The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Steinberg UR28 Audio Interfaces
Old 13th November 2011
  #181
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPasquarelli View Post
Sorry for the delay here... I was away for a day.

I did one loop-back test @ 96k w/ buff size of 128 bytes.

I measured 966 sample difference from output to input....

I believe this is about 10.06 ms.

No problem,, I managed to get the sale's guy to give me up to thuesday to decide and still buy for the discount price...


Okay, thanks!,, 10 ms at 96k, 128, would be 10ms, @48k, 64buffer
which is too high for me,, (thinking about buying a second hand RME raydat)

but on the MR816 you could select somewhere "external FX" and this was known to disable the internal FX, but also deliver a lower round trip...


so one last request would be if you could find such an option in the UR824's and see what it then does?

and maybe, use 64 buffer, 44.1k that's easier to compare to the figure's of the RME stuff..


though I ask alot from a total stranger now... I do realize that, and i'm already very happy you posted some handy info here(=


kind regards,
Bram
Old 14th November 2011
  #182
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram1212 View Post
No problem,, I managed to get the sale's guy to give me up to thuesday to decide and still buy for the discount price...


Okay, thanks!,, 10 ms at 96k, 128, would be 10ms, @48k, 64buffer
which is too high for me,, (thinking about buying a second hand RME raydat)

but on the MR816 you could select somewhere "external FX" and this was known to disable the internal FX, but also deliver a lower round trip...


so one last request would be if you could find such an option in the UR824's and see what it then does?

and maybe, use 64 buffer, 44.1k that's easier to compare to the figure's of the RME stuff..


though I ask alot from a total stranger now... I do realize that, and i'm already very happy you posted some handy info here(=


kind regards,
Bram
I was not able to find any way to disable the dsp FX in the UR824.

Regards,

Ron
Old 14th November 2011
  #183
Here for the gear
 

Okay, thanks for the info.

I'm picking one up tomorrow to try it out, if I can't find a way to get it to work with low latency, i'll return and get a MR816X (tried one and worked at 32samples i got 5.68ms round-trip)
Old 15th November 2011
  #184
Here for the gear
 

Hey guys, I just took delivery of one of the UR28 and let me tell you the thing is a beast...

I have only played around for a few hours or so but that is enough to sell me. The pres on this thing is nothing short of amazing. Far far better than anything else is this price range. I am using Logic and I have just done a few (very basic) recording tests. It is rock solid! Vocals (Male, And Female including spoken word) and Acoustic Guitar are bold and super crisp. For me the headphone volume is fine with both busy and simple tracks. The reverb is excellent, this coupled with these amazing pres gives you a confident assurance and sense that you are recording with something very special. I will point out that I am probably not as techie as some of the guys who have posted on here but for what I need this is perfect. I have owned many little boxes, trying to find one that suits what I need. The Apogee Duet was a great little interface but it didn't blow me away, the lack of any monitoring reverb and the breakout cable was always going to be a deal breaker for me anyway but I tried it nonetheless. IMHO and after initial tests, and I say this with not much time with both, but the UR28 is a better box to my ears (and my ears only). I sent the Duet back in a week, but even after just a few hours the UR28 is staying.. The one interface that I had for quite some time and loved was the TC Desktop Konnekt 6, which was a fab little performer but the UR28 is in a whole different league.

I say take a punt, send it back if it is not for you but I am confident you will be very impressed.
Old 15th November 2011
  #185
Gear Addict
 
Dbas's Avatar
No midi in/outs is just ignorant and selfish, shame on you Steinberg.
Old 15th November 2011
  #186
Here for the gear
 

UR824 tested

Hi,

Soo i went out this morning, got the UR824..

got home,, tested it, and brought it back.

here's why and what I think about it

First impression, sound quality wise amazing, build qualitiy wise.. less amazing.

