STEINBERG MR816csx Interface and CC121 Controller - now with conclusions [Archive] - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums

Anderton

01-07-2009, 06:17 PM

Maybe you've seen the video on HC's home page about this duo, or maybe you saw the video I did at the 2008 Frankfurt show where these were introduced. In any event, I was intrigued the moment I saw them. I come from a "hardware studio" background, and while I've certainly embraced computer-based recording, I've never been able to cut the umbilical cord to hands-on control.

To me, a mix is a performance and moving the faders as the spirit moves you is an essential part of the experience. And there are plenty of boxes with moving faders, thank you. But what about those other controls on a console - the EQs, for example? Sure, there are boxes where you can assign things, but wouldn't it be better if a software company teamed up with a hardware company so the integration would be painless and wouldn't require any more thought than pushing a button on a console?

Well, that's what these devices claim to do. As a marriage between Steinberg software and Yamaha hardware, coupled with Yamaha's fixation on using hardware and software to form a truly integrated system, the MR816csx and CC121 have an impeccable pedigree. So really, the question is whether the pair lives up to the hype - do they really simplify the process of using Cubase? Do they really let you stay in right brain, creative mode instead of having to constantly deal with menus and mouse clicks? Fortunately, this is a Pro Review, so we'll find out.

But first, a word about scheduling. I've actually had these units for several weeks but was not able to start the review until now for personal reasons - I had a freak accident back in December that set me back a bit. I'm okay now, and thankfully there were no permanent ramifications, but I really wasn't at full capacity for a couple weeks. Now, this is the kind of thing you'd never know if this was a print review :) but this is a Pro Review, it's real-time, and that's what happened.

Another issue is that I hate starting a Pro Review just before a trade show, because of all the video obligations I have for HC that usually require me editing 24/7 for two weeks after the show, so that the videos go online in a timely fashion. But this time, I'm going to NAMM armed with a PC Audio Labs laptop and the 64-bit version of Vegas, on the theory that I'll be able to get quite a few videos done while at the show. If so, then I'll be able to get back to this review fairly quickly after NAMM ends. If not, and I get pulled away from editing in the evenings, then that will look like not the best decision in the world. But as I said - this is a real-time review, and we'll let the chips fall where they may! I think it's important to start this review now, because there's a lot of buzz about these units, and with good reason.

Okay, that's enough self-indulgent background. Let's open the boxes and get started.

Anderton

01-07-2009, 06:35 PM

The MR816csx is the interface. As with most pro reviews, there's little point in re-hashing specs because they're available on the web (http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/hardware/mr816csx.html). I must say Steinberg has done an outstanding job of explaining what the MR816csx is all about; there are videos, PDFs, audio examples, lots of diagrams, etc. Thanks to them doing all that work, we can concentrate on the user experience :thu:

The first attached image shows the MR816's front panel. There are eight inputs, with two of these brought out to the front panel; the one on the extreme left handles Mic, Line, or Instrument, and the next one over to the right accepts Line or Mic. However, note that these are front panel connections for convenience - the rear panel has six more Mic/Line combo jacks (high quality Neutriks, by the way).

As to outs, the front panel has two headphone jacks. The rear has two TRS inserts, eight 1/4" outs, word clock in and out, two FireWire ports (this should be interesting! FireWire interfaces have had a checkered history here in Pro Review-land), S/PDIF in/out, and ADAT optical in/out. I'm always happy when I see ADAT I/O, as I still have quite a few devices in my studio that use that protocol. Good.

When you open the oversized box (I think not even UPS on a bad day could kill this), there's not only the MR816 but you also have a FireWire cable, two installation discs (Cubase AI4 and MR Tools), manual, and a power supply that looks like it was designed by someone who was told he'd lose his job if it ever failed - it's big. It's not a wall wart but a "line lump," so you plug one cable into the wall, and one into the MR816. The power supply connector is a substantial, locking type.

Now let's open up the CC121.

Anderton

01-07-2009, 07:02 PM

Surprise: The CC121 is quite compact, and obviously intended to sit on your desktop without hogging it - see the attached image. It's actually a very nice example of industrial design; I'd call it downright "stylish." The CC121's landing page (http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/hardware/cc121.html) at Steinberg.net is as helpful as the one for the MR816, and the product view page (http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/hardware/cc121/cc121_productviews.html) gives a very good short-form summary of the controls. Note the long-throw fader on the left: This is a full 100mm fader, not one of those little 60mm jobs.

The CC121 uses USB (as nothing specifies that you have to use USB 2.0, I'm going to assume 1.1 works - I can't test that with my system, as all the USB ports are 2.0), and the MR816 (as we've already noted) is FireWire-based. I think this was an excellent design decision for several reasons:

1. FireWire is better at sustained throughput for audio than USB.
2. You have no possibility of interference between the two competing for bandwidth on the same bus.
3. The CC121 can be bus-powered, however, you can use motorization on the fader only if it's powered by the included AC adapter. Note that the PreSonus FaderPort works the same way, so this is not a limitation of the CC121, but a limitation of using a power-hungry moving fader with a USB device.

The CC121 reminds me a bit of the days when keyboards didn't have numeric keypads, so if you were into spreadsheets and such, you would buy a separate numeric keypad and have it sit off to the side of your QWERTY keyboard. The CC121's footprint makes it well-suited to be your "music control keypad," but nothing on it feels cramped.

As to pricing, list price on the CC121 is $499, but it's available for considerably less (http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-CC121-Advanced-Integration-Controller?sku=241881). List price on the MR816csx is $1,499, but again, you can find deals (http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Advanced-Integration-2-DSP-Studio-Firewire-Interface?sku=241879) that shave several hundred dollars off the price. There's another model, the MR816x, which costs less; it appears pretty much identical to the MR816csx but lacks DSP-based compression and EQ (however, both models have DSP-based Yamaha reverb).

So the combo is going to set you back around $1,500, which while not terribly expensive, is not exactly cheap, either. What determines the level of value is whether that $1,500 buys you not just good hardware, but good workflow.

And there you have the (very) basics. The next test is to see what kind of roadblocks lie ahead...audio interfaces usually have a surprise or two up their sleeves, but hopefully installation will be uneventful so we can get right into using the interface.

One more thing: Yamaha's Motif XS, the subject of another Pro Review, is also part of the Steinberg/Yamaha "advanced integration" family so we'll finally get a chance to see how it works not only with Cubase AI, but whether the MR816 or CC121 come into play as well.

Mats Nermark

01-08-2009, 10:55 AM

Hi Craig,

I have been looking forward to this pro review since I first saw the demo of these units in Frankfurt.

Cheers,

Mats N

Anderton

01-09-2009, 10:29 PM

As much as I like control surfaces, let's get the interface going first. By the way, I probably should mention that there is no MIDI interface on the box. This is a curious omission, given Cubase's deep MIDI editing - until you look on the back panel and try to figure out where you would have put the connectors! So if you use a MIDI controller, factor some kind of MIDI interface into your budget if you don't have one already.

Like most software-based journeys these days, the experience begins with going to the company web site and looking for updates. Of course, my version of Cubase 4 is up-to-date (V 4.51) because I use the program quite a bit, and there were no newer versions of the MR Tools software, so it was time to open the manual and get started.

I decided to install into my 8-core Intel Windows XP machine from PC Audio Labs. The MR816 manual is unusual as it gives a "Preparing to Install" section that double-checks things like your IEEE1394 not being disabled. Yamaha is very good about this kind of thing, and that apparently carries over to the Steinberg line. The instructions even tell you the proper way to bail out in the middle of an installation - something I haven't seen in any other manual.

This is all a good sign. Let's see what happens next...

Okay, CD-ROM in the drive...double-click on Setup.exe...a message comes up saying to turn off power to all IEEE1394 devices. Hmmm...that might be good advice when installing software for any FireWire peripheral. I'll have to remember that.

Watch the little progress bars...so far so good...actually three pieces of software are being installed: The Yamaha Steinberg FireWire driver, Steinberg MR Editor, and MR Extensions...

Uh-oh! Nasty error message! Okay, don't panic. Hmm, Windows Defender is on - that could be the problem. Most of the time I remember to turn off any kind of anti-virus stuff before doing an installation, but this time it slipped my mind (I admit it, I'm a little impatient to get this puppy going). Fortunately, the Yamaha installer set a System Restore point, so I'll go back to that, turn off Defender, and try again.

Anderton

01-09-2009, 10:34 PM

Okay, let's try again.

Run Setup...check...installation proceeding...check...new hardware found...check...everything seems fine, except there's one additional step that didn't happen: Installation of the WDM audio driver.

The manual says to check for entries under Sound, Video, and Game Controllers, and while I'm seeing two of the three entries I'm supposed to see, I don't see "Yamaha Steinberg FW WDM Audio." And, while the System tray shows a little icon for choosing the Control Panel and MR Editor, the control panel says "Device Not Found."

Then I remembered a section in the manual saying that when installation is complete, if*a message appears that says to restart, one should restart the computer. No such message appeared, but restarting with a Windows machine is like trashing preferences or repairing permissions on a Mac - a cure-all. Let's reboot, and see what happens.

Anderton

01-09-2009, 10:50 PM

Well, wouldn't you know it: After restarting, the "Found New Hardware" screen appeared, the WDM Audio drivers were installed, everything showed up under "Sound, Video, and Game Controllers," and let's check the system tray...

Bingo! The first image shows the Control Panel screen, and the second image shows the MR Editor. I had to reduce the image slightly, as image uploads are restricted to 900 pixels in width, and the Editor is just under 1000 pixels. So if the graphics look a little squished, don't blame Yamaha - in the real world, they look just fine.

Note to Yamaha/Steinberg: Consider adding an update to the manual saying to turn off all anti-virus programs before installation, and to restart if the WDM driver install window doesn't appear.

Once the Editor was up, I must say the "virtual knobs" looked a little small - they must be hard to adjust, right? Whoa!! This is cool! When you click on the knob, it expands into a larger, high-resolution knob. This is so nifty I just have to do a quick video to show you what I mean. I'll be back in a few minutes.

Anderton

01-09-2009, 11:07 PM

Here's how the knobs react when you click on them. Trust me, it's worth checking out the video...the first video is in WMV format, and the second video is in QuickTime format.

Well, that's it for now because the installation procedure took a little longer than expected and I have some other obligations to fulfill. More to come...and feel free to throw in your own comments, or ask questions!

(Incidentally, and quite off-topic, can anyone explain to me why the QuickTime video doesn't look as good as the WMV one, even though the QT file size is almost twice as big?)

therage57

01-22-2009, 10:56 AM

Looking forward to this review.

It would be great if you could also review it's cousin, the Yamaha n12 and show comparisons, strengths etc between them.

hypercubed

02-01-2009, 05:52 PM

Good start so far!

It would be great if you could also review it's cousin, the Yamaha n12 and show comparisons, strengths etc between them.

Definitely agree. Would be interested in seeing whether this combo makes the ITB experience similar to the OTB experience of using the N12.

eightyeightkeys

02-04-2009, 05:20 PM

I'm anxiously awaiting mo' info on this unit as it is high on my list of possible upgrades. Yowza.:thu:

Anderton

02-05-2009, 12:12 AM

Hey guys - I'm really looking forward to getting back to this myself!! I only have two more NAMM videos to go and then it's back to pro reviews. Thanks for your patience...but I gotta say, it takes a while to slam out 70+ videos, even though I was in fact able to do 11 of them while I was at NAMM...!

Muzishian

02-08-2009, 01:27 AM

For all of you on the fence with this unit, take the plunge......it really is a great all-around unit. I've had it for about 2 months now & love it. The second driver is super stable (I had issues with the first release), the pres are the best I've heard in any interface I've ever had (MOTU 828, Konnekt 24D, then the Studio K48, both of which gave me too many headaches) and the integration is superb. If you want to know more just message me or reply to this post.:rawk:

Anderton

02-09-2009, 05:46 PM

Better yet, reply in this thread so we can get some dialog going!

Anderton

02-09-2009, 06:24 PM

Okay, I'm back...finally! Hope you liked all those NAMM videos in the Theater :)

As I'm really curious about the mic pres, I'm going to plug in a mic and start recording a vocal. By the way, one change since the first part of this review is I'm now running XP SP3 instead of SP2. Probably won't make a difference, but I mention it for completeness.

Let's see how idiot-proof this is. I'm opening Cubase AI4 (V4.5.2), and hopefully, the interface will just show up and everything will be wonderful...I won't look at the manual unless I have to.

Okay, a screen shows up that asks whether I want to use the Yamaha Steinberg FW ASIO driver as the master ASIO driver. Hmmm...well, I'll say no for now, but I won't check the box that says "Do not ask this again." There may be situations where I'll need to try out AI with the Motif XS and need to use some other driver or something.

With Cubase AI open, I went to the Device Setup and for ASIO drivers, there was indeed an option for Yamaha Steinberg FW ASIO - no problem. Seems like I'm good to go.

So I open a project, insert a mono track for the mic, and check this out: The MR816csx panel starts flashing at me! It's the Quick Connect buttons, which are above the mic pres. Now, how did it know I was going to hook up a mic? Presumably, it's because I specified a mono input. Anyway...

Time to start recording...done. But here's what's really cool about the Quick Connect thing: When you click on a track, then select an input's Quick Connect button, you've connected that input to that track. If you select a different track, then press the Quick Connect button, you're connected to that track instead.

There's no specifying the input you want to select, no worrying about whether you're hooked up to the right interface input or not....just click, select, go.

In a way, it's like "reverse composite recording." Unlike composite recording, where you record a bunch of tracks then whittle down the best bits to one track, here you have one input that you can basically record anywhere, into any track. I'll admit that I've lost quite a bit of time during my life by troubleshooting input connections. Is the mic plugged into the patch bay? Is phantom on? Is the track connected to the correct input? Do I have the driver for that input connected? All those issues are gone with the MR816csx. Like, gone.

Pretty impressive so far, I'll come back after dinner and do some more on the review. But already, I can see where this is going...

Muzishian

02-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Better yet, reply in this thread so we can get some dialog going!

A much better idea indeed!;)

Anderton

02-09-2009, 11:56 PM

When you install the MR816csx tools, there are several templates made available, as shown in the first image. Note that you don't have to use these templates; they're just there to give you a starting point if you want one.

