STEINBERG MR816csx Interface and CC121 Controller - now with conclusions

[Anderton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

Thanks

[Anderton]

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]

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]

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]

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

[chelmer]

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

[ibmcgovern]

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]

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]

Last night, while reading this book - 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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

But with that said (and especially after reading this post over at Cubase.net), 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

Cheers ~ jp

[apuhjee]

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.

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

Cheers ~ jp

[ibmcgovern]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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