The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
AES 2019: Steinberg Launches UR-C Series of USB 3.0 Audio Interfaces
Old 20th October 2019
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zohomoho View Post
sure they are, as long as they are used as intended. I use to fall for all the preamp hype and have spent thousands on this and that. Most great records in 60's/70's/80's were recording with console pres which many these days would consider vanilla or "lame".
my mci, amek, neve etc. stock preamps are not really lame, to this day...


...while the d-pre is sub-standard (yet perfectly usable for anyone with low expectations) - as such, probably still a bit better than your average soundcraft or mackie pre in the 80'/90's.
Old 20th October 2019
  #62
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctambulant View Post
What is the intended use then? They weren’t thinking about that while even the guys making cheap pcb consoles were. The cheap interface guys are thinking how to save money with a cheap power supply, low voltage rails, bad caps, and not throwing money into R&D to design a cleaner pre with a cleaner circuit and board layout. Yamaha fixed one major problem with their interfaces, the latency, and left all the others.

That’s true but most of those console pres were way better than your typical Focusrite or UAD pre even if some of the SSL pres sometimes kill the low end. Many of these interface pres are just really bad sounding or have low headroom making them unusable for many commonly used micings for many genres. They are far worse than a typical TI PGA2500 chip pre. There will be many defenders defending them to the death because they bought and used the interface. They will say they get reasonable results from them which speaks more to the material they are recording, the micing, and their skill as engineers than the quality of the pre they are using. For all we know the mastering engineer had to fix a ton of stuff or their recordings required far more processing than they would need it they just used a better pre. Time is money. They will often imprint the sound of the bad interface pres and cheap interface converters all over their records.

The Yamaha pres are not a bad sounding interface pre and neither are the workhorse ones from RME, MOTU and especially Apogee. Many of them are actually way better sounding than some generic console pre. They just coexist in the market with a ton of awful sounding products that people will defend to the death. Like Zoom, Behringer, Audient, and UAD. Compare those to say a supposedly lame RME pre into its AD and you’ll be going “WTF where’s the low end? Were Behringer owned Midas and Audient all lying about making lauded pres?” Uh huh they were and it was all marketing. I’d rather be stuck with a Yamaha, an interface or an 02R or 01V, than deal with some of their stuff. Then internet talking heads will say stuff to the effect of “All pres sound the same!” while not being payed to work on the records of others.
Personally, I think Audient pres sound pretty good. But what do I know? ...You sound like some sort of expert.
Old 20th October 2019
  #63
Deleted e09cd8e
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
Personally, I think Audient pres sound pretty good. But what do I know? ...You sound like some sort of expert.
Depends what for. I view them as color pres on an interface where I would rather have some boring pre for general use. I hate them for general use. They’re not even a nice, warm color pre. As a pre for an SM57 on a high gain guitar or for some snares? Pretty awesome. For the ribbon mic if I’m dual micing the cab? I hate them. I’d rather have a couple of them separate and have a more boring, neutral pre on an interface. I don’t like the interfaces and I definitely don’t want 8 of the pres.
Old 21st October 2019
  #64
Here for the gear
 

Here is a detailed review (in Russian) of the higher end UR816C unit that is supposed to use the same DAC as the UR44C...

https://translate.googleusercontent....tN-3SRGzdyUQuw

The UR22C is a lower spec than the other two units.
Old 22nd October 2019
  #65
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
so any one got or use the baby interface with electric guitars yet? I am curious what the experience is with the on board DSP is like performance wise and latency wise.

does it make a difference in capturing performance?
Old 22nd October 2019
  #66
Gear Nut
 
CD_Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mucmusic View Post
only thing that matters here is the connection type and that's the much needed / bus-power-able USB-C

... and the driver/software side of course!

USB 3.1 isn't faster (just 'broader') than USB 3.0 and I don't see the advantage for an audio interface with less than 300 channels
if you use your sound card just to listen to the music, you are also with the USB 0.5, instead if you work with DSP and heavy PLUGIN (also in real time) then you need USB 3.0 and USB 4.0 and USB 5.0 and... l
Old 28th October 2019
  #67
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
Hi, would someone more knowledgeable than me be able to explain what is the status of these "32 bit" audio interfaces?