So, I called up the Vocal-Instrument Recording 1 template to see what that involved. It opened up with two mono tracks, three stereo tracks, and the VST Audio Channel Settings for Channel 1 open and ready to go (second image). All the Quick Connect buttons start off lit, as well.

After determining that the whole Quick Connect thing worked, I thought I'd try a quickie project to see if it really did improve workflow. I created an instrument track, and called up Cakewalk's Session Drummer 2 to provide the "glorified metronome." Then, I plugged my Gibson Dark Fire guitar into input 1, set it to Hi-Z (and it is indeed high-Z; the pickups sounded much fuller and brighter), and for a guitar plug-in, added a Peavey Revalver Mk III Vox AC30-type amp sound. I then plugged a dynamic mic into the second input so I could do vocals, and used a Live 6 GearBox plug-in to apply vocal processing to my voice (I made a preset for GearBox that really flatters my voice, so I use it a lot).

I have to say it was very easy to do overdubs and harmonies: Pick track, click on Quick Connect button, done. (Well, done except for adding plug-ins within Cubase if needed - the "AI" part of Cubase AI isn't smart enough yet to read your mind and insert the plug-in you want.)

There are two things about the Quick Connect scheme that make life even easier. First, you can connect to multiple tracks at once. This is something I often do for parallel effects. The second is that it's impossible to get lost, because if you want to know which input connects to which track, when you click on a track, the Quick Connect light for the input that's connected to the track flashes four times. Even better--and this shows someone was definitely thinking of the end user--there's about a half-second delay between clicking on the track and the start of the flashing. So, you can look at the screen, find the track, click on it, then look over at the MR816csx and it will still be flashing.

Anderton

02-10-2009, 12:14 AM

Before calling it a night, it's worth noting how the MR816csx handles +48V phantom power. First of all, it really is +48V (+48.2, to be exact). This isn't always the case with interfaces; I've measured phantom power that's as low as +34V in some bus-powered interfaces. As the MR816csx has a real power supply, it has no problem delivering the appropriate voltage.

Second, each of the eight inputs can have +48V power individually. With many interfaces, you can activate +48V only for particular inputs, or input groups (e.g., ins 1-4 and/or 5-8). Of course, the MR816csx's approach is much more flexible.

So where are the phantom power switches? There's only one, along with clever ergnomics. If no input has phantom power, the +48V button is not illuminated. If you want an input to have phantom power, you hold down the +48V button and hit the appropriate channel's Quick Connect button. You can do this for as many channels as you like.

After your assignments, the +48V button remains illuminated to let you know phantom power is being applied to at least one input. If you press the +48V button, the Quick Connect button for any channel with phantom power lights up. In this situation the Quick Connect button is a toggle, so if you hit a lit Quick Connect button, it turns off and removes +48V power. And that's the deal with +48V.

There's lots more to cover, and I'd like to check out the "morphing" processing next...I've always been intrigued hearing about it at trade shows, now I get to try it.

It's early in the review, but it's already clear that the MR816csx would be extremely applicable to a solo studio with a couple mics, some instruments, something like a drum machine or keyboard with stereo line outs, etc. You could have all these inputs set up and ready to go at once (and take advantage of the front panel jacks for mics 1 and 2 to swap out different mics); then when you're recording, just click a track and push a button to assign your sound source of choice to Cubase.

Oh, one last thought: Just in case it's not clear, you can use programs other than Cubase with the MR816csx; it shows up like any other interface, and you can take advantage of many of its features. However, integration on the level of connecting to individual tracks from any given input is restricted to use with Cubase 4.5.1, Cubase AI 4.5.1, or higher.

eightyeightkeys

02-11-2009, 01:30 PM

Anderton

02-12-2009, 12:25 AM

Craig, one of the "issues" that I read about this unit is that, yes, you can monitor with the REVX reverb in the monitor path during tracking, which is normal, but, you cannot use the same REVX on playback. Huh ?
You have to have a seperate instance of another, different plug-in reverb on playback because there is only one instance of the REVX and the REVX currently cannot be routed into the signal path for both talent monitor and playback from the recorded track at the same time.
Can you confirm ?

I will test to confirm, but using hardware plug-ins instead of software does present limitations as well as advantages. The two main limitations of hardware are that 1) you can instantiate only one instance (this makes sense; it's not like instantiating another instance puts another DSP chip in the unit) and 2) you can't do non-real-time bounces, for the same reason you have to bounce in real time if going through an external processor of some kind.

I'll see if Yamaha has somehow managed to circumvent the laws of physics, but I suspect my statements above apply. I'll also see if there's any way of putting the REV X in a Cubase aux bus, which would be very useful. Or maybe someone from Steinberg has an answer?

Anderton

02-12-2009, 12:26 AM

...and speaking of someone from Steinberg...do you anticipate releasing some sort of SDK in the future that allows manufacturers of other sequencers to tie into the hardware, or manufacturers of other hardware to tie into Cubase?

Mats Nermark

02-12-2009, 03:04 AM

Hi Craig,

One of the things I like about Cubase is that you can do a fast audio mixdown.
Now if you use fx in an external hardware like TC Electronic Konnekt 24D then this is NOT possible and you have to use real time audio export.

Do you know if Steinberg has found a way around this with the RevX so that you can use it at fast audio mixdown?

Cheers,

Mats N

Jon Chappell

02-12-2009, 07:52 AM

First of all, it really is +48V (+48.2, to be exact). This isn't always the case with interfaces; I've measured phantom power that's as low as +34V in some bus-powered interfaces.

Craig, good to know that the MR816csx delivers the goods in the voltage dept. of its phantom power circuitry.

But what did you use to measure it? (And the other units in your studio, for that matter.) Is it simply a matter of taking a RadioShack voltmeter and inserting the probes into the ground and positive-phase pins/sockets (1 and 2, respectively) of the unit's mic input? Or to the pins/sockets of an XLR cable connected to the unit? What voltmeter do you use/recommend for such a task?

Anderton

02-12-2009, 12:57 PM

Craig, good to know that the MR816csx delivers the goods in the voltage dept. of its phantom power circuitry.

But what did you use to measure it? (And the other units in your studio, for that matter.) Is it simply a matter of taking a RadioShack voltmeter and inserting the probes into the ground and positive-phase pins/sockets (1 and 2, respectively) of the unit's mic input? Or to the pins/sockets of an XLR cable connected to the unit? What voltmeter do you use/recommend for such a task?

I just use a voltmeter I picked up at Home Depot - a Sperry DM-4100A. I wouldn't recommend this unit for work with musical electronics, but it's great for around the house testing and is pretty much indestructible.

As to measuring, your assumption is correct: I measure the voltage differential between pins 1 and 2. I'd probably get a more accurate reading it I measured it under load, with a mic attached, but I think the no-load measurement is "close enough for rock and roll."

Anderton

02-12-2009, 12:59 PM

Got the following email from Steinberg:

Greg Ondo our Senior Steinberg North America GURU :) created the following document that we have posted on the www.steinbergnorthamerica.com website. You may find this useful.

http://steinbergnorthamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mr816_application_guide1.pdf

The DSP FX (morphing compressor channel strip and REV-X Reverb) can be used on input (tracking) or during playback (mixing) but cannot be launched at the same time. If one wants to use this during playback, they needs to change the settings to External FX found in the Control Panel with Cubase or Nuendo. The FX can be utilized as an insert, FX channel, etc.

I need to confirm this, and I am testing now as I type, but I do believe the FX processing found in the MR series can bounce process in non-real-time. Please allow me to confirm this.

I've encouraged anyone from Steinberg who wants to chime in with comments, tips, corrections, or whatever to please do so. I always enjoy the manufacturer interaction aspect of Pro Reviews, I learn a lot that way :)

eightyeightkeys

02-12-2009, 01:59 PM

Craig :
I would have thought that this unit would be designed in such a way as to make tracking as conventional as possible.
You set-up a mic.
You get yer' level.
Slap on a reverb/talent enhancer.
Record.
Playback....uh-oh....no effects ?
Uh....O.K. Let me instantiate another plug-in for playback. Now, let's see, was that a plate or a hall ? What was the decay time on that ? Uh? What about pre-delay.
Talent :
Hmmm....why does it sound different on playback ? Wow, that punch in was wierd.

Now, i may be exageerating a bit here, but, hmmm...you would have thought that it would have been thoroughly thought through ?

ibmcgovern

02-12-2009, 03:13 PM

Craig/All....

Thank you for posting my email.

Regarding the need to "switch" the FX (vis he control panel) from tracking to mixing.

Should you find that perfect setting that the talent and you as the engineer liked during tracking, but didn't want to print the FX, you can save the setting as a preset (eg. John's Vox Verb.) The preset will show in the preset list (as well as Media Bay) to recall when mixing or any time in the future.

The beauty of the MR series is found in the tight integration between hardware and software, not to mention the sonic qualities. The MR series allows you to monitor with the onboard FX, at near zero latency, and the FX control panels are integrated directly into the software - not via a secondary application or window. As well, you can control the FX settings directly from the unit.

If I am correct, the reason why the FX cannot run simultaneously during input (tracking) and ouput (mixing) is because of bandwidth limitations.

Should any one have additional questions, please feel free to PM me at any time. I will check threads as often as possible.

Thanks.

eightyeightkeys

02-12-2009, 04:15 PM

Thanks for the reply Brian.

Is the bandwidth limitation a Firewire bandwidth limitation or something within the unit itself ?

ibmcgovern

02-12-2009, 04:55 PM

I will need to check with the engineers about the technical specifics, but I do believe it's a combination of what the FW bandwidth can support and what was needed to accomplish what the engineers desired.

Also, Craig is correct that when using the MR-Series FX, say the Rev X Reverb for a mix-down, the mix-down takes place in real-time.

Thanks.

Anderton

02-13-2009, 01:33 PM

If I am correct, the reason why the FX cannot run simultaneously during input (tracking) and ouput (mixing) is because of bandwidth limitations.

Should any one have additional questions, please feel free to PM me at any time. I will check threads as often as possible.

Thanks.

First of all, if anyone has any questions, unless they are not of general interest (in which case a PM would be more appropriate), please post them here so that we all can learn the answer. What gives Pro Reviews their credibility is the fact that we're not just limiting the review to my opinion, but opening it up to questions and comments from everyone -- users, potential buyers, manufacturers, etc. That way this becomes much more than "just" a review, and we all benefit from each other's knowledge.

Now, let me address the "bandwidth limitation" thing. I'm sure someone from Steinberg will correct me if I'm wrong.

The object of having a hardware/software combination is twofold. One, when you're limited by hardware, you can use the software and when you're limited by software, you have the hardware to fall back on. Two, there are instances where the two can be integrated to produce something neither can do by itself - like that wonderful Quick Connect button :)

As soon as you use hardware processing, you gain the following advantages:

* Virtually no load on the host computer.
* Extremely low latency compared to having to monitor through a software processor.
* Algorithms that can throw a ton of machine cycles at the processing because they're dedicated to that process, unlike the CPU in a computer.

And you gain the following disadvantages:

* Can't instantiate more than one instance. Think about it: If you had a rack reverb unit, you could use it while tracking or use it on mixdown, but not both. Hardware DSP within an interface works the same way.
* Can't do non-real-time bounces with most DSP. This is discussed in the Duende Pro Review, and on the second page, Shandor posted an ingenious workaround (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2176427&page=2) for software that doesn't provide for real-time processing, like Wavelab.

Another possible disadvantage is that presets aren't stored with a project the way they are with software plug-ins, because the hardware is external. However, the whole Steinberg/Yamaha Studio Connections initiative is designed to remedy this, and we'll find out if the MR816csx takes advantage of this protocol.

So to summarize, I don't think the "use it on playback or use it while recording" issue relates to FireWire bandwidth as much as it does to "silicon bandwidth" - a dedicated DSP chip can't miraculously become two chips.

Anderton

02-13-2009, 01:38 PM

Oh and by the way, welcome aboard Brian! I hope you'll find, as most manufacturers have, that Pro Reviews are actually a lot of fun. It's also like having the world's best focus group at your disposal :)

True story: One company wanted to do a Pro Review quite some time after the product had been released. I advised them against it, saying they should probably wait until the next version comes out. They said "We really don't care about the review, we just want to see what people don't like and their wish lists so we can incorporate those comments in the next version."

A couple companies at NAMM told me specifically that several of the features in their new updates were a direct result of user comments on these forums. Now that's pretty darn cool!

eightyeightkeys

02-14-2009, 11:10 AM

And you gain the following disadvantages:

* Can't instantiate more than one instance. Think about it: If you had a rack reverb unit, you could use it while tracking or use it on mixdown, but not both. Hardware DSP within an interface works the same way...

So to summarize, I don't think the "use it on playback or use it while recording" issue relates to FireWire bandwidth as much as it does to "silicon bandwidth" - a dedicated DSP chip can't miraculously become two chips.

Yes, but, it might have been possible, within the unit's software itself, pre-Cubase, to route the REVX as a SEND/RETURN AUX that could be accessible on monitor and playback ala the DSPFactory. I don't know. I'm just throwing this idea out there for you guys to mull over.

This may throw a wrench into the terrific integration with Cubase, maybe, I don't know, but, in this case it would have worked more like a console AUX SEND/RETURN rather than an either/or situation/limitation as it stands now.

Anderton

02-18-2009, 12:51 AM

I noticed there's a new version of MR Tools, so while it's downloading, I figured I'd mention some other points of interest.

There's an input pad switch that operates very much like the phantom power switch: When you hold down the pad button and hit a Quick Connect button, that channel now has a pad inserted; and when you hold down the pad button, you can see which channels have pads because their Quick Connect buttons light up.

In terms of sample rates, you can do 44.1, 48, 88.2, and 96kHz - no 192kHz. Is that a deal-breaker for anyone? I thought not...

Anderton

02-18-2009, 01:23 AM

Well it took me a while...but I figured out how to monitor the MR816csx's effects while recording, and apply them on playback. Let's look at using them as VST effects.