Latency wise: really poor. (on windows) the driver did report quite accurate latancy though @64 buffer size : (only 8samples/0.2ms less than real) but it did report 6.6 in and 7.6 out... this is like 14.4ms round trip... that's a poor thing for a unit over 750 euro's.. so i brought it back.

this was one windows 7, 64-bit. with latest drivers from the website.


now ordered a MR816X, will test that one(:


Oh and a note on the absence of midi... I think this is not really important on the UR824.. in that price range... for 20 euro you can buy a seperate midi usb interface. for the lower priced ur28M it might be an issue though.


cheers!
Old 15th November 2011
  #187
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram1212 View Post
Hi,

Soo i went out this morning, got the UR824..

got home,, tested it, and brought it back.

here's why and what I think about it

First impression, sound quality wise amazing, build qualitiy wise.. less amazing.

Latency wise: really poor. (on windows) the driver did report quite accurate latancy though @64 buffer size : (only 8samples/0.2ms less than real) but it did report 6.6 in and 7.6 out... this is like 14.4ms round trip... that's a poor thing for a unit over 750 euro's.. so i brought it back.

this was one windows 7, 64-bit. with latest drivers from the website.


now ordered a MR816X, will test that one(:


Oh and a note on the absence of midi... I think this is not really important on the UR824.. in that price range... for 20 euro you can buy a seperate midi usb interface. for the lower priced ur28M it might be an issue though.


cheers!
That's too bad... bud good luck moving on.

I'm trying the Presounus AudioBox 1818VSL... do you have any thoughts on this one? Any reasons for not trying it?
Old 15th November 2011
  #188
Here for the gear
 

yup,, well the MR816X should arrive in 2 days.. so i'm hoping to get good results with that one... the review's are incredible, mixed for latency though.


well I have looked at the presonus.. although I have less faith in their pre's.. the Yamaha D-pre's are really high recommended everywhere, and are said to have a lot of gain (like 80db) I currently have Onyx pre's which sound ok, but the gain (60db) is somewhat limiting in the future as i'm planning to buy a Shure SM7B.. that mic.. I tried it.. it's godness(= but it needs to have 65-70db in some cases..


and further one,,, everyone is praising the MR816's sound quality (sound on sound for example) so it must be good sounding, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.. the Presonus can be just as good though.... but what latency figures are u getting with the presonus?
Old 15th November 2011
  #189
Gear Head
 

Using CEntrance latency tester I get:

Buffer @96k @44.1k
32____1.43__ 4.38 (ms)
64____3.05__7.17
128___5.73__10.18
256___8.39__15.57
512___13.73_27.48
1024__24.4__50.7
2048__45.73_97.14

I also find that with Studio One I can get much higher track counts before having to increase the buffer sizes than compared with Cubase.

Typically in Cubase I was having to set 2048 (or 4096 when I was using the Fast Track Ultra, as the 1818 does not support 4096) whereas in studio one I could run at 512 and sometimes even 256. (I've settled in on using 96k for all my projects)

By the way, I was also hoping to use the UR824 because of the good preamps & A/D.
Old 16th November 2011
  #190
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPasquarelli View Post
Using CEntrance latency tester I get:

Buffer @96k @44.1k
32____1.43__ 4.38 (ms)
64____3.05__7.17
128___5.73__10.18
256___8.39__15.57
512___13.73_27.48
1024__24.4__50.7
2048__45.73_97.14

I also find that with Studio One I can get much higher track counts before having to increase the buffer sizes than compared with Cubase.

