ummm...care to explain just how that ad/da loopback test was "pseudo-science"?

I mean yeah, there was one well established poster who said that the test was "flawed" because different cables were used on some of the loopbacks. Now this may or may not validate his claims but as far as I'm concerned this was the most well thought out, fair & controlled "scientific" converter shootout that's been posted on GS to date.

And by the way, your Mytek converters did not get the "best score" in that shootout. They were listed 7th after several other more transparent converters.

Why? I give you a few examples.

1) Loopback test can tell jitter performance ONLY if the AD and DA conversions are done in different boxes, due to the nature of clock and PLL. Understand?

2) Null test result is not weighted. For example, it is too much affected by the noise floor which is NOT important numbers at all because the ADA converter has enough low noise. More important numbers such as THD doesn't affect the test result at all or almost nothing compare to the noise figures. = Null test result doesn't mean anything in real world. Period.

3) Did you know the "scientific" test should be held under the exact same condition? The difference between drivers, cards, clock setting, cable, etc DOES affect the test result sometimes more than the difference between the converters. (Even the test results posted by GS members are not biased and honest.)

4) more

Many professional engineers know those facts, so only nubees follow those "pseudo-science" threads. If you still don't understand, call Lavry, Mytek or Prism and ask if those tests held in GS are meaningful or not.

[Funny Cat]

Originally Posted by Nrt

Why? I give you a few examples.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah............Blah...


Many professional engineers know those facts, so only nubees follow those "pseudo-science" threads. If you still don't understand, call Lavry, Mytek or Prism and ask if those tests held in GS are meaningful or not.

We are not discussing tests (plural) here on GS. Just-a-simple-loopback test...from DA to AD, which was then analyzed.

As another poster said a few posts ago, the test was NOT to test what "sounds good", i.e. your preference for a particular interface.

It was a test of the transparency of the AD/DA stages of the interfaces in question. And I repeat, it was one of the most scientific and controlled tests done on GS in all the years I've been following these things.

[Nrt]

Originally Posted by Funny Cat

It was a test of the transparency of the AD/DA stages of the interfaces in question. And I repeat, it was one of the most scientific and controlled tests done on GS in all the years I've been following these things.

You don't understand how AD DA works. You should read my post carefully (if you understand technical terms.).

[kaiO]

Originally Posted by adrianww

Don't know about the preamps, but when it comes to AD/DA conversion, one of the few (possibly the only?) scientific or objective test of different converters here on GS seems to suggest that the MR's converters are actually very poor - particularly on the AD side. And certainly worse than the RME FF400 (in fact, worse than most everything else that has been tested so far, although not by much in some cases). The big surprise in there are the ones that come out well (certainly if you go by some of the common wisdom found on Gearslutz).

The thread is here if you're interested in looking at the test method and seeing the results so far.

I'm interested in MR816X. Are you sure that RME FF400 is better? They are about the same price used. I find the shoot out thread is not really trustworthy. The Definative Answer please! (No speculation)

PS: FF400 vs MR816X thread. I prefer MR816X.

Oktava MK-012 vs. Schoeps MK21 & RME FF400 vs. Steinberg MR816X

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by kaiO

I'm interested in MR816X. Are you sure that RME FF400 is better? They are about the same price used. I find the shoot out thread is not really trustworthy. The Definative Answer please! (No speculation)

PS: FF400 vs MR816X thread. I prefer MR816X.

The problem here is that you're looking for something that probably doesn't exist. I suspect there is no "Definative Answer" at this level. Sure, if you were comparing things that were orders of magnitude different in cost (or where one item was at least a few times more expensive than the other) then there might - and I only say might - be a widely agreed difference in performance and one might be appreciably better than the other to everyone's ears. However, when you're looking at around the same level, any differences in preamps or converters or whatever are probably going to be dwarfed by other factors in your overall signal chain (your mics, your instruments, your room acoustics, yadda-yadda, ...)

You say you don't find the shoot out thread trustworthy either. Well, that's fine - but it's still one of the few (if not the only) places on here where someone is, at least, making an attempt to come up with some kind of objective test where every interface is made to perform the same task and the results are then compared. Are there possible issues with test methodology? Yes, of course. Do any such issues completely invalidate the results? I don't think so, not completely. It just means that a better, or more comprehensive, test might be needed. You've got to start somewhere, rather than people just saying "This one must be better because I like it and I've got really good ears, I'm a pro dammit!" (which is where most of these kinds of discussions on GS end up). So...I've been happy to provide a test run of my current interface (a Focusrite LS56) just so the guys on that thread have more data to work with. However, I'm not going to bin a perfectly good piece of gear that I like and which serves my needs well, even if it fares poorly in that particular test.

Anyway, to return to the original point, if I was choosing between an RME FF400 and a Steinberg MR816X, I'd probably go RME. Not because of any tests here on GS or because I think that the RME's audio path or converters are vastly superior because they probably aren't. However, RME have a very solid reputation for driver stability and good low-latency performance whereas my own experience suggests that Steinberg drivers aren't anywhere near as good. (Admittedly, that's based on a few years working with a Yamaha n12, so strictly speaking it was a Yamaha/Steinberg driver that we're talking about. But the experience was enough to keep me away from Steinberg hardware in the future - even though I'm a long-time Cubase user. I like their DAW just fine, but I don't trust their hardware drivers at all.)

[kaiO]

Originally Posted by adrianww

RME have a very solid reputation for driver stability and good low-latency performance whereas my own experience suggests that Steinberg drivers aren't anywhere near as good. (Admittedly, that's based on a few years working with a Yamaha n12, so strictly speaking it was a Yamaha/Steinberg driver that we're talking about. But the experience was enough to keep me away from Steinberg hardware in the future - even though I'm a long-time Cubase user. I like their DAW just fine, but I don't trust their hardware drivers at all.)

Thank you for your reply. On Windows or Mac? What kind of the driver issue? I can't find any other post regarding the instability of Steinberg driver, except the issue when chaining 2 or more MR816s at the same time.