The key is to configure the MR Control panel so that on the MR816csx tab, under "Settings," you select "External FX." This is what allows the Channel Strip compressor/EQ/"Sweet Spot" morpher, as well as the reverb, to act as a plug-in within Cubase. When set as a VST plug-in, the effects apparently cannot be used while recording (which requires selecting Direct Monitoring under Devices > Device Setup; if selected for recording, these won't work as VST effects).

You also have to decide in advance how you want to allocate the hardware. The choices are 8 mono channel strip instances, 4 stereo channel strip instances, 6 mono channel strip instances and one instance of the REV-X (which you probably will want to use as a Send effect, as you have only that one instance), or 3 stereo channels with an instance of the REV-X.

Everything worked pretty much as it was supposed to, although I ran into situations where when I called up a Channel Strip or REV-X, I saw "not available" written in the effect GUI. This appears if you try to instantiate more instances that are allocated, but it sure seemed I didn't go over the limit. I tried disabling, removing channels just in case they had instances, and the like; no luck.

Finally, I quit Cubase, turned off the interface, turned it back on again, booted up Cubase, and all was well. This is the type of thing that could be pilot error, or it might have just been a glitch. Who knows? It's working now.

Anderton

02-18-2009, 01:33 AM

Check out the attached image, which shows the Channel Strip plug-in.

The compressor is toward the upper left, with Attack, Release, Ratio, and Knee options (soft, medium, hard). There's also a compression graph and gain reduction meter (the reduction is about -3dB here). Below it are the side chain filter controls for the compressor, and the Drive control, which gives the signal some extra "oomph."

Toward the right is the 3-band parametric EQ - low and high shelf, and parametric mid.

The big knob on the bottom is the morph knob, which changes a variety of parameters as you turn it. Let me see if I can come up with a little movie here of how moving it changes the parameters...I'll post this, then come back in a few minutes after the video is rendered.

Anderton

02-18-2009, 02:22 AM

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then with a frame rate of 30 frames per second, these videos are equal to 28,770 words. (The two videos are identical, except that one is rendered as WMV, and the other as MOV.)

As you watch the knob move, note that EQ, compression, and even sidechain settings vary in response. I wouldn't think of the knob as something that adds more or less of a particular effect; instead, it's more like a rotary switch that selects about a half dozen or so presets, but you can morph between these presets to get the "in between" sounds. It's not particularly predictable; I think the best way to use the Sweet Spot Morphing Effect is simply to play your source material, and turn the knob slowly until you find something that sounds right.

I'll do some audio examples tomorrow, I've spent quite a few hours on this tonight, and it's about time to take out the trash and then go to sleep!

mdmitch2

02-19-2009, 09:55 AM

Anderton

02-19-2009, 01:10 PM

Hi Craig,

Thanks for doing this pro-review -- I bought the alesis io26 based on your previous review, and I like it a lot, but I'm thinking about upgrading to the mr816 since I'm a cubase user.

One thing that I'm very curious about is if you can use the MR816 with external preamps. I know it's supposed to have nice onboard pre's, but I would like the ability to bypass them on occasion since I'll have some nice "mojo" pres from seventh circle audio. I've read the user manual, and haven't been able to find a conclusive answer as of yet.

I know it's early in the review, but if you have the opportunity to test this functionality, it would be greatly appreciated! :thu:

Thanks!

The eight input connects are Neutrik combo connectors (a good sign right there - they're quality components), so you can plug in an XLR or a TRS line input. So, if you wanted to use an external preamp, you would simply feed your mic into the pre, and plug its line out into the MR816csx's line in.

I don't have a block diagram or schematic, so I can't tell if the line ins bypass the input preamps entirely, or just pad them down. I would assume they bypass the preamps because the input impedance is 10k as opposed to the preamp's 3.5k, and besides, the build quality is such that I suspect they went for the better performance obtained by bypassing the pres (maybe someone from Steinberg could comment?). Maximum input level the line ins can handle is +14dbu.

mdmitch2

02-19-2009, 02:03 PM

cool, thanks for the quick reply.

In posing this question on a different forum, someone responded:

"Those pres and A/D are derived from [Yamaha's] premium digital consoles. On the consoles, the pres auto switch out of the circuit at a predetermined gain setting. I think the pre switches out below -10, you can audibly hear it switch on the PM-1D, 5D, DM2000, etc... I would hope they would use a similar method on the 816 if the TRS jacks don't already."

Hopefully the above is true for the MR816 -- but I guess I'll be skeptical until I hear it from the horse's mouth.

Otherwise, I assume the two insert points could be used (as on the io26) and would completely bypass the preamps -- but it would be nice to have more than two inputs that could bypass the pre's.

ibmcgovern

02-19-2009, 03:41 PM

Sorry about that. I mentioned the PM for direct questions, meaning those not wanting to be on the thread. As far as the topics at hand, I will of course include it within the thread for us all to benefit from it.

Thanks for all the the support of the MR.

Anderton

02-25-2009, 06:06 PM

A few people have written me with comments along the lines of "well this sounds like a cool box, too bad I don't use Cubase." They didn't even bother posting the question, because they figured it was irrelevant to the thread. Wrong! The MR816csx acts like a standard ASIO interface, providing all the I/O. While you don't get the Quick Connect option for tracks, that's hardly surprising.

What is surprising is that you can use the internal hardware effects with many hosts! I tried this with Sonar, and it worked fine. Apparently, the effects look to Sonar like external effects. I inserted an external FX plug-in into a track, and sure enough, the effect showed up in the drop-down list of possible sends. As shown in the first attached image I selected FX1, the channel strip with Sweet Spot morphing; the MR816csx routing was three stereo channel strips and one REV-X reverb. Had I chosen FX4, the signal would have gone through the reverb.

Anyway, the return drop-down menu also showed the effect out, so I selected that as well. I "pinged" the external effect's delay parameter to do the proper path delay compensation, and was good to go.

Now check out the second attached image. This shows the setup with the REV-X installed as a second plug-in, following the channel strip. (Of course, as you're allowed only one instance of the REV-X, I highly recommend placing it in an Aux Send so you can use it with multiple channels; however, this was more of an "I wonder if this will work" test rather than actual music-making.)

To edit these, you need to call up the MR816csx's editor (in the lower left). Clicking on the E button (consistent with the Cubase GUI) brings up the effect's GUI, where you can tweak as much as you want. If the GUI isn't called up, you can still access two parameters per effect (in the case of reverb, that's reverb amount and algorithm).

Pretty cool! I though the effects might be "keyed" to Cubase in some way, but they're not. Next up, I'm going to see about using the effects while recording.

therage57

03-05-2009, 06:44 PM

Just wondering....is this review still going on?

Thanks

Anderton

03-05-2009, 11:31 PM

Yes, the last post was only five days ago; I've spent most of this week getting the materials together for the next issue of the Harmony Central Confidential newsletter (you DO subscribe, don't you?) which ships next Wednesday, and also, recording audio examples of the "sweet spot" morphing for posting (hopefully this weekend).

Pro Reviews develop over time for a couple reasons. First, it allows others the chance to chime and ask questions. Second, it allows the reviewer to get more comfortable with the gear, use it under different circumstances, etc. Third, sometimes I have a very full travel schedule and when I do, it's impossible to keep up with a hardware Pro Review. I can do software only as long as I can load it on my laptop, but unfortunately the MR816 doesn't fit in my carry on!

The next two weeks will be dedicated almost exclusively to Pro Reviews as I'll be home until the Frankfurt Messe,.

therage57

03-06-2009, 06:52 AM

Thanks for the update Craig.

the_doctor

03-07-2009, 02:53 AM

Anderton

03-08-2009, 10:33 PM

Just to add a little something:

Recently had an MR816 CSX for testing and with the newest drivers I could go down to 64 samples buffersize for a small 44.1 kHz Cubase 4.51 project on an 2.4 GHz Intel Mac. I measured 7.5 ms latency from input to output, including all converters and firewire-protocol - a really good result.

I then proceeded to measure the latency of the interface´s internal signal processing at 44.1 kHz and got 1.8 ms from input to output. A figure that´s right up there with the best of them.

Personally I would have immediately bought two Steinberg-MR-interfaces for my studio if they had
a) an internal powersupply and even more important to me:
b) gates in addition to compression and eq on the internal channel strip

As it stands I´ll have to look at the new Lexicon firewire interface or get the Metric Halo one (classy but expensive...).

Looking forward to the rest of the review!

Those latency figures are very impressive indeed. I'll check for new drivers and see how low I can go.

Question: Why is the internal power supply important to you? I understand a general dislike of wall warts, but this is a "line lump" that doesn't take up more than one outlet on a barrier strip.

As to the gate, it does seem like a curious omission given that many dynamics processors these days include gates or expanders and you might want to gate before the compression. However, I can't think of a host that doesn't include a gate as a plug-in. That's not the same as having it before the compressor, but it's a workaround.

the_doctor

03-09-2009, 04:32 AM

Those latency figures are very impressive indeed. I'll check for new drivers and see how low I can go.

Question: Why is the internal power supply important to you? I understand a general dislike of wall warts, but this is a "line lump" that doesn't take up more than one outlet on a barrier strip.

As to the gate, it does seem like a curious omission given that many dynamics processors these days include gates or expanders and you might want to gate before the compression. However, I can't think of a host that doesn't include a gate as a plug-in. That's not the same as having it before the compressor, but it's a workaround.

Well, regarding the wallwart:
I do a lot of recording outside of the studio - and want my rack as small and portable as possible, but with everything prewired and tightly secured. Open the lids, connect firewire and one (!) electric outlet - done (except for the audio connections of course).
A wallwart takes up a lot of extra space - I´d either have to make the rack 2 units higher to fit the supplies for the two MRs I´d like to use or make the rack unbelievably deep to mount them.
As for the gate: I want to use the channel strip for latency-free monitoring for the musicians. Sometimes I record (heavy) bands that require gating on kick and possibly toms to get feel and sound right even during tracking. Thats not possible with the built in gates of any native DAW - even the 7.5 ms throughput of the MRs is too much for a good drummer. Direct monitoring (or Protools HD...) is currently the ony option in this regard.

My 2 cents, YMMV :)

Mats Nermark

03-09-2009, 09:16 AM

even the 7.5 ms throughput of the MRs is too much for a good drummer.

Hi,

I think 7.5 ms throughput is too much for any time aware musicians. I know that I possibly could not hear the difference but when I change latency in my DAW I can feel the difference and that is not good.

Cheers,

Mats N

Anderton

03-09-2009, 10:28 AM

Okay, Doctor, I see where you're coming from. Agreed that for your traveling needs, the line lump is less convenient. As to the latency...that's always an interesting topic. As a guitar player, 7.5ms doesn't bother me - I just put on headphones, and I have about the same delay as if I was seven feet away from my amp. Keyboards don't bother me either, because older digital keyboards had scanning delays that got me conditioned to having a slight delay anyway...so the VST instruments just take me back to playing a 1989 keyboard :)

Drums, though: As I noted in my review of Native Instruments' Maschine, you really have to have a low-latency system for real-time playing, or it'll bug the hell out of you to hit a pad and hear a delay, even if it's slight.

RobbieC

03-09-2009, 11:51 AM

Can't wait to hear about preamp quality and jitter.

eightyeightkeys

03-10-2009, 03:22 PM

... As to the latency...that's always an interesting topic...

No Direct Monitor option with this unit ?:confused:

Anderton

03-12-2009, 02:55 AM

Excellent question - yes, you can very definitely do direct monitoring, in fact that's one of the interface's strengths. First, you need to enable direct monitoring within Cubase, as shown in the first attached image.

Then, there's a channel strip created for the MR816 cx interface channel. The MR816csx-specific controls are outlined in red in the second attached image. The "DM" toward the lower middle of the strip stands for direct monitoring. You'll note the phase and low cut filters toward the top; there are also indicators for the pad and phantom power above the "input" block.

Because the effects are in DSP and inside the interface, the effects are direct as well and add no delay. The little slider on the right gives you the option to have no effects, send effects only to the monitor but not Cubase (i.e., the singer wants to hear reverb in the headphones, but you don't want to commit to recording that sound), or to both the monitor and Cubase.

The screen shot shows both the compressor and reverb active. The reverb is normalized to a send, rather than as an insert effect for a channel (makes sense).

So yes, there's direct monitoring and you can add the effects in the MR816csx. Of course, if you want to add (for example) an amp plug-in, you've now left "real-time land." But you can always be old school, and put a distortion box in front of the MR816csx input.

I had originally intended to upload the last of the morph-related posts and examples tonight, but figured that since you asked, we'd do the direct monitoring instead. Tomorrow, I'll post the morph stuph, including a short video.

eightyeightkeys

03-12-2009, 07:25 AM

In as much as I'm strongly considering this unit, that's a relief. Thanks Craig.

Anderton

03-12-2009, 12:14 PM

No problem! Ask away. That's what makes Pro Reviews fun - interactivity.

Anderton

03-12-2009, 02:10 PM

Let's take a deeper look at the whole morph thing before moving on to the reverb.

I wanted to create an audio example that could be automated to sweep through the Morph knob, as well as a short video that showed the Morph changing while you could hear the processed sound. So...Example 1 is the dry drum loop I used; it's from the Discrete Drums sample library. Example 2 is the sound of the loop with the Morph control starting out fully counter-clockwise, and ending up fully clockwise. The video (Windows Media Video or QuickTime, your choice) shows the morphing in action.

Interestingly, though, when automating with a smooth, linear sweep, the morph control setting was "quantized" into 11 distinct steps. This implies to me that the morph control has 11 basic settings, and getting the "in-between" settings is something that has to happen with a manual adjustment; I couldn't find any way to automate the morph knob so it moved completely smoothly from one extreme to the other, as you'll see when you look at the video. I'm not sure that really matters in a practical context - I assume most users will set the morph knob for whichever setting they like best, and leave it at that.

BTW the Morph also sounds really good with guitar. We'll get to that later.

Anderton

03-12-2009, 02:18 PM

I decided to take a screen shot of the settings for each position of the Morph knob for a couple reasons. First, this way you can see the variations among Morph positions. Second, these are good points of departure regardless of what kind of EQ or dynamics you use - the parameters have real values, (e.g., milliseconds, Hertz, etc.) that you can translate to what you use, even if you don't have an MR816csx. So...thanks, Yamaha engineers, for the free applications ideas!