Typically in Cubase I was having to set 2048 (or 4096 when I was using the Fast Track Ultra, as the 1818 does not support 4096) whereas in studio one I could run at 512 and sometimes even 256. (I've settled in on using 96k for all my projects)

By the way, I was also hoping to use the UR824 because of the good preamps & A/D.
those latency figures are very nice, if the 32buffer size is usable.. the 4.38ms is very low (: . the Fast track ultra 8R is very fast aswell (some say [email protected]) but I don't want do downgrade in terms of sound quality.. and the mackie 400F.. it has onyx pre's which are pretty nice,, same AKM converters as the fireface 800... but a horrible latency of 12ms round trip.. so.. I look for a box with same or better sound quality with lower latency.. and I think the steinberg units are good sound quality (:

the ultra 8r however is a step downwards... and the 1818VSL.. i haven't heard one.. but i imagine the XMAX pre's to be in a lower league than the D-pre's of yamaha..



oh and a note on your comment about cubase.. cubase is indeed not very efficient.. the most efficient I found was Sonar X1.. + a 64bit audio engine is sure nice to have, also their bitbridgin for 32bit plugins works flawless where the cubase one is just rubbish.
Old 21st November 2011
  #191
Here for the gear
 

MR816X

Hi

I've been using the MR816X now for a while

here my thoughts:

Sounds exact the same as the UR824; Awesome!
ALOT better latency than the UR824

overall i'm really happy with the unit, though i would have loved the second adat and the extra hi-z of the UR824... but i like the build quality of the MR816X more.. + it's only 595euro compared to the 789 euro for the UR824..

and some things are better.. like invidual 48v which the UR824 doesn't have (per pair)

still thinkin about getting a second hand RME HDSP(e) to reducre latency even more.. (it's now ~7ms real measured round trip) so roughly half the latency of the UR824(: (:

love the MR816X though,, i dig the sound so much!(:
Old 24th November 2011
  #192
Gear Head
 

Steinberg released a new driver yesterday. So the UR824 now works with Studio One... Yeah!
Old 29th November 2011
  #193
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPasquarelli View Post
Steinberg released a new driver yesterday. So the UR824 now works with Studio One... Yeah!

Oh that's nice to hear!
makes me curious whether they improved the latency aswell... release notes do state "improved input&output performance" but not specified in what that would mean in real world...

Though I'm not getting back the UR824.. It cost 789 my MR816X costed me 595NEW.. that's 195 cheaper.. + I bought a RME HDSP 9652 for 150.. so now my combo is still 45 euro cheaper.. and ALOT better... the RME has 3 adat i/o's, 2x low latency MIDI, and bunch of other cool stuff +uberlow latency without using the pc's resources... so hooking up the MR816X by adat still leaves me with 2 adat i/o's, give lower latency, adds 2xMidi,and still allows digital input like Spdif aswell (: (:

couldn't be happier

oh and btw,, how's your view on that Studio one V2? has some interesting things.. like the build in melodyne?heh

how would you say, that it compares to say Sonar X1 or Cubase 5?


cheers!
Old 30th November 2011
  #194
Gear Head
 

I'm glad you're all geared up nicely! Good luck....

As I said earlier latency is not as much of an issue for me so I'll be happy with the sound of the UR824 for recording. Plus I'm using a joe meek twinQ (2 channel preamp w/TOSLINK out) and to squeeze in 2 extra channels I'm going to use my old Fast Track ultra SPDIF out to Optical converter to the second optical input on the UR824. This will give me a total of 12 channels. I can slave the Joe Meek from the word clock out on the 824 and I can slave the FastTrack through the secondary SPDIF out on the Joe Meek.

Anyway.... re Studio One/Sonar/Cubase:

I had used Sonar for many, many years and I got really turned off with the X1 release. I had lots of problems/crashes etc. Very buggy. at least for me.

Mind you, lately I'm not really doing any midi or VSTi's, only for drum replacement in multi-track audio recordings. I also have Cubase 6 which I started to enjoy using but again from time to time unexpected crashes. I really started to dig the transient detection, tempo extraction and the large set of features. But again the period crashes concerned me. Not as bad as Sonar in this regard however.

I've settled in on Studio One first off because I've found it to be the most stable. Second to this was Reaper but its lacking in other areas. The melodyne integration and the track layering/comping in V2 is what finally sold me. I also just "feel" like its easier to use and more "fresh". I just sort of get the sense that X1 and Cubase 6 sort of have a lot of baggage that for me slows things down, and concerns me in terms of stability.