Does this mean, if you have a slightly older gen i7 CPU, if you use a 32 audio interface and the associated driver and software, your project *should*use less CPU resources?
Old 5th November 2019
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctambulant View Post
Yet more low end junk that will probably barely work to prey on beginners and students.

RME, MOTU, and Apogee are eating these guys for breakfast. Everyone they burn with every new junky product leads to multiple lost customers.
Rme, apogee, and motu annual profits combined probably equal half of Yamaha's monthly FedEx bill in its lawn mower division.

Just sayin' who eats who for breakfast when it gets right down to it.

Last edited by thenoodle; 5th November 2019 at 07:28 AM..
Old 5th November 2019
  #69
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode View Post
Hi, would someone more knowledgeable than me be able to explain what is the status of these "32 bit" audio interfaces?

Does this mean, if you have a slightly older gen i7 CPU, if you use a 32 audio interface and the associated driver and software, your project *should*use less CPU resources?
No. Plus, there are already a year worth of threads on the topic....ever since last January. And....even yamaha/steiney stay silent on the buzzword...going on a year.
Old 5th December 2019
  #70
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV7107 View Post
It's a shame they haven't updated the UR28M.
Agreed. I'm using one right now because it's so versatile, but it could stand to sound a little better and be a bit quieter.
Old 5th December 2019
  #71
I was disappointed to find out that support for my bulletproof Steinberg MR816X was ending. I figured I might was well upgrade now while my old one is still worth something, and while I could take advantage of a super good sale.

Well, I took a chance and pulled the trigger. It arrived today. Although I have not yet set it up, I have given it a good look-over and spent some time with the manual.

Differences between old MR816X and new UR816c:
1. +48v phantom power no longer selectable on each channel. Now either on or off for channels 1-4 and either on or off for channels 5-8.
2. Pad function no longer selectable individually on each channel. Now, just individually on channels 1-4. There is no pad function for channels 5-8.
3. Rear connectors on back: Lost S/PDIF in/out. Gained Midi in/out.
4. If the “loop-back” function means what I think it does (being able to record source music from your PC into Cubase without fiddling with connecting outputs back into inputs, etc.), then this is a nice additional feature.
5. No more “push button” integration with Cubase. Although a neat idea, it was one that I never really used that much myself.
6. It appears (just from manual reading) that the functionality for adding monitoring FX has been simplified and streamlined.
7. I have gained the channel strip and guitar amp software to complement the RevX reverb that I had with the previous unit that remains standard.
8. Functionality for higher sample rates and higher bit-depths.... which I don’t really see the point of.

I’ll report more later once I’ve tried it out.

CT
Old 13th December 2019
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Spectral Climax's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savana Violenta View Post
For the long run I would suggest strongly RME interfaces, for stability, drivers, sound etc. You get one and forget about it. Not like Steinberg each year refurbishing their audio interfaces with small improvements just for the sake of their profits.
I'm planning to buy a MOTU interface for the same reasons you have stated for RME. Nowadays their products have similar or better specs, stability, sound etc.
Old 1 week ago
  #73
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV7107 View Post
It's a shame they haven't updated the UR28M.
I agree. There is a slight blurriness is in the low mids and the converter specs are a bit lower than their flagship but if they fixed these two things it would be the perfect small interface.

Since the UR28m, I have sorely missed the S/PDIF and word clock features that are only present in the 8 pre versions.
Old 1 week ago
  #74
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drillbit View Post
I have one a new UR44c.

If anyone has any questions, let me know.

The new drivers are good. I have built a new 12core AMD Ryzen production system and I'm getting just around 4ms round trip latency, which is impressive. I have had no glitches or any playback issues.

The DACs are nice (Burson) and the headphone Pre's are a lot better than the old one was 35mW, now they're 100mW each. The new DSP chip is a lot more powerful than the old one. You can easily add the channel strip on all 6 inputs and add reverb (great for live).

The mic pres sound good, but they don't have the clean high gain of my old RME or an Audient I tried. I plugged an old SM58 in and for a quiet voice it might need nearly full gain. At this point a wall of noise suddenly appears. Turn it down from 10 to 9 and it totally disappears. Any condenser will be fine, but I think it would not be great for an SM7B without a cloud-lifter or something. My Rode NTR ribbon and Beezneez mics sound very clear and smooth.