The forum is currently configured for a maximum of five attachments per post, and as there are 11 morph shots, I'll do four with this post, four with the next post, and the final three in the next post.

Anderton

03-12-2009, 02:20 PM

Here are settings for the next four morph positions.

Anderton

03-12-2009, 02:21 PM

And here are settings for the final three morph positions.

Anderton

03-16-2009, 03:18 PM

Let's listen to how the Morphing affects electric guitar.

Example 3 runs a dry electric guitar signal (Gibson Dark Fire, both pickups) through only the channel strip; like the example with drums, the Morph control once again sweeps linearly from the fully counter-clockwise to the fully clockwise position.

Example 4 is the same, with the exception of the Cubase amp sim inserted prior to the channel strip. The attached image shows a screen shot of the amp sim and channel strip in action.

Lawrence Farr

03-17-2009, 08:23 PM

I didn't read the entire thread so forgive me if I rehash some things...

Good:
- The preamp sound quality is excellent.
- The reverb quality is excellent.

Bad:
- Not enough I/O. If you use all the effects you lose all the digital I/O. Deal-breaker for me having a digital console. Compared to (for instance) a MOTU device the MRCSX is way short of usable I/O *if* you also plan to use any FX and even then compared to the MOTU devices which also have AES I/O and the like.

Apparently the digital I/O is used internally as FX busses also and they can only do one thing at a time.

Conclusion:
If it works for you and you don't need the digital I/O when using all of the FX, it's a great sounding unit. The one I had died and - be very careful and UNINSTALL the MR drivers before hooking up any other FW devices - also killed my MOTU Traveler.

That's right. I plugged in my Traveler after the MR died to get back to work and it saw it as an MR and did something to the internal rom making it unusable on any computer. I never sent it in for repair, I just use it for field audio now (for video shoots) as it still works fine standalone, just not as a firewire device on any computer I own. It would cost me $150 to repair it.

As to the comps and EQ? I didn't find them that good or bad, usable, but not at the expense of losing pairs of digital I/O as opposed to just using plugins.

Great sounding unit for tracking/mixing through but I ignored the advice of many - no disrespect to Steinberg intended, longtime Cubase user - who warned me beforehand to avoid Steinberg hardware. I won't be doing that again.

I do miss those preamps though... I hope they make another mic pre product with just the pres, not the firewire.

Anderton

03-19-2009, 12:35 PM

That's right. I plugged in my Traveler after the MR died to get back to work and it saw it as an MR and did something to the internal rom making it unusable on any computer. I never sent it in for repair, I just use it for field audio now (for video shoots) as it still works fine standalone, just not as a firewire device on any computer I own. It would cost me $150 to repair it.

Wow...that seems really bizarre, maybe someone from Steinberg could comment? The Steinberg drivers just sit in my computer, they're around on startup and I haven't bothered to delete them from the startup menu. I've used a bunch of FireWire devices and haven't experienced any problems. Hmmm...

Are you sure it's not a case of the FireWire port itself being fried if you hot-swapped? While rare, hot swapping can destroy ports. This is why I always say in articles to make FireWire connections with power off to all units, and failing that, with power removed from at least the peripheral.

Haven't tried the digital I/O yet, been fixated on the processing and pres, but will investigate that aspect further.

Anderton

03-19-2009, 12:40 PM

Here's a reference document from M-Audio (http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.faq&ID=c9d161aac920b52a508de3167730a7ae) regarding the hot-swapping/hot-plugging problem.

Lawrence Farr

03-20-2009, 12:04 PM

Maybe it was an anomaly but no, the firewire port is fine. When I plugged the Traveler in it interacted with the Steiny driver instead of the MOTU driver - I saw the ballon come up in XP lower right corner as if I'd plugged in a MR816 "Audio device detected MR816" - and it did something to the MOTU rom.

The MOTU LCD screen went all wacky showing symbols I'd never seen before... and then nothing.

I've used other firewire devices since uninstalling the drivers and all is well. But the Traveler no longer shows up as audio hardware on any computer. MOTU said I'd have to send it in to fix it.

Again, I'm not trying to disparage Steiny in any way. I'm a loyal fan of Steiny. It's a great unit and I'm certainly in the vast and small minority % that had any serious issue with that unit.

It could have been the driver or driver install got corrupted somehow and killed the MR816 and my MOTU. I sent it back (the MR816) but I never heard back what was wrong with it exactly.

ricfoxx

03-27-2009, 06:15 AM

Just received one and did some initial testings. My plan is to use this as an ADAT device with my Pro Tools HD system and a Digi 192. After installation which went completely smooth I fired up the rig with optical cables in place and set up the system. After a few hours of trying to configure the system and try to understand how to use the MR Editor to get my signals in and out of Pro Tools I finally temporarily gave up and called Steinberg. The tech seemed puzzled that I was using the MR 816 with the 192 and made the comment that I should just use it with Cubase. He then said he would call me right back because he had to go to the lab and fire the MR up to walk me through it. He never called back... I went on ahead with trying to figure the whole thing out (manual does not go in depth with this use) and made some head way. I figured out how to use the hardware channel strips going into Pro Tools and thought I had it figured out. The problem I am stuck at is I can not monitor Adat 1/2 into Pro Tools while simultaneously monitoring the out of Pro Tools via Adat 1/2 into the MR (I would love to use the MR as the monitoring device.) To complicate even further I could only get the headphone feed from Adat out 1/2 in the MR Editor. I was sending the signal out of analog 1/2 to my mains but chooosing the headphone select in analog 1/2 sent no signal to the headphones. I really want this to work because I love the sound and complements my system but if I cant figure this out I will have to send it back.

To sum this up...

The sound is great but the MR Editor is confusing me to mental agony. Since Steinberg didnt call back, Im hoping somebody can help me before I have to send this thing back!

Anderton

03-27-2009, 04:55 PM

Due to inventory/fiscal year issues, I've had to send the MR816csx and CC121 back to Steinberg. They will return sometime in mid-April, and the review will resume then.

Meanwhile, feel free to discuss the products amongst yourselves :)

ricfoxx

03-28-2009, 08:02 AM

danbronson

04-07-2009, 05:46 PM

Craig, thanks for the in-depth review! I've been planning to get one of these for a while (just waiting for my semester to end). I've had problems with Firepods on my computer (Vista loaded HP). Hopefully the MR816 works out!

As far as the whole 'monitoring vs. playback with reverb' problem goes, couldn't you record an input to two different Cubase tracks? Record the reverb (that's also being monitored) to one track, and leave the other track clean. Then when you play back for the artist, play the track with the recorded reverb on it. When you mix, you have the option to use the reverb from tracking or a clean track.

Or does it not work that way?

Straightman

04-09-2009, 01:00 PM

My experience has been poor. I've got an MR816CSX daisy chained with an MR816X into a 3ghz core duo 2 running XP servue pack 3.

Everything installed as described above and we recorded some live test tracks and everything looked and felt fine.... then we could not get playback anywhere anyhow. Then we tried to use headphones while recording a vocal track and got nothing out of the headphones while recording.

We started to look around in the device set up menu and the system crashed. Now all we get is this.

I've entered 5 tickets with MySteinberg and received one response -- "there is likely a problem with your audio interface... contact your hardware manufacturer" WTF??? Isn't that Steinberg?

Would kill for (or just pay cash) for somebody with a clue (because I have not a one) to help stting up this rig.

-Straightman
Simi Valley CA

ibmcgovern

04-09-2009, 04:34 PM

Straightman

Sorry for your frustrations. If you write me a PM with a number to call you, I or one of my techs will walk you through your MR set up. Or, you can call them at 714.228.3301.

The error message you show is not a Steinberg message, but rather an OS message.

I am confident we will figure this out.

Thanks.

Straightman

04-10-2009, 06:33 PM

Progress. We traced the problem to a bad firewire card. A new SIIG 800 PCIe firewire card and no more blue screen.

I an now having trouble setting up my monitors.

We are recording and playing back fine though a little rough.

maxmix

05-13-2009, 12:59 PM

So I really enjoyed the review and am seriously thinking of going out and getting one, but how does it compare to say, the RME Fireface 400? I'm currently using a Presonus Firebox, and I'm more interested in getting a better A/D conversion, but also decent pres.

In a nutshell, how does the MR816 sound (yeah, I know it's subjective).

Thx,
Max

eightyeightkeys

05-13-2009, 01:30 PM

Craig, wouldn't it be a good idea to come up with some sort of subjective sound quality grading system ? Hotels have a grading system, so do high end restuarants (if that isn't subjetive then.....), so does Consumer Reports. CR grades everything and tell you why.

If say Lavry Gold's are 95 out of 100 with current SOA technology and JoeShmo convertors are a 50 out of 100, surely we can quantify the sound quality of every other convertors out there. Even if they all end up being betwen 70-80 at least we know, O.K. yes, these convertors are right up ther with "A-B-C" convertors.

Mats Nermark

06-10-2009, 01:49 AM

Anderton

08-26-2009, 12:49 PM

Hi Craig,

Did you get the unit back in April for further testing or has there been a planning issue preventing this Pro Review to continue?
Very much interested in seing this come to a conclusion!

Cheers,

Mats N

It took a bit longer to get it back than expected, and it missed the "window" I had allocated to working on this review...then came Summer NAMM, and trade shows basically take a month out of everything else.

However, I have everything set up again and am recording examples of the reverb right now :) Also we'll get into the CC121.

Sorry for the delay, things are very busy here at Harmony Central!!

Mats Nermark

08-26-2009, 01:20 PM

However, I have everything set up again and am recording examples of the reverb right now :) Also we'll get into the CC121.

I presume that it is the latest and greatest version of software being tested, i.e. the version announced at HC yesterday?

Very much looking forward to your findings Craig.

Cheers,

Mats N

Anderton

08-26-2009, 01:50 PM

I presume that it is the latest and greatest version of software being tested, i.e. the version announced at HC yesterday?

Very much looking forward to your findings Craig.

Cheers,

Mats N

Yes! That's one reason for the delay. At Summer NAMM I found out updates were coming, so thought it might be worth waiting for them.

Anderton

08-26-2009, 01:52 PM

Here's an interesting interview with the people responsible for the updates:

http://www.steinberg.net/en/community/community_stories/ai_update_interview.html

It gives a good overview of the new features.

Anderton

08-26-2009, 04:22 PM

Before getting into the reverb, which appears unchanged, I'd like to touch on the updating process.

The Steinberg interview mentions updating as a "one-click process" and while that's pretty much the case for the MR Tools, there are also firmware updates for the MR816 and CC121, as well as a FireWire driver update. Cubase needs to be updated as well if you didn't update previously to version 5.1.

There's also an updated MIDI driver and while I wasn't sure if I needed it or not for the MR816, I do plan to test the Motif XS with the new setup, so figured I might as well update that as well.

I couldn't find any "master update" document, but it seemed like a logical enough process: Update the FireWire driver first (included in the MR tools package), as the firmware update for the MR816 occurs over FireWire. So I did MR Tools, the Firmware (with everything plugged into an uninterruptible power supply - HIGHLY recommended when updating any firmware for any product, as a power failure could leave the device being updated non-functional), the MIDI drivers, and then Cubase. Fortunately, the Cubase update is a patch, not a full update, so it's a quick download and quick update.

The whole process of downloading, reading documentation, and performing the updates (and taking my time so I didn't make any mistakes) took longer than the time I'd allocated for working on the Pro Review today, but after it was all done I booted up Cubase and - success! Everything seems to be rocking 100%.

I should also add that it's really important to read the documentation on updating, as it's well-written and you want to make sure you follow the steps exactly as presented. The only caution is that the MR Tools update does three different updates when launched, and there's a pause between the updates where there's no indication of activity. Be patient; you'll be informed when the update is over.

Good job, Steinberg. More tomorrow.

Ole

08-27-2009, 08:22 AM

Straightman

08-27-2009, 10:20 AM

Looking forward to your comments on the CC121.

Thank you for the heads up on the updates.

Is there any source of information or discusson on daisy-chaining units together. I have an MR816 X and a CSX. All the presets default to the X reverb choices.

Mats Nermark

08-27-2009, 01:00 PM

Does anyone knows if Steinberg are planning to release a "smaller" card, with 2 mic preamps and the same specs as MR816 ?
I don`t need 8 preamps.
I`m thinking about getting the Fireface 400.
How does the mic pres in MR816 compare to Fireface ?

Cheers!

You beat me to the question. I'm also very much interested in this. I think there are very many musicians who, like us, record a maximum of two tracks at a time but still want the quality of the hardware, the low latency performance and the integration. I know I do!

Cheers,

Mats N

Anderton

08-27-2009, 01:08 PM

Unfortunately I don't have any "inside knowledge" and am not sure if Steinberg can comment on future product plans...but I'll ask if there are any plans along these lines. We might get lucky :)

Ole

08-27-2009, 01:15 PM

Mats Nermark

08-27-2009, 01:34 PM

Thanks mate :)
I find it a bit odd that Steinberg hasn`t released a smaller version.
I`ve heard good stuff about the Fireface 400, also the Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56.. but a bit too much for me.
Mats do you have other suggestions ?

I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions at all.

At present I'm using a TC Konnekt 24D but the drivers are very unreliable and one mic pre died two weeks after the warranty expired so I can't recommend that. Luckily I never mike anything stereo at home so as long as the other one works I'm semi-OK. I would, however, like something reliable right now as the Konnekt 24D can turn belly up anytime. So a MR2?? from Steinberg would suit me very nicly.

Cheers,

Mats N

Anderton

08-28-2009, 03:11 PM

Sorry for the delay...can't seem to add tracks! There's no OK button.

I'm going to uninstall/reinstall and see what happens.

Anderton

08-28-2009, 03:17 PM

Just to make sure, I opened Cubase 4...the OK button is there.

Currently uninstalling...

Anderton

08-28-2009, 03:34 PM

Fixed! After uninstalling I installed 5.0, then immediately applied the 5.1 update without going through any intermediate update.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 12:16 AM

People who've followed my writing for any amount of time probably know I'm not a big fan of artificial reverb - it never sounds like what happens when you clap your hands in a church. However...