The melodyne integration is nice. I have encountered an issue with it that has yet to be resolved. I used it to extract and create a tempo track. When I engaged this varying tempo track I can no longer use melodyne on other tracks... it just hangs. From what I understand this is an ARA issue (the integration interfaces). So, if I need to I could use melodyne the "old" way... just insert it as a VST and use it that way but I haven't gotten this far yet in the projects I'm working on.

Studio One definitely does not have many of the midi features of Cubase, although this was improved in V2 over V1. Overall I'm quite happy so far.

Regards,

Ron
Old 20th December 2011
  #195
Gear Head
 

I know this thread is kinda dead, but I thought I’d resurrect it and hopefully get some help from people familiar with the Steinberg UR28M.

Basically I’m a Cubase SX3 user who is finally upgrading from a Fast-Track Pro. The Fast-Track was great in my opinion, but now that I’m more comfortable with recording I constantly find myself pushing it to its limit and I’ve started to experience some latency problems. I fancy having better quality preamps too.

I’ve more or less decided on the Steinberg UR28M because it’s built with Cubase in mind, and there is supposedly great functionality between the two. The problem is, I don’t know if any of this functionality is actually useful to me personally.

My questions regarding the UR28M are the following:

A) I have two decent Genelec monitors and that’s it. I will not be getting more monitors in the next five years and it concerns me that like half of the buttons on the interface seem to be for switching between different mixes. I’ve never recorded more than two instruments simultaneously, and I don’t record bands, I record for myself and I record each instrument individually and methodically and leave the mixing to the end. So are all of these mix options going to be totally wasted on me?

B) The hardware ships with Cubase AI6. Will this be a suitable replacement for SX3 for me? I read that it’s streamlined and in one way that worries me, but to be honest, there was a whole range of stuff in SX3 that I never used anyway. As long as I can use VSTs, have a good bunch of tracks, great midi options and a nice clear interface I’ll be happy.

C) Aside from the mix options, what useful integration is there between the 28M and Cubase AI 6 for me as a home recordist? I love Cubase, and the main reason I am considering the URM is because of the advertised functionality with Cubase, but I haven’t actually read about anything that seems useful to me personally. Will the latency be especially good or something?

D) I’ve heard that the hardware also ships with some eqs and reverbs? Are these hardware effects or software effects, and if they are software effects why should I care since they may not be any better than any of the other software eqs and reverbs that I’ve bought in the past.

Finally.

E) I have several old drum machines (analog and eprom) with individual outs The UR28M only has two inputs with preamps. If I want to record four drums simultaneously should I connect two of them to the direct inserts and the other two to the preamp inserts or will that give me an uneven recording? Is it advisable to patiently record all the drums through the preamps in batches? What should I use the two direct inputs for? And more generally, should I always use the preamps? My analog synth and drum machines are plenty loud already.

Sorry for the essay. Hopefully someone can help. If not, at least I have my questions clear in my own mind now.

Thanks
Old 21st December 2011
  #196
Quote:
Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
I know this thread is kinda dead, but I thought I’d resurrect it and hopefully get some help from people familiar with the Steinberg UR28M.

Basically I’m a Cubase SX3 user who is finally upgrading from a Fast-Track Pro. The Fast-Track was great in my opinion, but now that I’m more comfortable with recording I constantly find myself pushing it to its limit and I’ve started to experience some latency problems. I fancy having better quality preamps too.

I’ve more or less decided on the Steinberg UR28M because it’s built with Cubase in mind, and there is supposedly great functionality between the two. The problem is, I don’t know if any of this functionality is actually useful to me personally.

My questions regarding the UR28M are the following:

A) I have two decent Genelec monitors and that’s it. I will not be getting more monitors in the next five years and it concerns me that like half of the buttons on the interface seem to be for switching between different mixes. I’ve never recorded more than two instruments simultaneously, and I don’t record bands, I record for myself and I record each instrument individually and methodically and leave the mixing to the end. So are all of these mix options going to be totally wasted on me?

