STEINBERG MR816csx Interface and CC121 Controller - now with conclusions

[Anderton]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Straightman]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

[Mats Nermark]

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]

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]

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

 

Currently uninstalling...

[Anderton]

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

[Anderton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Anderton]

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

 

 

Very cool!!!! Keep reading...

[Anderton]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

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