I have to say that the Rev-X has impressed me. There are three algorithms, and the Hall algorithm is excellent in terms of avoiding periodicity on long decays, and there's a spacious quality to the reverb tails that recall a real acoustic space. Of course, this is all in DSP within the MR816csx, so your CPU doesn't have to work any harder to get a good reverb sound.

The plate also sounds like, well, a plate. Like a real plate, you want to keep it reasonably short, otherwise you'll hear a periodic change; but within that limitation, it's gorgeous on voice and for certain types of music, drums.

As to the Room algorithm, I found that it was the best option for adding ambience to dry recordings (e.g., drum machines). With short decays and conservative mixes, you can make just about anything sound like it was recorded in a room.

In terms of controls (you'll see plenty of screen shots in the next posts), there are the usual suspects that won't be a surprise to anyone using digital reverbs: Reverb Time, Initial Delay, High Pass Filter, Low Pass Filter (these filters are very useful), Diffusion, Room Size, High Ratio (high frequency reverb time, based on a ratio of the "master" reverb time), Low Ratio (the same concept for low frequencies), Decay Time, and Mix. It's assumed the Rev-X is going to be a send effect so the mix defaults to all wet, but you can also use the Rev-X as an insert.

One reason why I like the reverb might be because the controls are all effective. It's easy to tweak parameters to dial in the sound you want.

Sooo...how about some audio examples and screen shots?

Anderton

08-29-2009, 12:32 AM

For all the examples*in this and the next few posts, I plugged an Alesis SR-16 drum machine (yeah, I know it's 20 years old, so sue me - it's still super-fast to set up) into two MR816csx mono inputs and recorded a loop, then a single hand clap so you could hear the decay tail most clearly.

The first audio example is the Hall Algorithm set for a unnaturally big room size and relatively high level. I did this so you could hear the quality of the reverb reflections and decay. The first screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

The second audio example is a bright Hall sound that has a similarly long decay. The second screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound. The most interesting aspect of this clip is that the brighter sound isn't harsher.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 12:37 AM

The first audio example is the Hall Algorithm set for a deliberately small size. The sound still holds up as being useful; in fact, I like it alot to give the sound of a well-treated big recording room. The first screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

The second audio example is your basic plate sound. You'll note the really smooth reflections, and the slight inherent brightness and clarity instead of the more diffused, dark sound of a large hall. The second screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 12:48 AM

The first audio example uses the plate set for a tight, bright sound. This is great for making drums sound more "live," or giving vocals a more upfront, intimate quality. The first screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

The second audio example is the Plate Algorithm set for too much of everything: It's too big, decays too long, and is too bright. I did this so you can hear what happens when you take an algorithm designed to model a smaller space and extend it: You hear a periodic effect as the algorithm tries to stitch together a bigger sound from a small one. I'm doing this not to embarrass Steinberg, because this actually shows you can abuse an algorithm a fair amount and still get away with it :) The second screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 12:58 AM

Tomorrow we'll do some examples of the Room algorithm, because it's time to sign off for tonight. Meanwhile, here are a few conclusions based on what I've worked with so far.

First, I really do like the sound, which is more organic and natural compared to early Yamaha reverbs (they've been at this game a looooong time). It's unfortunate that because it's hardware you're limited to using it only once in a project, but stick it in a send bus and you have an "old school" busing technique for reverb to match it to the "old school" sound quality. I'd consider the Rev-X a fairly major selling point, actually.

Second, I appreciate the interface's small footprint. I'm getting a little burned out on these art deco plug-ins that take up half your monitor - the Rev-X gives you what you need, makes it accessible, then gets out of the way.

Third, remember you get only three algorithms: Don't expect reverse reverb, gated reverb, or the like. This is a "working" reverb that gives 90% of the sounds most engineers will use on a session, and while it's not spectacular, it doesn't try to be - it's a solid, quality reverb.

Okay, let's get the Room sounds...

Straightman

08-29-2009, 12:04 PM

Immediately useful information. We recorded a live 14 track session and are applying the tools you just presented.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 03:32 PM

Immediately useful information. We recorded a live 14 track session and are applying the tools you just presented.

Very cool!!!! Keep reading...

Anderton

08-29-2009, 06:10 PM

Time for some room sound examples. For these examples, I used presets supplied with the system.

The first audio example is the "Basement" room preset. It's a good, general-purpose ambience maker, especially if you shorten it up and adjust the tone to suit the music at hand. The first screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

The second audio example is the "Bedroom" preset. All I can say is that Steinberg has a bigger bedroom than I do, but you can hear it's quite different from the basement preset even though both use the same algorithm. The second screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 06:15 PM

The audio example uses the room algorithm, which I modified to create a preset I call "parking garage." I set a really long Reverb Time and Room Size, but cut the Decay down to give a more unusual reverb tail. The Lowpass filter is at maximum for maximum brightness, and I even moved the Highpass filter up a notch to take out the lower frequencies. And in the spirit of glorious excess that only digital reverbs let you do, I kicked both the high and low ratio decay times up to max - but because they're multiplying an inherently short decay time, it makes for an interesting effect. The screen shot shows the settings used to obtain this sound.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 07:03 PM

Craig, wouldn't it be a good idea to come up with some sort of subjective sound quality grading system ? Hotels have a grading system, so do high end restuarants (if that isn't subjective then.....), so does Consumer Reports. CR grades everything and tell you why.

If say Lavry Gold's are 95 out of 100 with current SOA technology and JoeShmo convertors are a 50 out of 100, surely we can quantify the sound quality of every other convertors out there. Even if they all end up being betwen 70-80 at least we know, O.K. yes, these convertors are right up ther with "A-B-C" convertors.

Well, my answers won't endear me to anyone...but there are a couple "facts of life" we need to take into account.

The first is that a lot of units use the same converter chips, as they offer the "sweet spot" of cost and consumer-level quality. So, any differences tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative. Most of the time when A-Bing converters my reaction is not "Wow, this one sure sounds a lot better!" It's more like "I think this one is a little different...maybe...let's switch it again."

The second is that to my ears, how a dynamic mic's output impedance reacts with a preamp's input impedance has a far larger effect on the sound than the converters themselves. To give a really definitive answer of which sounds "better" would have to take input source differences into account as well, and by the time I finished testing every mic out there on multiple sources, the next generation of converters will have already arrived.

If you A-B a Steinberg MR816csx with a TC Electronic Konnekt or Cakewalk V-700R, you're really not going to hear a substantial difference. Sure, they all claim to have some "special sauce" but when the rubber meets the road during mixdown, you'd be hard-pressed to identify what was recorded with what.

As far as I'm concerned, the subjective sound quality of the converters will depend mostly on when the unit was made and how much it costs. For example, the E-Mu 1820m (which I have) was considered to be pretty much at the top of the "non-boutique" interfaces when it was introduced many years ago. It's still good, but devices in the same price range introduced within the last year sound a bit more open. Is the difference significant? Well, it's audible, but only barely. If you're just recording one vocal, you'd probably never know the difference. If you're recording 24 acoustic tracks through mic pres, then there might be a cumulative difference but it's not going to hit you over the head.

Basically, I sort converters into four groups:

1. Consumer electronics. This is what comes with onboard sound cards, camcorders, and the like. Even these, however, are often better than what was available for pro audio not that long ago.

2. Middle-class converters. This is what you'll find in inexpensive interfaces, like the Line 6 KB37, some of the less expensive M-Audio interfaces, and so on. They're perfectly adequate for recording and will likely not be the determining factor in a recording's sound quality.

3. Upper-middle class converters. This is what you'll find in the MR816csx and other interfaces in the same general price range. Here the cost depends a lot on how many preamps are included. For example, the preamps in the Alesis Master Control sound surprisingly good, given that the price is less than the MR816csx and there's a control surface with moving faders. So how is that possible? Simple: There are only two preamps, whereas the MR816csx has eight.

4. Boutique converters. These are the ones that cost a zillion dollars and have low-noise resistors made from carbon brought back from Jupiter by aliens, and capacitor dielectrics made from butterfly wings. When you hear them in action, there's a noticeable difference compared to lower-cost units in terms of imaging, transparency, and noise floor. So you go "Wow, that sounds great!," then look at your bank account balance...and decide the upper-middle class converters will do just fine, thank you.

I'd put the MR816csx sound squarely in the upper-middle class category. In my opinion the mics you use, recording resolution, playback system, and other elements will be the limiting factor in your recordings, not the preamps and converters in the MR816csx.

One last thing...when rating a hotel, there are objective standards you can apply: The shower did or didn't work, it took minutes or hours for maintenance to show up, you could or could not hear the couple in the next room making sexy time, there was or was not wi-fi, etc. You'd think specs would provide the same function for converters and preamps, but when one converter has 0.0005% distortion+noise and another has 0.0004% distortion+noise (typical figures for high-quality converters), are you going to hear a difference? I strongly doubt it. When noise levels are at the threshold of perception, it doesn't really matter whether one converter has a noise level you can't hear, and another converter has a noise level you also can't hear.

Ultimately it's the surrounding circuitry that has the most impact on performance - the power supply, circuit board layout, etc. At this point along the technological timeline, companies like Yamaha know how to design circuit boards! But these differences are what account for the different "sounds" of different converters. As I said, though, these are quantitative so person A might like preamp X because he records harpsichords through them using condenser mics, while person B might like preamp Z because he likes the way it sounds when recording guitar amps through ribbon mics.

So...my take is that chasing the last 1/8 of a dB is a waste of time that interferes with the most important aspect of all this gear: Making music. One of my lines at seminars that always gets a laugh is when I say "No radio station has ever called me up and said 'Y'know, we were going to play your CD, but you used an E-Mu 1820m for the background vocals, didn't you?'"

Remember: All that matters is the emotional impact of the music. To tie this back to the MR816csx, the Quick Connect feature that lets you record instantly will probably have a more important effect on the music you create than the mic pres, because it will allow you to be more spontaneous.

Anderton

08-29-2009, 07:06 PM

By the way...if you want to know about the basics of converters, typical specs, how they're measured, and other considerations, there's a highly educational PDF by Ken Pohlmann at http://www.clir.org/activities/details/ad-converters-pohlmann.pdf.

So...seems to me it's time to move along to the CC121, but I'll wait a day or two to see if there are any remaining questions/comments on the MR816csx.

eightyeightkeys

08-31-2009, 06:28 PM

Well, my answers won't endear me to anyone...

Basically, I sort converters into four groups:

1. Consumer electronics. This is what comes with onboard sound cards, camcorders, and the like. Even these, however, are often better than what was available for pro audio not that long ago.

2. Middle-class converters. This is what you'll find in inexpensive interfaces, like the Line 6 KB37, some of the less expensive M-Audio interfaces, and so on. They're perfectly adequate for recording and will likely not be the determining factor in a recording's sound quality.

3. Upper-middle class converters. This is what you'll find in the MR816csx and other interfaces in the same general price range. Here the cost depends a lot on how many preamps are included. For example, the preamps in the Alesis Master Control sound surprisingly good, given that the price is less than the MR816csx and there's a control surface with moving faders. So how is that possible? Simple: There are only two preamps, whereas the MR816csx has eight.

4. Boutique converters. These are the ones that cost a zillion dollars and have low-noise resistors made from carbon brought back from Jupiter by aliens, and capacitor dielectrics made from butterfly wings. When you hear them in action, there's a noticeable difference compared to lower-cost units in terms of imaging, transparency, and noise floor. So you go "Wow, that sounds great!," then look at your bank account balance...and decide the upper-middle class converters will do just fine, thank you.

I'd put the MR816csx sound squarely in the upper-middle class category. In my opinion the mics you use, recording resolution, playback system, and other elements will be the limiting factor in your recordings, not the preamps and converters in the MR816csx....
.

Craig, you should use this every single time you do a review. Seriously. This was the best way of classifying a unit I've ever seen.

ibmcgovern

09-01-2009, 03:55 PM

Hello Craig and all....

I appreciate your continued support and review of our MR Series interfaces.

I noticed some have asked about a "smaller" MR unit. At this time, Steinberg and Yamaha do not have any immediate plans for a smaller version of the MR. This may change and if so, I will be sure to let all know.

Something that is very exciting is the new promotion that Steinberg North America announced today on the existing MR 816 interfaces:

Purchase 1 or more new Steinberg MR816 Series products between Sept 1, 2009 and Jan 31, 2010 (MR816X or MR816CSX any mix) and receive a $300.00 mail-in-rebate.

http://steinbergnorthamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mr_rebateform_2010.pdf

If I can be of any assistance, please feel to write me directly at info@steinbergnorthamerica.com

lhim

09-01-2009, 04:26 PM

Anderton

09-01-2009, 04:33 PM

Craig, you should use this every single time you do a review. Seriously. This was the best way of classifying a unit I've ever seen.

Thanks much. I found an article (http://www.proaudioreview.com/article/21054) you might find interesting from Pro Audio Review that shows just how hard it is to be objective about mics and pres. Take this quote about the Millennia Media HV-3D:

We all picked the HV-3D as our overall favorite on drums for being the most "natural with the most separation," although, frankly, some of the other preamps offered compelling, more colorful sounds on particular drums. Our AEA R44 ribbon microphone loved the HV-3D on drum room, picking up deep, resonant kick tones nicely balanced through the mids and rolled-off top. The Millennia was our favorite preamp paired with the R44.

None of us were fond of the HV-3D on bass guitar, where both our DI and mic were smooth, yet lacked punch. Electric guitar tones — both clean and dirty from a fine, all-tube Mesa Boogie — were accurate and natural but unexciting. It elicited the word, "vanilla," from some of us.

The other parts of the review are equally detailed, yet contradictory in the sense that they liked particular preamps with particular mics on particular sound sources, but not on other sources with other mics.

Anderton

09-01-2009, 04:36 PM

hi all

I am reading this good review and i am asking about a small unit too.
Steinberg reads this forum or what ?

http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/hardware/ci2.html

Steinberg small unit : CI2.
A mix with a small BR (i don't need 8 micpre), a little bit of CC121 (i don't use Cuabse EQ), a little bit of Nocturn knob control, shipped with Cubase AI5 !

The unit use Yamaha component.
If the AD/DA would have same MR quality it would be perfect.