B) The hardware ships with Cubase AI6. Will this be a suitable replacement for SX3 for me? I read that it’s streamlined and in one way that worries me, but to be honest, there was a whole range of stuff in SX3 that I never used anyway. As long as I can use VSTs, have a good bunch of tracks, great midi options and a nice clear interface I’ll be happy.

C) Aside from the mix options, what useful integration is there between the 28M and Cubase AI 6 for me as a home recordist? I love Cubase, and the main reason I am considering the URM is because of the advertised functionality with Cubase, but I haven’t actually read about anything that seems useful to me personally. Will the latency be especially good or something?

D) I’ve heard that the hardware also ships with some eqs and reverbs? Are these hardware effects or software effects, and if they are software effects why should I care since they may not be any better than any of the other software eqs and reverbs that I’ve bought in the past.

Finally.

E) I have several old drum machines (analog and eprom) with individual outs The UR28M only has two inputs with preamps. If I want to record four drums simultaneously should I connect two of them to the direct inserts and the other two to the preamp inserts or will that give me an uneven recording? Is it advisable to patiently record all the drums through the preamps in batches? What should I use the two direct inputs for? And more generally, should I always use the preamps? My analog synth and drum machines are plenty loud already.

Sorry for the essay. Hopefully someone can help. If not, at least I have my questions clear in my own mind now.

Thanks
Hey Rupert,

I will try to give you answers from my perspective...

A) Even with only one set of speakers (in my case Yamahas), I found the big volume knob, and the hardware button "Dim" and "Mute" function very handy. I miss them on the UR824 to which I meanwhile upgraded.

B) I have never worked with Cubase AI, since I own Cubase 6 full version. I can't comment much on the limitations of Cubase AI compared to SX3, but here are some specs: 32 audio tracks, 48 MIDI tracks, 16 instrument tracks and 8 VSTi rack slots. GUI is the same as Cubase 6 except for limitations on how man mixer windows you can open and stuff like that. It is a bit different from SX3 (I worked with SX3 many years ago and knew it quite well), but no big learning curve at all to get used to it.

C) + D) You can use direct monitoring, which means the monitoring of the signal you record does not go through Cubase and suffer from the latency the DAW induces, but it is mixed to the Cubase playback straight from the interface itself. This means pretty much zero latency. On top of that, you can add compressor, EQ and a reverb with three different algos (room, hall, plate) from a hardware DSP in the interface to the latency free monitoring signal, and I can tell you, these FX are really nice, no cheap stuff, they sound really good. VERY useable. The whole recording chain, from high pass filter to the hardware DSP monitoring FX, can be controlled straight out of Cubase and is stored with your projects, no need for further applications, interface mixers and settings to be saved etc. Makes the workflow better. And as a really nice add-on, these FX are included as native VST versions so you can also use them for the mix in Cubase, and they are just as good and useful there. So, if you ask me, these features are excellent and absolutely worth it.

E) I can't comment on this one - never ran drum machines into an audio interface, I use only one channel for a mic for vocals and one channel for DI for electric guitars in all my projects.

Hope this helped so far. I would give you a definitive thumbs up and total recommendation on the UR28M. If you feel like Cuabse AI is not offering enough features for you, you ca still upgrade for not too much money to Cubase Essential or Artist, and they should absolutely do it for you and trump SX3 in almost all features.

Rock on, friend!
Old 21st December 2011
  #197
Gear Head
 

Thanks a lot Parlopower.

So it seems to me that the main benefit of this interface for a Cubase user is that you can monitor your ingoing signals with the included EQ, reverb, and compression, while putting no stress on the computer's CPU and with no latency because the interface is taking care of it internally? Is this correct?

The idea then would be to record the signal with the effects into an audio track so that there is never any latency or CPU stress?