The UR44c comes with a USB C to B cable. If you get a USB C to USB C cable then the whole thing can be powered from a USB C port. Otherwise you need the supplied power supply. It's nice having that many ins, outs and DSP being fully powered from a single USB port. this is the biggest advantage of the USB C port.

I have come from an old trusty RME Babyface. I needed more inputs and liked the idea of the DSP effects. The headphone pre's were the icing on the cake. My old RME doesn't sound as detailed or loud. I have just had a kid so I'm using DT1990 for a lot of night mixing. Th UR44c sounds better for them than the Babyface (non pro). Also the price was very decent.

Here is a some good detailed info:
https://translate.google.com/transla...ml&prev=search
Any thoughts on how the Burson converters compare to their older chips? I know some of their previous models/interactions used AKM. Would be curious to know about the difference in sound.

A couple of posters have done a great job at outlining the differences. Bummer they got rid of the S/PIDF and selectable phantom power per channel on the higher end range but I think most people in this thread are curious about if they converters actually sound better than the legacy products.
Old 6 days ago
  #75
Review after 30 days.

Comparing: MR816X vs UR816c features:

1. +48v phantom power no longer selectable on each channel. Now either on or off for channels 1-4 and either on or off for channels 5-8.
2. Pad function no longer selectable individually on each channel. Now, just individually on channels 1-4. There is no pad function for channels 5-8.
3. Rear connectors on back: Lost coaxial connectors for S/PDIF in/out. Gained Midi in/out.
4. New “loop back” feature allows you to record music directly from the computer into your DAW when that hip hop client shows up and says, “My beat is on YouTube.”
5. No more “push button” integration with Cubase. Although a neat idea, it was one that I never really used that much myself.
6. The functionality for adding monitoring FX (ie RevX reverb, Morphing Channel Strip) has been simplified and streamlined.
7. I have gained the channel strip and guitar amp software to complement the RevX reverb that I had with the previous unit that remains standard.
8. Functionality for higher sample rates and higher bit-depths.... which I don’t really see the point of.

Setting Up:

The drivers and other required software (dspMixFX, etc.) all installed easily. There was no mucking about fighting with stuff getting it to work.

The supplied USB cable is only about a half a meter. I had to use a USB extender to get it to reach my computer, which was no problem, but a longer cable really should have been included.

Firing it up and getting it to work with Cubase was a snap and there was no need to muck about with stuff. The default settings (ex. buffer size set to 128 samples, etc, which on my system, worked out to about 9ms of latency - entirely usable) were perfectly fine for my modest computer (i3 with 16GB RAM, Win10, 4GB video).

Performance:

I use this interface with the addition of a Behringer ADA8000 (connected via ADAT) that I use when I need more channels, so my system overall is limited to recording 16 channels at a time. (I used one input replicated across all sixteen channels) Using the default settings (128 sample buffer, etc.), I was able to record 16 tracks of 24-bit/44.1khz audio (my own personal default project settings) without any signs of dropouts, etc. I stopped my trial after 6 minutes, but after the four minute mark, I upped the ante and fired up YouTube, opened and closed a couple of webpages, zoomed in and out of my project window, etc. No glitches. I’m sure I could not do this with the old MR816X. Nice!

Sound:

The MR816X was well-known to be a great sounding interface, both in terms of preamps and converters. The UR816c uses the same preamps, and a new converter chip. I expect the difference is probably measurably improved in the modern iteration, but with a few days between hearing the old and the new interfaces, I’m sure I did not notice a difference. So… at the very least, we have the same great sound as before.

Functionality:

Pros: The REV-X reverb, and Sweet Spot Morphing channel strip algorithms have not changed, to my knowledge. They have added an guitar amp simulator suite, which on quick testing sounds fine enough. It might not be what you want for your keeper guitar tracks, but… maybe. I’m a bit spoiled, though, having gotten used to BiasFX and the Headrush modelling. The channel strip and the guitar amp sims can be set to appear before the input bus (so just for monitoring purposes without recording the processing), or after the input bus (so you would be committing yourself to those sounds as you record). It’s nice to have options. The usage of the REV-X reverb applied in the monitoring chain doesn’t seem to be able to be routed to the input recording bus, but the included REV-X plug-in means that you don’t have to export your projects in real time (like you had to on the MR series) if you want to use it in mixing.