Craig, i like the way you classify things, i need your review on this small unit.
I hope they quicly send you a unit.

Have fun.

Steinberg does read this, but I only told them today I'd re-started the review now that the 1.5 software is out. I also asked if there were any plans for a mini-MR816.

As to the CI2, I don't have one here but maybe I can get one from Steinberg on loan to try out with Cubase 5.

eightyeightkeys

09-01-2009, 05:38 PM

Thanks much. I found an article (http://www.proaudioreview.com/article/21054) you might find interesting from Pro Audio Review that shows just how hard it is to be objective about mics and pres. Take this quote about the Millennia Media HV-3D:
....
The other parts of the review are equally detailed, yet contradictory in the sense that they liked particular preamps with particular mics on particular sound sources, but not on other sources with other mics.

Hmmm....well...I see what you mean. However, I think they may be over-doing "the review" thing a tad. If I had a Millenia Media HV3D in my rack, I'd be pretty happy with how it sounded on pretty much anything.

And, there is the old school of thought/practice that using one set of pre's for everything - ala a desk - works to glue many tracks together much, much better than than using too many different pres. The cohesiveness can become difficult to manage in the mix.
So, if the MR816 is in the "2nd category from the top," I think I'll be pretty happy.

ibmcgovern

09-01-2009, 08:57 PM

All:

I will definitely send Craig a CI2 for review once our first shipment reaches the US. Today, we announced the unit, but they will not reach the US market until the first week in October.

Yes, this is a smaller 2 in and 2 out device. However, it is much different item than the MR. The CI2 is a USB interface with quality Yamaha build, mic pres, AD/DA conversion and an AI knob for control of numerous parameters found in Cubase AI5 and the rest of the Cubase 5 line up. Once Craig gets one, we can dig into a bit more.

For now, please visit www.steinberg.net or www.steinbergnorthamerica.com for more information.

Thanks for all the support.

Anderton

09-01-2009, 10:55 PM

Hey Brian - MUCH appreciated that you took the time even at this relatively late hour to answer people's questions. :thu:

And I'll definitely put the CI2 through its paces. I suspect the MR816/CC121 aspect will be done by then, but one cool thing about pro reviews is that it's easy to add addenda.

Thanks again.

Ole

09-02-2009, 10:25 AM

Great stuff!
Looks like the CI2 is just what I need, if the mic pres and converters are top quality :)

Anderton

09-28-2009, 12:25 AM

Let's turn our attention to the CC121 controller. In a way, it's like you took a Frontier Design AlphaTrack or PreSonus FaderPort, added multiple Cubase-specific features, then put the whole thing in a shiny, compact box with a metal front panel - see the first attached image. However, whereas the AlphaTrack or FaderPort will set you back less than $200, the CC121 weighs in at $429.99 street (http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-CC121-Advanced-Integration-Controller?sku=241881), or $549 list. I figure at that price, it needs to really help speed up your workflow to justify its existence.

However, I should also add there's a reason for the price. The build quality is very solid - not one bit of it feels cheap. There's a long-throw moving fader, 14 standard knobs, one "AI knob" (more on this later), and a bunch of switches - transport, EQ stages on/off, channel strip controls, and some multipurpose switches. There are also a bunch o' colored lights to clue you in on what's happening (second attached image). This is a piece of gear that would feel perfectly comfortable in a pro-level studio.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 12:56 AM

Installation was...well, shall we say, "not painless." It actually took me several hours of messing around before I could get Cubase 5 to recognize the CC121.

Given that there was an update to V1.5 of the CC121 Tools application, I tried installing that first, along with the updated MIDI USB drivers needed to communicate with the CC121. When that didn't work, I thought it might be the dreaded "Windows XP 10-Port MIDI Limit" issue, so I deleted some MIDI entries in the registry...no big deal, but it still didn't work. Then I thought maybe the CC121 needed the firmware update that's part of the 1.5 update, but I couldn't get it to update either.

So I de-installed the CC121 tools and drivers and installed the original ones that came with the unit, thinking that maybe I needed to do those first prior to installing a newer version. Besides, I figured an older version would work with Cubase 5, but just might have a few rough edges. During the re-installation the install routine said it couldn't find a file (even though it was on the installation disk) and I needed to locate it, so I did...but that didn't solve the problem.

A trip to the Steinberg knowledgebase brought up an article on MIDI port limits that was pretty sketchy - I wouldn't recommend messing with the registry if you're a newbie and all you have to work with is that article. But having already cleared out some ports I didn't think that was the issue, so I went to the Steinberg forums.

Within a few minutes, I had the answer: Apparently Cubase 5 requires the 1.5 extension to work properly, and won't work with the older version. So I updated the extensions, and Cubase finally linked to the CC121. I then updated the MIDI driver, and everything worked perfectly. For the coup de grace, I updated the firmware and that worked too.

That still doesn't explain why things didn't work initially, but perhaps there was a MIDI port issue (which, incidentally, has reared its ugly head in more than one Pro Review), and that had to be cleared up first. Who knows! The one sense I get from the Steinberg forums is that very few people had problems with the installation, so I suspect they're not reviewers who install and un-install a zillion devices a year. :)

Before going on with the CC121, I'd like to digress slightly and talk about Cubase in general. I'm very familiar with Cubase, in fact it was my introduction to serious DAW software. To generalize, I get the sense that Cubase is the type of program that expects you to commit to it, and in return, you get a reliable program with a good workflow. What I mean by "committing" is that there are a lot of setup options, which cuts both ways: If all you use is Cubase, you simply set things up once for your system - and from that point on, you basically boot your computer, open Cubase, and everything's good to go. This includes all your preferences, roster of instruments, control room settings, and the like. On the other hand if you bounce back and forth between audio interfaces, setting up your "virtual studio" each time you switch over can get to be tedious.

I do find that it sometimes takes more clicks to perform certain functions than with other programs, but that's balanced by the fact that Cubase has made an incredible comeback - Cubase 5 adds a lot of really useful features, and leaves behind the days when it didn't keep up with the competition. Those who stuck with Cubase are surely glad to see that Yamaha has remained committed to what Cubase is all about, but Cubase 5 is sufficiently advanced it will likely attract new users as well.

But there's also an interesting backstory behind Cubase's fallow period, and hopefully no one at Steinberg will think this is out of line. A reason why Steinberg's audio engine lagged behind is a sad one; several years ago one of the main engineers at Steinberg who worked on the audio end of things, Mark Badger, died suddenly from a congenital heart condition. They say no one's irreplaceable, but this is a small industry, and people who can tweak DAW audio engines don't exactly grow on trees. That's one reason it was very encouraging when Yamaha acquired Steinberg; if a company needed digital audio expertise, it would be harder to find a more compelling partner than Yamaha.

Bottom line: Anyone who wrote off Cubase did so prematurely; Cubase 5 definitely delivers. Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, back to the CC121.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 11:02 AM

The CC121 links automatically to whatever channel you select. However, there are also two channel select buttons that step up or down through the channels, so you can do channel selection from the CC121. This makes it easy to step from one channel to the next without having to use the mouse.

The centerpiece of the CC121, at least to me, is the EQ control section: This basically takes the virtual EQ from the VST Audio Channel and turns it into hardware. The complement of controls is four knobs for gain, four for frequency, and four for Q. Each section also has an on/off switch (see the attached image).

An EQ Type switch, when enabled, allows a stage's controls to adjust the EQ type instead of whatever it controls normally. An additional All Bypass switch bypasses all four stages simultaneously.

Okay, no big deal, we've seen controls mapped to EQ before, right? But with the CC121, the feel of the knob acceleration is superb. Spin the knob, and the setting changes fast; turn it slowly, and you have exceptionally fine resolution. Because these are endless encoders, when dealing with fine resolution, you can do multiple turns to cover a relatively small range of control.

In other words, the "mapping" between how the EQ changes compared to physical motion is very tight and has a great feel. For someone like me who considers EQ the most important part of mixing and mastering, this kind of tactile control is a treat - the implementation for controlling EQ is a definite CC121 high point.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 11:06 AM

I should probably cover some of the more prosaic elements first and save the AI Knob until last, but it's just too darn cool not to mention right away. It's really ingenious and simple: For any given window with the focus, if there are automatable parameters in the window or you're dealing with a VST3 plug-in, whatever control your mouse hovers over - instrument parameter, mixer, button, effect, you name it - the AI knob controls it. You don't even have to click on the parameter; it's uncanny to float the mouse over various parameters, adjusting them as you go with the AI knob. I haven't seen this approach taken before, but it's a brilliant way to deal with hardware control of software parameters. :thu:

But what if you want to adjust a parameter while moving the mouse around elsewhere, for example, to adjust a filter envelope amount while tweaking cutoff? You're covered there, too. Hover the mouse over the parameter, and click on the AI Knob's Lock button (see the attached image; now the AI Knob will adjust only that parameter until unlocked, and your mouse can go run off elsewhere.

It's difficult to describe in print about how well this concept works; I even thought of maybe doing a short video, but I don't think that would get it across, either. It's a departure from the usual control surface philosophy where the idea is to avoid using the mouse, but in this case, the CC121 provides an extremely ergonomic mouse/knob combination. I wouldn't be surprised if other companies stole - I mean, were inspired by - this approach, because it makes a lot of sense.

The VST3 plugs that come with Cubase of course work perfectly, but I was a little surprised that many other effects worked to some degree or another with the AI Knob (for example, the Virsyn VTAPE processors work just like the VST3 plug-ins included with Cubase, so I assume this means they're VST3-compatible). Several Voxengo effects worked as well, and the Cakewalk Linear Phase effects series worked too - but you had to actually click on the control, as hovering wasn't enough (and with the LP64 EQ, you couldn't change the EQ curve on the GUI, but could by clicking on the numerical fields). On the other hand, some effects were non-starters: Waves, URS, Guitar Rig, AmpliTube, PSP Audioware, etc. With Peavey's ReValver Mk III, the AI Knob scrolled up and down through the effects "rack" but couldn't change parameters.

Line 6 POD Farm sorta worked, but like some other effects, the acceleration seemed to work in reverse: Small knob movements covered more range than spinning the AI Knob. Go figure.

Given that Steinberg doesn't specify operation with other plug-ins, probably the best way to approach it is just to be thankful when a non-Steinberg effect works, and otherwise adjust parameters as you did before the CC121 joined your setup.

Oh, and I almost forgot: There's also a Jog button for the AI Knob, which when on, turns the knob into a jog wheel - another nice bonus.

ibmcgovern

09-28-2009, 01:47 PM

With the version 1.5 driver and firmware update for the CC121, the AI knob will support 3rd-party (as well as our own) VST2 and VST3 plug-in parameters that support scroll-wheel mouse functionality. There are also 1.5 updates for the MR816 series as well.

In addition, the AI knob that appears on the new CI2 USB Studio interface supports VST2 and VST3 plug-in parameters that support scroll-wheel mouse functionality.

There is a new CI2 video posted at http://steinbergnorthamerica.com/hardware/ci2-usb-interface.

I will be sending Craig a unit for review very soon.

Thanks.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 02:07 PM

With the version 1.5 driver and firmware update for the CC121, the AI knob will support 3rd-party (as well as our own) VST2 and VST3 plug-in parameters that support scroll-wheel mouse functionality. There are also 1.5 updates for the MR816 series as well.

I was just about to add a note about using the AI knob with VST2 plugs that do scroll wheel support. I thought I had downloaded all the docs for the update, but there was an extra doc on new features that's different from the release notes or operation manual PDF, and I learned about the VST2 operations there.

So...thanks for pointing this out! BTW I'm pretty sure the MR816 part of this review includes the 1.5 updates.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 02:19 PM

Here's another goodie from the 1.5 update: The EQ controls can change identity and become Quick Controls as well as control sends. You enter this mode by pressing down on the the EQ Type and All Bypass buttons simultaneously; the EQ Q knobs operate Quick Controls 1-4, and the EQ Frequency knobs control Quick Controls 5-8.

When in this mode, you can press the EQ Type or All Bypass button; the selected button will flash, and each button provides different options. When the EQ Type button flashes, the EQ On buttons turn toggle sends 1-4 on or off, and the G knob controls the send level for the respective sends. Selecting the All Bypass button provides the same functions for sends 5-8.

If you want to go back to controlling EQ, you just press the EQ Type and All Bypass controls again. I must say, this is a great feature that makes it much easier to set up sends for a track.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 02:21 PM

One more thing about 1.5: If you press both Channel Select buttons simultaneously while a folder track is selected, you open the folder track. If an audio or instrument track is selected, this opens up the automation track. These are toggle functions, so you exit by again pressing both Channel Select buttons simultaneously.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 02:28 PM

This is totally straightforward. As shown in the attached image, there are dedicated buttons for stop, play, record, fast forward, rewind, jump to beginning (or to previous marker if markers are present), jump to end (or to next marker), and loop on/off. Not much to say here, except that this is obviously faster than mousing around on the transport.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 03:27 PM

Before we go any further, one thing I completely forgot to mention is that like the MR816, the CC121 works with 64-bit Windows. There's no Snow Leopard 64-bit compatible update yet that I know of, but I suspect that as Steinberg has committed to 64 bits, it won't be too terribly long before we see 64-bit Steinberg apps for the Mac. (That's not based on inside knowledge, I'm just speculating...Brian, any official Steinberg statements on the subject?)

I didn't get a chance to test out the CC121 with 64-bit Windows, as Cubase 5 is installed on my XP machine. However, based on reactions from users, it seems 64-bit operation works just fine with Cubase.

Also, I started to realize that some of the CC121 functionality varies depending on which version of Cubase you have. There's a comparison chart on Steinberg's site along with info on all the various updates (http://www.steinberg.net/en/support/steinberg_support_downloads/cc121.html), but I've attached the comparison chart here as well so you can download it without having to leave this page. :)

ibmcgovern

09-28-2009, 05:56 PM

Thanks Craig. Here's is our official statement on Windows 7 and Snow Leopard.

Windows 7 and OS X 10.6 Support
Steinberg has outlined its plans to ensure compatibility for its current product and technology palette to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and Windows 7. A three-phase development and testing plan has been implemented to ensure compatibility with the new operating system versions.