Can you tell me a little bit about the sweetspot channel strip? Are there useful presets for drums and bass and things like that? Is this the same as the EQ and compression that you are talking about?

Sorry for my newbish questions. I just want to make the right choice. I was considering a BabyFace, but to be honest, better functionality with Cubase trumps slightly better convertors or preamps for me at this level. Much of my stuff tends to be a bit coarse or deliberately lowfi anyway so I don't really need or want absolutely pristine convertors or sparkling glittery preamps. The preamps on the Steinberg sound great and a big step up from my Fast-Track Pro!

Thanks for your help
Old 21st December 2011
  #198
Administrator
 
Grahamdwc's Avatar
 

Tools for ur28m update

TOOLS FOR UR28M UPDATE

Steinberg has just released a new update for the UR28M desktop interface. Tools for UR28M 1.1 comes with several improvements and introduces a new function with which the input signal level of Line Input 3/4 can be adjusted between +4dBu/-10dBV.

The update is now available free of charge from the Steinberg support area. For detailed information on all fixes and enhancements, please check the release notes on the download page.
Old 29th December 2011
  #199
Quote:
Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
Thanks a lot Parlopower.

So it seems to me that the main benefit of this interface for a Cubase user is that you can monitor your ingoing signals with the included EQ, reverb, and compression, while putting no stress on the computer's CPU and with no latency because the interface is taking care of it internally? Is this correct?
Yes. No latency and at the same time no CPU load. At the same time, since monitoring latency play no role, you can set the buffer of the DAW very high (1024 or 2048 samples e.g.) and thus have loads of CPU power for the plugins you have in the mix already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
The idea then would be to record the signal with the effects into an audio track so that there is never any latency or CPU stress?
You CAN record the signal wet (at least with the channels strip, I believe the reverb is for monitoring only). But you can also record it dry and leave the processing to the mixing stage, which is what I prefer. See my comment right above, you can load lots of plugins at the buffer size you can set if you don't need to consider latency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
Can you tell me a little bit about the sweetspot channel strip? Are there useful presets for drums and bass and things like that? Is this the same as the EQ and compression that you are talking about?
Yes, the sweet spot morphing channel is the on used in the audio interface for latency free monitoring FX, but it also comes as a native VST version you can use as any other native plugin in Cubase (or any VST compatible host). I can not say much about the presets, I use it mainly for my vocals and needed about 5 seconds to dial it in - literally. It has a morph knob that morphs the cop and EQ through various presets, I found it extremely easy to find a useable setting, and all in all I find it sounds actually very musical and nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
Sorry for my newbish questions. I just want to make the right choice. I was considering a BabyFace, but to be honest, better functionality with Cubase trumps slightly better convertors or preamps for me at this level. Much of my stuff tends to be a bit coarse or deliberately lowfi anyway so I don't really need or want absolutely pristine convertors or sparkling glittery preamps. The preamps on the Steinberg sound great and a big step up from my Fast-Track Pro!

Thanks for your help
I never used any RME gear so far, so I can not say how the converters of the UR28M compare to the Babyface. I can say that the converters are quite okay, and the preamps are very very good for an audio interface. The baby face comes with RME's Total Mix software, which has as far as I know very powerful routing, and also zero latency eq and reverb. But you don't have the Cubase integration, it is a separate application.

For me, I would prefer the Steinberg. And I do not think you would go wrong with it, either.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #200
Gear Head
 

I wonder if all these RightMark testings portray a true depiction of sound quality on these devices. I just checked out the RightMarks on the fast track pro and it is testing better then the ur28m and other highly regarded interfaces, and is right up there with the duet 2 and rme babyface.

???? ????????? RightMark Audio Analyzer: M-Audio Fast Track Pro

Now, I have owned the fast track pro and I know its not on par with those above mentioned interface, sound quality wise.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #201
Lives for gear
 
Circuitt's Avatar
 

what you hear > charts and graphs
Old 5th January 2012
  #202
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by parlopower View Post
Yes. No latency and at the same time no CPU load. At the same time, since monitoring latency play no role, you can set the buffer of the DAW very high (1024 or 2048 samples e.g.) and thus have loads of CPU power for the plugins you have in the mix already.