Within the UR816c exists a number of “virtual” output buses that allow you to, say, take DAW direct output bus #1 and route it to your headphone bus in the Cubase control room, or take DAW direct output bus #2 and run it to a mix cube monitor system.

Cons: I have really struggled with some of the output routing. First, if you use Direct Monitoring in Cubase, it will NOT work with control room enabled. (Good thing the device allows you to reliably record at suitably low latency!). I could create my cue mixes within Cubase and have them output properly to my four headphone buses, but the “live” track that I wanted to monitor while recording did NOT get sent to the cue mixes unless Direct Monitoring was turned off.

Second, in order to monitor a track you are recording with the Rev-X reverb, the reverb MUST be sent to an *actual* output bus and will NOT work on a “virtual bus.” So, if you’re using DAW Direct Bus #1 to feed headphone cue mix #1 , you will get no reverb on the headphone bus, even though you might be hearing it in the control room, which is fed by the master bus. My workaround solution to this has been to disable the control room, assign my main outputs to my studio monitors, and then physically patch the headphone out on the UR816C to the aux in on my headphone amp and send *that* to my headphones in the tracking room. Note that the headphone outs on the UR816c are attached to the *actual* output buses. Oh, and I have to manually create a talkback channel in order to communicate with the tracking room. :-/ It is my experience, however, that most singers are happy enough recording their vocals without reverb in their headphones, so this will not be a routine inconvenience as much as it will be an occasional inconvenience.

The included dspMIXfx software looks good and is easy to use. The routing options in it are intuitive and easy to use. By comparison with the included MR Editor that came bundled with the MR816, one must be careful not to assume that they work in the same way. If you are using Cubase with the MR816, the MR Editor was made entirely redundant by the controls within Cubase. If you are using Cubase with the dspMIXfx software with the UR816c, you will still need (occasionally) that app open to support some of your routing tasks. It now works along side Cubase, rather than being made redundant by Cubase as it was before.

At the time of this writing, Steinberg Canada has been quite helpful in their support on this matter, and these have been noted by Steinberg as a bug and they hope to be able to address these in a future update. Whether that update is on the Cubase end, the UR firmware end, or if it will require a hardware revision along the way (like a UR816c MkII), is unclear.

Overall:

The features and performance of the UR816c do represent an upgrade from the MR816 that I really loved. Improvements have been made to various internal functionalities as well that I really like. Performance and stability are, in my mind, outstanding. I just really wish that the output routing didn’t require workarounds in order to achieve the same flexibility that the MR816 had without any futzing around. It is easily an equal the to the MR816, I’d say, and if Steinberg can address those couple of minor issues, this unit should be able to set the standard by which other interfaces in this class are measured.
Old 6 days ago
  #76
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanchris View Post
Comparing: MR816X vs UR816c features:

1. +48v phantom power no longer selectable on each channel. Now either on or off for channels 1-4 and either on or off for channels 5-8.
2. Pad function no longer selectable individually on each channel. Now, just individually on channels 1-4. There is no pad function for channels 5-8.
3. Rear connectors on back: Lost coaxial connectors for S/PDIF in/out. Gained Midi in/out.
4. New “loop back” feature allows you to record music directly from the computer into your DAW when that hip hop client shows up and says, “My beat is on YouTube.”
5. No more “push button” integration with Cubase. Although a neat idea, it was one that I never really used that much myself.
6. The functionality for adding monitoring FX (ie RevX reverb, Morphing Channel Strip) has been simplified and streamlined.
7. I have gained the channel strip and guitar amp software to complement the RevX reverb that I had with the previous unit that remains standard.
8. Functionality for higher sample rates and higher bit-depths.... which I don’t really see the point of.

Setting Up:

The drivers and other required software (dspMixFX, etc.) all installed easily. There was no mucking about fighting with stuff getting it to work.

The supplied USB cable is only about a half a meter. I had to use a USB extender to get it to reach my computer, which was no problem, but a longer cable really should have been included.