In Phase One, the current development phase, Steinberg is testing all current products on both Windows 7 and OS X 10.6. Phase Two will see any development work resulting from compatibility testing during Phase One. This stage will also see the certification of some products straight away, should all stringent testing be passed satisfactorily. Phase Three will see testing and release of any compatibility updates developed during Phase Two, and certification of the rest of the product range not already certified in Phase Two.

The ongoing process is slated to span several months; further information on the progress of individual products is to be made available on the forums at cubase.net and nuendo.com as the implementation plan progresses.

Thanks.

Anderton

09-28-2009, 06:30 PM

Thanks Brian! That all makes total sense. What I've heard from other developers is that if their stuff worked with 64-bit Vista, it didn't take much to get it to work with W7. Hopefully you'll have the same experience, and I assume your work with 64-bit Windows will give you a jump on getting up and running with Snow Leopard.

Ole

09-29-2009, 07:22 AM

ibmcgovern

09-29-2009, 11:44 AM

Ole....

Thanks for writing. You are correct. For the US, we are starting to ship units into the channel this week. I will do my best to answers your questions.

To start, I am attaching a pdf of the technical specs for the CI2. Additional documents and information can be found at www.steinberg.net and/or www.steinbergnorthamerica.com.

The CI2 and MR816 Series are two different units when you compare the individual spec sheets. Still, the CI2 features high-quality mic preamps and converters developed by the same engineering team responsible for the Steinberg MR816 Series interfaces. In the end, the CI2 will offer clean sonic quality in a small-sized and well integrated unit. If you require more than 2 in and 2 out.... you will be best suited to consider the MR816 Series.

Anderton

09-29-2009, 11:56 AM

To the Steinberg folks, isn`t it time to shed some light on the CI2 unit ??
It`s not that long `till it`s being released..
I find it strange that no one can come up with details about the preamps & converters. Are they different in quality to the MR816 ?

I think I`ll be getting the RME Fireface 400, as I seriously doubt the CI2 can compare in sound quality. (I know the CI2 is alot cheaper).

Once you starting hitting a dynamic range of 96dB, then the mic preamp will tend not to be the issue with noise - it's more likely that the background noise of whatever you're recording will be considerably higher. And a THD+N spec of 0.05% certainly meets "pro" specs.

You might want to look over post #97 on page 4 of this thread regarding mic preamp quality in general. These days, differences among mic pres in the same general price category are minimal. Once you can't hear any noise, it doesn't really matter if you can't hear any noise, or you REALLY can't hear any noise.

I've used RME interfaces and they have excellent sound quality, but I have to say that the MR816 mic pres are also excellent. You might want to audition the RME and Steinberg units carefully, as there might not be a noticeable difference, and you can spend the money you save on other goodies.

Anderton

09-29-2009, 11:58 AM

There's a dedicated Pan continuous knob, with the same "accelerometer" feel of the EQ knobs, and a moving fader. This brings up an interesting point about the power supply: The CC121 is USB bus-powered, except that the moving fader draws too much power for the USB bus. So, if you want the fader to follow automation moves, you need to hook up the included AC power supply. (The PreSonus FaderPort works the same way.)

Once that's out of the way, the fader of course follows your mixing moves. It's a 100mm fader, so it's pretty comfortable. And I don't know if Steinberg was just being accommodating to me :), but as I do mix moves with my left hand, I appreciated having the fader on the left side of the box.

The CC121 duplicates most of the other channel strip controls (see the attached image): Mute, Solo, Read Automation, Write automation, Monitoring, Record enable, Edit, and open/close VST instrument window if one is present in the track. As with the other buttons, these have a solid, positive feel.

Ole

09-29-2009, 12:33 PM

Ole

09-29-2009, 12:38 PM

Once you starting hitting a dynamic range of 96dB, then the mic preamp will tend not to be the issue with noise - it's more likely that the background noise of whatever you're recording will be considerably higher. And a THD+N spec of 0.05% certainly meets "pro" specs.

You might want to look over post #97 on page 4 of this thread regarding mic preamp quality in general. These days, differences among mic pres in the same general price category are minimal. Once you can't hear any noise, it doesn't really matter if you can't hear any noise, or you REALLY can't hear any noise.

I've used RME interfaces and they have excellent sound quality, but I have to say that the MR816 mic pres are also excellent. You might want to audition the RME and Steinberg units carefully, as there might not be a noticeable difference, and you can spend the money you save on other goodies.

Thanks Anderton!
You have a point there with regards to the mic pres.
Let us know asap when you`ve tested CI2 :)

Anderton

10-04-2009, 02:11 AM

Our final part of the CC121 journey is the Function section (see the first attached image), which consists of four buttons and a Value knob. Under Device Setup, you can assign the knob to Main Mix Volume, Metronome Level, Control Room Volume, or Control Room Phones.

As to the buttons, there are three "banks" of control options, which you also select under Device Setup (see the second attached image): Studio Control, Monitor Control, and my favorite, User Assignable, which lets you choose from a variety of options. The buttons can work as switches (for example, if you assign Zoom Out, successive presses zoom out further) or in conjunction with the Value knob. As an example of the latter, if you select Studio Control the buttons select the fader for a particular output level fader, and the Value knob adjusts the level.

The third attached image shows some of Categories from which you can choose a command - there are too many to fit within the artwork size constraints of this forum, but you get the idea. After choosing a Category for a function button, you then choose a Command and when you enable the function, the Value knob controls the parameter value if applicable. You can control a huge variety of parameters this way, but remember, you have a max of four functions available at any given moment. Still, this is enough that you can put several strategic commands under hands-on control, and it's easy enough to change functions that you can re-assign the group of four functions for tracking, mixing, editing, etc.

This is also where you assign a function to the rear panel footswitch jack (fourth attached image). The obvious choice is to assign this to a transport function like Record, but as with the other functions, you have plenty of choices for how you want to use it - for example, for dropping in markers, or going to a locator.

Anderton

10-07-2009, 10:09 AM

There's absolutely no question that both the MR816csx and CC121 enhance the "Cubase experience." So, given that the combination isn't particularly inexpensive, they need to be evaluated as to whether they're cost-effective for your situation. Let's turn to the MR816csx first.

The MR816csx has a street price of around $1,300. If you want to save $300, the MR816X is identical except that it doesn't have the channel strip DSP (although it does include the REV-X reverb). Having hardware dynamics and EQ seems worth the extra three bills to me, but your mileage may vary.

If you're in the market for an interface, use multiple mics, and work with Cubase, the MR816csx gives you eight quality mic pres, the channel strips, and the REV-X reverb. Granted, you can't use all eight channel strips and the reverb at the same time, but you can allocate the DSP as needed for a given situation. The Quick Connect feature is very convenient, and although there are plenty of reverb plug-ins, the REV-X really takes advantage of having its own DSP rather than sucking CPU cycles from your computer. It has excellent sound quality, which is one reason I included so many audio examples of what it can do.

The "Sweet Spot" morphing will take care of what you need most of the time, but you're not locked in to those settings - you can adjust EQ and dynamics if your idea of a sweet spot differs from Steinberg's. And don't forget that while the point of the MR816 family is Cubase integration, all of its main functions (other than Quick Connect) work with other DAWs, and that includes the DSP. So if you do the math, the argument is pretty compelling: DSP channel strips, hardware reverb, excellent mic pres, ADAT interfacing, work clock, sample rates up to 96kHz...and you can use it as a stand-alone digital mixer for, say, your keyboard rack (although I can't imagine too many people tearing it out of their studio rack for gigs).

Where the cost-effectiveness falls down is if you already have a bunch of great mic pres, some channel strips, and a quality reverb. In that case, you're basically getting the MR816csx for the Quick Connect feature...and the option to sell your other gear on eBay. But it's also important to remember the MR816 doesn't cut corners; for example, being able to enable +48V phantom power individually for each channel isn't that common a feature on audio interfaces, which often enable phantom power for groups of mics. The front panel hi-Z input is convenient for guitar and bass players, and having dual headphone jacks is a nice touch.

As to the CC121, although it generates MIDI control messages and can be used with other programs, it really comes into its own only when linked with Cubase - if you want a general-purpose MIDI controller, there are less expensive options. However, the beauty of the CC121 is that it's not general-purpose; it fits Cubase like a glove, and the sturdy construction coupled with an ergonomic layout promotes flying around the controls. I'm particularly fond of the AI Knob for editing effects and instrument parameters; it's just plain brilliant. The fact that it doesn't always work with non-Steinberg plug-ins is a bit of a downer, but I'm pleased that it does work well with many of the non-Steinberg plug-ins I tested.

One of the issues with a product like the CC121 is that as soon as you see it has one fader, you'd like to have two. And if you have four buttons, you'd like to have eight! Obviously at some point, a manufacturer has to choose where to make compromises in terms of price vs. functionality. But the idea of a single-channel controller is a proven one - Fronter Design's AlphaTrack has been a success - and that concept translates well to the CC121. I particularly like the hands-on control for EQ, which is exceptionally fluid. Couple that with a moving fader, the AI Knob, transport buttons, footswitch, and custom functions, and I'd say the CC121 makes the right choices regarding cost vs. features.

The bottom line is that if you're a Cubase (or Nuendo) user, these two units will help you get around the program in a faster, more elegant way. They definitely improve workflow, and simplify control. Furthermore, they don't have a very big footprint, either in your rack or on your desktop. Steinberg has given its user base high quality devices (they don't feel, look, or act cheap) that seem aimed squarely at serious project and professional studios.

Anderton

10-16-2009, 01:41 PM

I saw the CI2 interface at AES for the first time - there's a video in the Theater as part of our AES show coverage. What impresses me the most is that it has the AI knob that works like the one in the CC121. So, you can get the interface AND the very cool AI feature at a pretty reasonable price. Steinberg's Greg Ondo told me off-camera "It's addictive," and I'd have to agree.

Anderton

10-20-2009, 04:18 PM

It's not quite "last call" time, but I wil need to be sending these units back sooner rather than later. If you have any additional questions or comments, now would be a good time to slide 'em in here.

chelmer

10-26-2009, 07:24 PM

Question about the MR816csx:

Is the REV-X verb available to only 1 pair of analog outputs for monitoring?

I'll elaborate a bit...
Ideally, I need to route each of the 8 analog ins to each of 8 analog outs respectively. (input one, through the pre, eq, comp to output one). I also need the ability to add verb, selectively, to the output signals 1-8.

Reading the manual, from the best I can tell it looks as if REV-X is only available to 1 pair of the outputs at a time however, the manual skims over this so it's not very clear.

Hoping somebody here can give me the answer.:confused:

Thanks

Anderton

10-26-2009, 11:42 PM

I'm assuming the question involves using the REV-X with Cubase, not the MR editor for use as (for example) a stand-alone digital mixer.

First of all, if you want to use the channel strip on eight channels, that precludes using the REV-X. The most you can do is six mono channels of morphing channel strip, and one instance of the REV-X.

In my testing, I used the REV-X mostly as a traditional send effect, where the output dumped into the master out. And I've since packed the unit up in order to return it...but if I recall correctly, the answer to your question is "sort of." You can select any one stereo output to be processed by the REV-X, however, you can have preset levels set for different outputs. For example, if you assign the REV-X to process the Studio 1 output, it can have a different return level than when it's switched to process the Studio 2 output.

But I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to accomplish. If you want to add different amounts to each incoming signal as you record eight signals to eight tracks, it seems to make more sense to add the reverb on mixdown, where you can set the level of reverb for each channel independently. If you want to monitor diferent amounts of reverb on the different tracks, why not monitor the output to which the reverb is applied?

The only instance I can see where this is a problem is if you want to print the reverb as you record, and print different amounts of reverb on each track. But that's a moot point anyway, because you can have only one instance of the REV-X. You can insert this as a plug-in on an individual channel, or as a send effect.

But I may not have interpreted your question properly...please elaborate on exactly what you're trying to accomplish if I didn't get it right, and also, I've asked Brian McGovern to check in and see if he can offer any insights.

chelmer

10-27-2009, 07:00 AM

Thanks for the time Anderton & sorry I wasn't very clear.

Actually, my needs are two-fold. Before I explain those, let me describe the overall environment.

The setup we (the band) currently use for live shows is:
- 16 channel mic splitter; one to the house, one to our monitor mixer
- The monitor mixer serves two functions
1. Mix control for the drummers in-ears
2. Via channel insert loops, each channel is sent to an Aviom AN-16i

If you're not familiar with the Aviom product, what it does is gives each band member their own 16 channel mixer for their monitor. All mixers are fed a data stream and controlled individually.

That said, in the current configuration - since the Aviom system is fed from the channel inserts we do not have the ability to process (eq, compress, f/x) without having 16 channels of processing available. Alternatively, If we used the MR816crx for mic pre and processing before entering the Aviom system (remember, 16 inputs to this system) we would have the flexibility I'm looking for.

My original intent had nothing to do with changing the way that our monitors work, rather it was to find an interface that would allow us to record our shows onto a DAW (laptop) with the full flexibility of 16 recorded tracks (second part of my two-fold needs). However, after researching the products available today I've latched on to the idea that it would be most beneficial to have the ability to sweeten up our monitor feeds via Eq, compression, and verb.

I NEED to be able to use these in stand-alone mode. No PC attached. I'm not going to rely on a PC during performances.

There are a couple of other products that come close to having the flexibility to do what I need, but not entirely:

-Lexicon FW810s has built in DSP, but currently they do not have the drivers to daisy chain two units. Also, all DSP is sent out the analog AND DAW (firewire) outputs simultaneously. I prefer to record the tracks dry.

-MOTU 828mk3, however I'm really taken back by the fact that they don't publish their manuals. If I can't read the manual first, I'm not going to buy it since I really don't know what I can and can't do with it.

Steinberg seems to have the best solution for me? Quality mic pres and A/D-D/A converters and built in DSP that can be used Stand-Alone...without a PC.

Aside from the two primary uses I've described, I also want gear that I can use when we want to do some more serious recording. Again, Steinberg seems to be a great product for that too!

As a side note, I know that I won't need to apply verb to EVERY channel. We have 4 vocalists, so if I'm only able to apply verb to four of the analog outs that will work fine. It would be nice to have a more available for some light verb on drums however.

Thanks

ibmcgovern

10-27-2009, 10:34 AM

I will do my best to answer your question.