Thanks for all the info Parlo.

The last question I still haven't got my head around is: if I use the EQ and reverb as a plugin in a track, do I still get zero latency and zero CPU stress? Is the hardware taking care of it or does it only work like this when the signal is going in.

Thanks
Old 6th January 2012
  #203
Quote:
Originally Posted by herokiller View Post
Thanks for all the info Parlo.

The last question I still haven't got my head around is: if I use the EQ and reverb as a plugin in a track, do I still get zero latency and zero CPU stress? Is the hardware taking care of it or does it only work like this when the signal is going in.

Thanks
Zero latency without CPU load is only on monitoring, since only then the DSP in the interface processes them. If you use the plugins on a track in your DAW, they run as native DAW plugins, thus causing CPU load and latency as any other plugin.

Anyway, the latency of the plugins in the DAW does not play a role - Cubase has automatic delay compensation, so the latency is taken care of during playback. The latency of VST plugins in Cubase is only there when you activate the track for monitoring through the DAW, that means direct monitoring through the interface disabled. Of course you would not monitor with native effects through the DAW with the UR28M, you would use direct monitoring with the DSP FX anyway. Hence you would never notice the latency of the plugins, only the CPU load.
Old 10th January 2012
  #204
Gear Head
 

Hey,

I just bought the UR28m and I'm having a few problems installing the latest version of Tools for UR28m. I've posted about this on the Steinberg forums (and submitted a ticket) but I wondered if anyone around here has seen similar problems to those noted below?

Cheers,
Stephen.

-- Tools for UR28m installation issues - Steinberg forum post ---
Hey,

I've created a support ticket about this but I thought I'd post here as well in case anyone else has a similar problem...

I successfully installed Tools for UR28m (latest version, 1.1) on my Windows 7 x64 laptop. I then had the UR28m working/passing audio with no issue.

I then tried to install the same tools on my PC (again, Windows 7 x64) but got the error:

"Error applying transforms. Verify that the specified transform paths are valid".

I uninstalled Tools, via Control Panel, and tried to install again. Same error message.

Has anyone else encountered this?

Google seems to suggest that there was an issue during installation and that I'm probably not do a 'complete' uninstall. Is there a a way to check that the Tools have been fully uninstalled, or can I manually uninstall? Of course the problem could be something completely different.

Any help would be most welcome

Thanks,
Stephen.

PS - after the error message I do get another dialog telling me installation was successful. On checking the device the new driver is there and reported as working, however the properties cannot be updated via the control panel (it hangs) and the device is not passing audio, so my guess is that the installation was not successful.
--- end ---
Old 10th January 2012
  #205
Gear Head
 

Which is better, UR28M or MR816X? I can find MR816X for $500-600 on eBay. I don't need 8 channels.
Old 11th January 2012
  #206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiO View Post
Which is better, UR28M or MR816X? I can find MR816X for $500-600 on eBay. I don't need 8 channels.
Pres: The same.
Converters: From the tech data sheet, the MR816 converters are closer to the UR824 than to the UR28M, and if that gives any clue, then they are better on the MR816 (I owned a UR28M and now have the UR824, so yes, I can compare, and the UR824 converters are quite superior to the UR28M's).

Other differences:
MR816 DSP plugins EITHER in monitoring OR a limited number of instances in the mix, always running on DSP power
UR28M DSP plugins only for monitoring, BUT also bundled as native versions for in the mix, instance number limited by DAW CPU power
MR816 has unbal inserts on In1+2
MR816 has only one hi-z in on input 1, UR28M has 2 of them, BUT if the one on the MR816 is the same as on the UR824 then it sounds better than the UR28M's hi-z
UR28M has handy monitoring control features (dim, mute, mono, switching quickly between 3 monitor pairs etc.)

If you do not emphasize so much on the converter quality, I find the UR28M the more convenient package.
Old 11th January 2012
  #207
Lives for gear
 
Circuitt's Avatar
 

Rme baby face
Old 11th January 2012
  #208
Gear Addict
 
dariva's Avatar
Hi there,
I have the UR28M for about 10 days now and decided to chime in here. I got this interface for my home set up, where previously I had a Presonus Firebox.

Regarding converters - of course, the UR28M is a huge gain in sound reproduction if you come from the Firebox world. I also compared it to a Steinberg CI2 audio interface - the UR82M provided a more detailed and, for me, more truthful sound, better frequency separation and overall, music sounded wider,closer and fuller, whereas through the CI2, it sounded a little bit further away and somewhat smeared. Actually, this was something that the guy, who owned both the CI2 and the UR28M and then sold me the latter, was really used to and he did not like the sound of the UR28M.....So it really matters what your previous set up was, and what worked for you, when judging a new sound device (excuse me for stating the obvious, but this is something everyone needs to have in mind, when reading opinions of others). I am using a FF800 at the studio but haven't compared the two units yet. My feeling is that they are on par, but that's just unsubstantiated guess for now...

The build quality of the unit is pretty good. I'm even not comparing it to the Firebox - scratchy knobs, breaking firewire ports, etc. The feel of the unit is of a very well constructed device. The only thing is the phantom power button for which you'll need a bit more effort to press, but that could actually be useful.

Also, for me a great improvement are the volume knob, mono, dim, and mute switches and the 3 speaker outputs. Even only for those, I consider this unit a great buy!

Cheers!
Old 30th January 2012
  #209
Gear Nut
 

Thought I'd chime in here rather start a new thread. i just got the UR28. I haven't put it through all of it's paces yet but I'm having a hard time figuring out the dspMix and different mix possibilities. I'm running Cubase 5 so I can use the integration features. But how do I set up different mixes? Do I do this before I go into Cubase, being that the mixer is not funtional while Cubase is running? Or do I do it after I get inside Cubase. The manual really doesn't detail this. Primarily I'm trying to get a headphone mix which utilizes the reverb on the phones only. I can only get the headphones to work on Mix1. Obviously I'm missing something.
Old 30th January 2012
  #210
Quote:
Originally Posted by qbury View Post
Thought I'd chime in here rather start a new thread. i just got the UR28. I haven't put it through all of it's paces yet but I'm having a hard time figuring out the dspMix and different mix possibilities. I'm running Cubase 5 so I can use the integration features. But how do I set up different mixes? Do I do this before I go into Cubase, being that the mixer is not funtional while Cubase is running? Or do I do it after I get inside Cubase. The manual really doesn't detail this. Primarily I'm trying to get a headphone mix which utilizes the reverb on the phones only. I can only get the headphones to work on Mix1. Obviously I'm missing something.
You can do it inside Cubase.

Your main stereo out in Cubase is Mix 1.

To access Mix 2 and Mix 3, you need to activate the Control Room in Cubase and send your Cubase tracks through the Control Room Sends to the Control Room.
By adjusting the Control Room Send levels and the Control Room mixer levels, you can then create alternative mixes and route them from the Control Room to Mix 2 and Mix 3 as additional stereo output pairs.
You can route Mix 2 and Mix 3 to the various output channels (analog outputs A-C, headphones output 2 and SPDIF).
The routing can be set up in another dialog inside Cubase. Go to the "Devices" menu, open it and choose "Hardware". There you can determine the routing of the Mixes, the source Mix for headphones 2 (headphones 1 is always Mix 1), and the routing of the DSP reverb.

The Cubase manual contains more details about the Control Room and the UR28M manual about the "Hardware" dialog in the "Devices" menu. You will have to check there for the precise procedure, would take up a bit too much space here.

Hope this helped!
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