Firing it up and getting it to work with Cubase was a snap and there was no need to muck about with stuff. The default settings (ex. buffer size set to 128 samples, etc, which on my system, worked out to about 9ms of latency - entirely usable) were perfectly fine for my modest computer (i3 with 16GB RAM, Win10, 4GB video).

Performance:

I use this interface with the addition of a Behringer ADA8000 (connected via ADAT) that I use when I need more channels, so my system overall is limited to recording 16 channels at a time. (I used one input replicated across all sixteen channels) Using the default settings (128 sample buffer, etc.), I was able to record 16 tracks of 24-bit/44.1khz audio (my own personal default project settings) without any signs of dropouts, etc. I stopped my trial after 6 minutes, but after the four minute mark, I upped the ante and fired up YouTube, opened and closed a couple of webpages, zoomed in and out of my project window, etc. No glitches. I’m sure I could not do this with the old MR816X. Nice!

Sound:

The MR816X was well-known to be a great sounding interface, both in terms of preamps and converters. The UR816c uses the same preamps, and a new converter chip. I expect the difference is probably measurably improved in the modern iteration, but with a few days between hearing the old and the new interfaces, I’m sure I did not notice a difference. So… at the very least, we have the same great sound as before.

Functionality:

Pros: The REV-X reverb, and Sweet Spot Morphing channel strip algorithms have not changed, to my knowledge. They have added an guitar amp simulator suite, which on quick testing sounds fine enough. It might not be what you want for your keeper guitar tracks, but… maybe. I’m a bit spoiled, though, having gotten used to BiasFX and the Headrush modelling. The channel strip and the guitar amp sims can be set to appear before the input bus (so just for monitoring purposes without recording the processing), or after the input bus (so you would be committing yourself to those sounds as you record). It’s nice to have options. The usage of the REV-X reverb applied in the monitoring chain doesn’t seem to be able to be routed to the input recording bus, but the included REV-X plug-in means that you don’t have to export your projects in real time (like you had to on the MR series) if you want to use it in mixing.

Within the UR816c exists a number of “virtual” output buses that allow you to, say, take DAW direct output bus #1 and route it to your headphone bus in the Cubase control room, or take DAW direct output bus #2 and run it to a mix cube monitor system.

Cons: I have really struggled with some of the output routing. First, if you use Direct Monitoring in Cubase, it will NOT work with control room enabled. (Good thing the device allows you to reliably record at suitably low latency!). I could create my cue mixes within Cubase and have them output properly to my four headphone buses, but the “live” track that I wanted to monitor while recording did NOT get sent to the cue mixes unless Direct Monitoring was turned off.

Second, in order to monitor a track you are recording with the Rev-X reverb, the reverb MUST be sent to an *actual* output bus and will NOT work on a “virtual bus.” So, if you’re using DAW Direct Bus #1 to feed headphone cue mix #1 , you will get no reverb on the headphone bus, even though you might be hearing it in the control room, which is fed by the master bus. My workaround solution to this has been to disable the control room, assign my main outputs to my studio monitors, and then physically patch the headphone out on the UR816C to the aux in on my headphone amp and send *that* to my headphones in the tracking room. Note that the headphone outs on the UR816c are attached to the *actual* output buses. Oh, and I have to manually create a talkback channel in order to communicate with the tracking room. :-/ It is my experience, however, that most singers are happy enough recording their vocals without reverb in their headphones, so this will not be a routine inconvenience as much as it will be an occasional inconvenience.

The included dspMIXfx software looks good and is easy to use. The routing options in it are intuitive and easy to use. By comparison with the included MR Editor that came bundled with the MR816, one must be careful not to assume that they work in the same way. If you are using Cubase with the MR816, the MR Editor was made entirely redundant by the controls within Cubase. If you are using Cubase with the dspMIXfx software with the UR816c, you will still need (occasionally) that app open to support some of your routing tasks. It now works along side Cubase, rather than being made redundant by Cubase as it was before.

At the time of this writing, Steinberg Canada has been quite helpful in their support on this matter, and these have been noted by Steinberg as a bug and they hope to be able to address these in a future update. Whether that update is on the Cubase end, the UR firmware end, or if it will require a hardware revision along the way (like a UR816c MkII), is unclear.