First, let's remember that the MR has 8 analog and 8 digital I/O. That is how you will get your 16 channels.

In order to use the MR816 in stand-alone, you would be best served to plug it into a computer before taking stand-alone to create and save your template. This is not unusual for some interfaces, for example the RME Fire face 800. I happen to have one from years past and take it's I/O via ADAT into my MR816.

As far using the Rev-X Reverb for monitoring, currently, you can only apply it to one output pair. What you can do is send an output pair with just Rev-X into an input pair into the AVIOM and blend the dry and wet signal. But, you will not have 8 independent discreet Rev-X settings for each individual analog output from the MR.

Please let me know if I should dig into this deeper for you.

Thanks for supporting Steinberg.

Anderton

10-27-2009, 12:23 PM

Thanks Brian! Again, I really appreciate your participation in this thread and I'm sure the people you've helped appreciate it too.

chelmer

10-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Thanks Brian.

I've attached a one-line diagram of the setup as I foresee it based upon your info. Can you take a look at it and tell me if this will work. A little explanation of what doesn't show on the diagram:

Channel EQ and compression on each of the 16 channels within the MR's. REV-X applied to Voc 1 and Voc 2 on MR#1

Then of course, at times we will connect a DAW via firewire for tracking.

Thanks guys for your time.
Chad

http://www.countrytwistband.com/images/CTB.png

ibmcgovern

10-27-2009, 07:11 PM

Cool. Thanks for the diagram. I'll give this a look with fresh eyes tomorrow and offer some feedback. I am also asking the engineer who actually built this for input as well.

I'll be in touch.

apuhjee

10-28-2009, 07:02 PM

Haven't tried the digital I/O yet, been fixated on the processing and pres, but will investigate that aspect further.
Did I miss the post where you looked into this issue? The whole onboard DSP can be used for tracking and mixing, but not at the same time thing I can understand. But I've NEVER seen an interface (and I've seen A LOT of interfaces) where the digital I/O was not available under certain circumstances. That is, quite frankly, absurd. Did I misunderstand the post that mentions this?

Cheers ~ jp

apuhjee

10-28-2009, 07:33 PM

Last night, while reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Hits-Signature-Licks/dp/0793562090) - I couldn't help but think... there are a few people in the music world (probably way more than a few) that have simply not received recognition commensurate with the impact they’ve made. Ask my mom who Wolf Marshall or Craig Anderton are and you’ll get a blank stare. But you’ve both contributed so much “behind the curtains” that it’s worth a big, sincere thank you. So thanks.

With the kowtowing out of the way...

As a hardcore DSP Factory user for over 10 years now, I’m really disappointed by the channel strip they’ve included in the MR816 CSX (on paper). No gate? No 4-band parametric? Shame on them. However, it looks like it may be my best option to get some compression/reverb on the monitoring mix during tracking (without using an external preamp/compressor). What was your overall impression, compared to other plugin-based channel strips you've used in the past?

If the digital i/o issue mentioned above ends up being true, this may not matter. The DSP Factory (4 of them actually) still plays a major role in my workflow, requiring the use of ADAT. This problem may actually end up saving me $300. Woo hoo! :thu:

And I'm with you... maybe it's because I'm from the late 80's / early 90's Digitech / ART multi-effects generation (where I'm sure the latency wasn't the greatest) but I'm more than happy with playing/singing live through an RME Hammerfall set fairly tight. Drums might be a different picture...

Cheers all ~ jp

Anderton

10-29-2009, 12:50 AM

As a hardcore DSP Factory user for over 10 years now, I’m really disappointed by the channel strip they’ve included in the MR816 CSX (on paper). No gate? No 4-band parametric? Shame on them. However, it looks like it may be my best option to get some compression/reverb on the monitoring mix during tracking (without using an external preamp/compressor). What was your overall impression, compared to other plugin-based channel strips you've used in the past?

First, remember this is for Cubase, which already has a ton of plug-ins for mixdown. For example, if you need a 4-band EQ, every VST channel has one. Besides, for many mixers, have high shelf, low shelf, and parametric mid is pretty common.

I see two main advantages to having hardware available,with one advantage specific to the MR816.

The first is that it sounds like Yamaha threw some DSP at the EQ and dynamics. It has a sort of "clean" veneer you sometimes miss with plug-ins designed for minimum CPU consumption. Being able to use it while recording is also a useful trick, especially if you're using the MR816 live, or as a stand-alone digital mixer for, say, a keyboard rig.

The other advantage is the whole "sweet spot morphing" thing, which lets you find a setting pretty fast that may be perfect, but if not, likely comes close enough to what you want to minimize the amount of tweaking you'll have to do. Remember, though, that the sweet spot thing is not for surgical-type corrections, like a rogue resonance in a signal...it's more for general tone/dynamics shaping, and getting a "sound." This is something you kind of have to try to see if it's your style or not, as your idea of what constitutes a good sound may or may not agree with the people who decided what the sweet spots would be.

Anderton

10-29-2009, 12:51 AM

Did I miss the post where you looked into this issue? The whole onboard DSP can be used for tracking and mixing, but not at the same time thing I can understand. But I've NEVER seen an interface (and I've seen A LOT of interfaces) where the digital I/O was not available under certain circumstances. That is, quite frankly, absurd. Did I misunderstand the post that mentions this?

Cheers ~ jp

Hmm...now I don't recall if I answered this or not. Brian, if you know the answer, maybe you could post it here; otherwise I'll set the unit back up and test out this aspect before returning it.

apuhjee

10-29-2009, 08:58 AM

otherwise I'll set the unit back up and test out this aspect before returning it.
I apologize for joining the discussion late. I had originally planned on getting a different interface, but as a RELIGIOUS Cubase user for many years now, I just don't see how I can choose anything else (unless the adat i/o feature does turn out to be borked...)

Regards ~ jp

ibmcgovern

10-29-2009, 10:31 AM

I do want to clear up one thing. The MR816's have added integration within Steinberg's Cubase and Nuendo solutions that is remarkable. Still, you can use the MR's as an ASIO compatible fire wire interface with other compatible DAW's. The difference is the user will need to access the MR settings via the MR editor. This acts similar to other fire wire devices with DSP. You still have access to the amazing sonic quality (Mic Pre's, etc.) of the MR816's.

To apuhjee's question:

Correct, you can use the included FX during tracking or mixing, but not at the same time. And yes, due to bandwidth requirements, if you use the included FX during mixing (external) you do not have access to your digital I/O.

Chelmer:

I am in the processing of taking some screen shots to illustrate what you can and cannot do. I will post these ASAP.

Thanks,

Anderton

10-29-2009, 11:36 AM

I do want to clear up one thing. The MR816's have added integration within Steinberg's Cubase and Nuendo solutions that is remarkable. Still, you can the MR's as an ASIO compatible fire wire interface with other compatible DAW's.

Let me echo what Brian says, as I pointed this out early on in the review. The DSP is accessible in other programs as well; IIRC I gave the example of using the channel strips and reverb with Sonar. The only thing you have to totally give up is the ability to do the Quick Connect thing with other programs, that's Cubase-specific.

apuhjee

10-30-2009, 12:07 PM

Craig -
I'd really like to see you put the digital i/o through its paces. I know that circumstances may have prevented this from happening during your first and second review periods, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers it an important aspect of this interface.

Brian -
Thank you for your participation in this review and thanks for replying to my (sometimes harsh) comments. I've been back and forth through my sweetwater catalogue more times than I'd like to admit and just want it to be over! (who am I kidding... no I don't)

For me, it stacks up like this:

===== pros =====
- Preamps get good reviews
- Converters get good reviews
- Integrates well with Cubase
- I can put compression and reverb on a near-zero-latency monitoring mix during tracking
================

===== cons =====
- No midi
- No gate
- The 3-band EQ is fairly useless (for my purposes). Only the middle channel has adjustable Q, and enabling it during mixing disables the use of digital i/o
- Comments regarding limited "bandwidth" seem to imply the DSP is either 100% utilized (at best) or underpowered (at worst)
================

As a die-hard DS2416 user (to this day), I never realized how spoiled we were with 5 DSPs for mixing and 1 DSP for 2 FX sends... I'm actually stockpiling 865pe boards, 478 chips, and AGP vid cards so I never have to give up this functionality :love:

But with that said (and especially after reading this post over at Cubase.net (http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=115271&highlight=n12)), I have found enough courage to press "add to cart" three times. Now time to start saving up for an Aurora 16 and BAE lunchbox. My girlfriend doesn't understand just how long we'll have to wait for that first house :lol:

Cheers ~ jp

apuhjee

10-30-2009, 12:51 PM

I ignored the advice of many - no disrespect to Steinberg intended, longtime Cubase user - who warned me beforehand to avoid Steinberg hardware. I won't be doing that again.
If this really was Steinberg hardware and we were talking pre-Yamaha buyout, I'd full-heartedly agree. Remember the Houston? The Midex? The Steinberg-branded RME stuff? When I first caught word of this new gear: bad flashbacks ... bad flashbacks ... "What? Buy this so they can discontinue it a year later? Hah... fool me once..." Then I saw the block diagram for the MR816 ... and had bad flashbacks again ... of trying to get my head wrapped around the DSP Factory block diagram. It was then that I realized this thing is Yamaha ... beginning to end ... inside and out.

Brian - please don't be offended by this comment. I'm not trying to discredit Steinberg. I have, of course, no idea just how involved Steinberg was in the project. I'm simply saying that avoiding the MR816 because it's "Steinberg hardware" is a fools mistake. :thu:

Now if you'll excuse me ... I have some tracks to make!

Cheers ~ jp

ibmcgovern

11-02-2009, 11:21 AM

apuhjee

Thanks for writing. No worries my friend, never offended or take things personally :) I fully understand the decision making process on a new interface. It's an investment. That being said, I am confident you will be extremely happy with the interfaces. If I can be of any assistance once received, please let me know.

Add on:

For chelmer,

Sorry for the delay. My attempts to create an image failed - user error :(

The Rev X acts as a return. You can return the Reverb to channels 7/8 for example. You will now have independent control of just the Reverb for the respective MR816. However, you cannot send inputs from the 2nd MR to the Reverb of the 1st MR. Help any?

apuhjee

11-02-2009, 12:14 PM

you cannot send inputs from the 2nd MR to the Reverb of the 1st MR.
That was another nice feature of the DS2416 - you could combine two cards in a cascade mode - channels on each card had access to not only its own 2 fx sends, but the other card's as well.

chelmer

11-02-2009, 01:15 PM

ibmcgovern,

That does help. My intent on that drawing is just as you described....returning RevX to a couple of channels on ONE of the MR816's. On the other MR816, RevX would be applied to only the 1st two channels.

ibmcgovern

11-02-2009, 01:19 PM

What I mention refers to in stand alone mode, using the MR's as 'mixers' - so to say.

However, I just thought of something but I want to check.

I want to see if by using the ADAT connections, could we accomplish what you are trying to do.

I'll post back in a bit.

apuhjee

11-12-2009, 12:59 AM

Well, it looks like Craig has checked out for a bit. Hopefully the review gets completed before the unit is due back.

Two things that have come to my attention while wading through the Cubase.net forum:

1) Although up to three units can be daisy-chained, only 8 outputs are available for Direct Monitoring. This has many people a bit disappointed and hopefully anticipating a future driver update that addresses this (bug?)

2) Quite a few people are confused by the "Master" knob affecting all 8 outputs. There really should be a way to adjust your main monitor outputs from the front panel, without affecting the other 6 signals.

Any comments on this?

Regards ~ jp

Anderton

11-17-2009, 02:36 PM

Well, it looks like Craig has checked out for a bit. Hopefully the review gets completed before the unit is due back.

Yeah, I was in France but I'm back now. :)

What exactly needs to be completed? I thought things were pretty much either covered by me, or answered by Brian...as to your two remaining questions below, I'm not privy to whether certain features will be added in the future (that's up to Steinberg to divulge or not, as they see fit). And regarding the master, if I have a master control I would want it to control everything so this doesn't particularly bother me, especially because there are other places to change levels in both hardware and software.

apuhjee

11-19-2009, 04:47 PM

#60:If you use all the effects you lose all the digital I/O . . . Apparently the digital I/O is used internally as FX busses also and they can only do one thing at a time.
#61:Haven't tried the digital I/O yet, been fixated on the processing and pres, but will investigate that aspect further.
What exactly needs to be completed? I thought things were pretty much either covered by me, or answered by Brian...
Well... even though the issues related to digital i/o are clearly stated in the manual and were addressed by Brian, judging by the comment you made in post #61 I thought you were going to report on your experience concerning digital i/o. Having the "real world" usage often reveals very important information... i.e. even though there are clear instruction on installing the drivers, you've shown that exceptions do occur. It's nice to have your experience with the important aspects of the device... don't you feel that bridging the MR816 with the digital domain qualifies as an important one?

And regarding the master, if I have a master control I would want it to control everything so this doesn't particularly bother me, especially because there are other places to change levels in both hardware and software.
Sorry for being dense, but I don't see a method to increase the gain on outputs 1+2 at the same time using hardware, without affecting the other outputs. Can you please help me out here?

Cheers ~ jp :thu:

Anderton

11-19-2009, 07:33 PM

#60:
#61:

Well... even though the issues related to digital i/o are clearly stated in the manual and were addressed by Brian, judging by the comment you made in post #61 I thought you were going to report on your experience concerning digital i/o. Having the "real world" usage often reveals very important information... i.e. even though there are clear instruction on installing the drivers, you've shown that exceptions do occur. It's nice to have your experience with the important aspects of the device... don't you feel that bridging the MR816 with the digital domain qualifies as an important one?

Sorry for being dense, but I don't see a method to increase the gain on outputs 1+2 at the same time using hardware, without affecting the other outputs. Can you please help me out here?

Cheers ~ jp :thu:

Actually I did try the SPDIF after that post, not specifically as part of this review but in terms of feeding in a signal from a guitar processor. It worked as expected and didn't do anything unusual so I didn't think to post a follow-up, but suffice it to say it works.

As to the output thing, you're not dense, I wasn't very clear...by hardware I meant any external hardware, like amp gain controls, not hardware within the MR816.