Overall:

The features and performance of the UR816c do represent an upgrade from the MR816 that I really loved. Improvements have been made to various internal functionalities as well that I really like. Performance and stability are, in my mind, outstanding. I just really wish that the output routing didn’t require workarounds in order to achieve the same flexibility that the MR816 had without any futzing around. It is easily an equal the to the MR816, I’d say, and if Steinberg can address those couple of minor issues, this unit should be able to set the standard by which other interfaces in this class are measured.
This post is epic. Thanks!!!! Will be sure to bookmark. It's remarkable that you are getting less dropouts than the old Firewire classic. Aside from driver improvements, perhaps we finally have a USB 3.0 interface that has been optimized to take advantage of the latency improvements over both USB 2.0 and Firewire.

Also, it's extremely encouraging that the preamps aren't (yes both D-pres but sometimes the caps/op amps/components/power supply make a difference) a step down.

Also nice to hear that the conversion is at least as good as the MR816X. I'm sure there are differences. The UR824 did bost a bit of improvement over the X in both specs (better dynamic range) and audible sound (UR824 a bit tighter in the low end, tad more dynamic, and more depth although I recall hearing a bit more width in the MR816X).

Sounds like a winner.
Old 6 days ago
  #77
Hey! I’m glad you found it useful. Thanks for the feedback.

Because it is so new - and really, has arrived with almost no hype or fanfare - there is little information on it just yet, and virtually NO reviews from any of the mainstream publications we might rely on for reviews - Sound on Sound, Recording. TapeOp, etc.

The thing I remember struggling with with the FireWire was that the MR816 (and virtually any other FW device) tended to be *really* picky about wanting Texas Instruments chipsets. It was a bit of a pain getting it set up at first - needed to get a different FW card, tried more than one of the physical ports in the new card, etc. Once I got it, it was fine, but it was a bit of a process getting there.
Old 6 days ago
  #78
Here for the gear
 

"Cons: I have really struggled with some of the output routing. First, if you use Direct Monitoring in Cubase, it will NOT work with control room enabled. (Good thing the device allows you to reliably record at suitably low latency!). I could create my cue mixes within Cubase and have them output properly to my four headphone buses, but the “live” track that I wanted to monitor while recording did NOT get sent to the cue mixes unless Direct Monitoring was turned off. "

Strange! Stupid question maybe, but did you activate the send from the "live" track to the cue bus in use?

MW
Old 5 days ago
  #79
Here for the gear
 

Do the line inputs go through the preamp stage? This is the case with some interfaces and could cause noise regardless of using external mic pre's.
Old 5 days ago
  #80
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanchris View Post
They have added an guitar amp simulator suite, which on quick testing sounds fine enough. It might not be what you want for your keeper guitar tracks, but… maybe.
When I had my UR44 I used to use the guitar amp classics suite all the time to monitor though whilst tracking guitars, you get way more feel and a better idea of how it's going to sound than with straight DI. If you do happen to find a sound you love - you can still hedge your bets (record clean) as you get a VST version of the same plugins so you can recreate your monitored sound easily enough in the mix. The clean amp sounds were definitely more convincing than the over-driven ones. The baby USB-C model now has DSP - to me that makes it a steal at the price - not many interfaces at that level offer real time reverb for tracking.
Old 4 days ago
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by CreamMachine View Post

Strange! Stupid question maybe, but did you activate the send from the "live" track to the cue bus in use?

MW
I am absolutely certain. Yes.

CT
Old 4 days ago
  #82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrystudio View Post
Do the line inputs go through the preamp stage? This is the case with some interfaces and could cause noise regardless of using external mic pre's.
They do go through the preamp stage, as they did with the MR816. The pres are *very* quiet and transparent, though - particularly at low gain.

CT
Old 3 days ago
  #83
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanchris View Post
I am absolutely certain. Yes.

CT
I understand, and I guess you haven't found a solution yet then? Has this been confirmed a bug?


MW
Old 3 days ago
  #84
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanchris View Post
They do go through the preamp stage, as they did with the MR816. The pres are *very* quiet and transparent, though - particularly at low gain.

CT
At least no 48v is applied to the TRS plug on the C as is the case on my UR824 (haven't actually tried it, but that's what the schematics indicate)

MW
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump