PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Multitrack recorders, controllers, and other studio equipment
Post Reply
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

PiaKnow,

How are you getting along with the Edirol M-16DX? Are there any severe limitations that you've discovered and would be willing to share? I was ready to buy this difficult-to-find-mixer, M-16DX, but then I discovered this review:

http://www.chipcollection.com/roland/ed ... ck-review/

...which contained the paragraph (below) that has me concerned. I am hoping that the reviewer (a) simply received a "bum unit", (b) didn't understand the differences between Windows and Mac OSX, or (c) a better driver has subsequently emerged:

"Drivers: 5 (score on a scale of 1 to 10)
I tested this one under Windows & Mac OS X. It faired better in Mac OS X. Under windows, there is no outgoing volume control, making it easy to damage your monitors speakers if you don’t have the return bus fader all the way down. In Mac OS X you can set it to line levels at least. I found this control really weird and annoying. i wouldn’t recommend this as an audio interface for windows, especially for casual use. Your audio will just clip internally, because it uses the 22+dbl gain for no reason I could find. Under mac os X it did seem to drop out and freeze the computer, but its probably just my iMac’s first gen USB bus. I found it to be useable to some degree, but not entirely stable. This one seems to have the same drivers or chip as the blue Edirol 10/10 USB interface, which also had drop out problems on extended use."


I am hoping to get a "do it all" USB2.0 or FW audio interface that also serves as a mixer. No USB1.1 mixers. The ability to act as a control surface would be a "cool" bonus, but is not a necessity. Uh... I am also hoping to spend no more than $500. (Okay, peanut gallery can stop laughing now). I have become frustrated with the native "audio interface" capabilities of my Fantom-G... particularly with regard to its mix/monitoring capabilities while utilizing a software DAW on my Windows laptop. I have tried, with modest success, to work around these limitations by using a very cheap external mixer (which detrimentally "colors" the sound of the Fan-G, in addition to other limitations).

I've considered the following:

1. EDIROL M-16DX (very few reviews, and appears to be discontinued)
2. Tascam M-164UF (practically no reviews... but, recently released with USB2.0)
3. Alesis Multimix 16 usb 2.0 (some reports of overheating/failure in just over one year)
4. Tascam FW-1082 (also acts as control surface, with motorized faders... but, it is also apparently being discontinued)
5. Tascam FW-1884 ("upgrade" of FW-1082. I would have to wait... or buy one "USED" to meet my price point).
6. M-Audio ProjectMix (Cannot serve as a standalone mixer. Plus, I would have to wait... or buy one "USED" to meet my price point).

Although I do not really need 16 plus inputs, it appears that the additional desirable capabilities only come in these devices.

Your feedback is GREATLY APPRECIATED!
User avatar
PauloF
Posts: 4201
Joined: 02:35, 16 January 2006
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by PauloF »

While you wait for Piaknow to come along, sorry to give my opinion on this subject:

Some time ago I was looking for the M-16DX, but couldn't find one, and Roland reps just confirmed what I already heard here, that M-16DX is decontinued...

In my pursue for a Mixer/DAW interface device, I come up with the Mackie Onyx 1220i /1620i.
that is a Multi-Bus standalone mixer and Firewire interface, that will act as a multi-channel recorder front-end for your DAW.

Give a look to this site:
http://www.mackie.com/products/onyx1220i/
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

Thanks PauloF! (I hope all is well with you! I've been reading and my best wishes are with you!)

That Mackie Onyx 1220i looks REALLY nice! ...I know that Mackie's Onyx line is well regarded, and would likely retain some value should I later decide to "upgrade". I agree that it is a good choice!

However, I can't find the Onyx 1220i for less than $650 USD (and it's $700 local retail). Unfortunately, I need to stay under $500 USD. Believe it or not, I can find my first three choices "new" for under $350 USD (i.e., EDIROL M-16DX, Tascam M-164UF, Alesis Multimix 16). The EDIROL M-16DX intrigued me because it was once a $900 mixer and, although discontinued, Roland seems to still provide driver support (including Windows 7 32/64 bit, and MAC OSX 10.6).

If I go the route of a Firewire interface, I would probably have to pay local RETAIL (ugh!), just in case it needed to be returned. I'm not certain if a Firewire interface will work properly with my laptop's Ricoh Firewire chipset. (I've read that it's a gamble if you do not have a NATIVE Texas Instruments FW chipset. It might work. It might not). I figured I might gamble (with my last three choices) if I could get a killer "used" Firewire interface/mixer/controller. Worst case scenario is that I would have to resell it (hopefully for the same price I paid "used")? Maybe.

What's you're experience with Firewire versus USB2.0? If I stay under 16 simultaneous tracks, is it reasonable to expect the USB2.0 to remain glitch-free with low latency (in your experience)? My laptop is not the latest/greatest: Core 2 Duo at 2.1 Ghz with 4Gb of RAM.

Now that I have learned just enough to be dangerous, I am saddened regarding the limitations of the built-in audio interface of the Fantom-G, when used in conjunction with an external DAW. The built-in audio interface appears to have been designed primarily for "internal" Fantom-G use... or as a quick-fix when used with an external DAW. Live monitoring with the built-in interface, particularly with external FX plug-ins, is not really viable. Too much switching back and forth. (Not whining. I still think the Fantom-G offers more than most).

BEST WISHES again to you PauloF!
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

ADMIN... help... please. Not sure why the posts on this thread are going "off screen".
Nik_
Posts: 171
Joined: 08:24, 8 November 2008
Location: UK

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by Nik_ »


"Drivers: 5 (score on a scale of 1 to 10)
I tested this one under Windows & Mac OS X. It faired better in Mac OS X. Under windows, there is no outgoing volume control, making it easy to damage your monitors speakers if you don’t have the return bus fader all the way down. In Mac OS X you can set it to line levels at least. I found this control really weird and annoying. i wouldn’t recommend this as an audio interface for windows, especially for casual use. Your audio will just clip internally, because it uses the 22+dbl gain for no reason I could find. Under mac os X it did seem to drop out and freeze the computer, but its probably just my iMac’s first gen USB bus. I found it to be useable to some degree, but not entirely stable. This one seems to have the same drivers or chip as the blue Edirol 10/10 USB interface, which also had drop out problems on extended use."


I've only used mine on a PC with Windows XP, and have not encountered any of those problems.
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

Nik,

Thank you! I really appreciate the feedback. So, levels into the PC are adjustable, correct? I'm assuming that you either (a) adjust the input levels per channel on the mixing board, or (b) adjust the levels in your software DAW on the PC.

The reviewers comments about "no outgoing volume control" in Win XP, and "audio will just clip internally, because it uses the 22+dbl gain for no reason" just didn't make sense. After all it is a mixer.

I'm sooooo close to pulling the trigger on the Edirol M-16DX (before it vanishes).

Nik --- Do you subscribe to "Sound On Sound"? Have you seen the review of the Tascam M-164UF? Overall, is the review "positive" or "negative" for the M-164UF? If it's positive, I'll probably "break down" and subscribe to SoS ($60 USD) just to read the review and particulars... otherwise, I'll pass. (It's the cheapest one of the bunch, available for $255 USD, and it's new... not discontinued).

I really need to stop being a wimp... make a decision... and buy something! (This would be sooo much easier if I had a rich uncle).

Thanks Nik! I appreciate your earlier response!
User avatar
piaknowguy
Posts: 2071
Joined: 22:29, 14 April 2004
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by piaknowguy »

Hey EZX12!

Sorry for the late response! Please check your email!

Cheers!
PiaKnowGuy
Please listen to 'Storm Chaser' if you wish.
Image
PiaKnow
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

Thank you PiaKnow! You are the best!
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

I pulled the trigger on the Edirol M-16DX. Worst case scenario, I figure it will help me to learn what I do... and do not... actually "need"! I should have it in hand next week.

I really haven't found many "negatives"... and lots of "positives". zZounds had 32 ratings with a average score of 9 out of 10 stars. Sweetwater had 7 ratings with a perfect score of 5 out of 5 stars.

Plus!!!... I know this PiaKnow guy, and he has one, so...
(Uh... I will not be skydiving, even if you do say it is a wonderful experience). ;-)

If this does not work out for my particular needs, I will unload it and pony up the extra couple hundred for the V-Studio 100. (The V-Studio 100 is an excellent suggestion by the way! Looks like it would fit the bill, but I'm opting for this less expensive route first. Roland is still supporting the M-16DX for now... up-to-date drivers for Windows 7 and MAC OSX 10.6. And it was a $900 mixer/interface only two or three years ago).
User avatar
piaknowguy
Posts: 2071
Joined: 22:29, 14 April 2004
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by piaknowguy »

Skydiving is a wonderful experience!! (from what I hear.)

I hope that works out for you, EZX12! =)

Cheers!
PiaKnowGuy
Please listen to 'Storm Chaser' if you wish.
Image
PiaKnow
Turbojet
Posts: 5
Joined: 22:44, 26 March 2010

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by Turbojet »

EZX12 you're not alone..I've just got mine last week, and I'm glad I did.
Now, just to figure out how to get sound from my PC into the heaphones without having to have main mix volume (from the speakers) on...

I just can't beleive that EDIROL would do such a foolish thing to have headphones/control room volume POST Master and not in paralel or PRE...

I'm hoping I'm missing something here...

George Solo
http://musicline.ca
http://georgesolo.com
EZX12
Posts: 45
Joined: 02:59, 31 March 2009

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by EZX12 »

Piaknow:

What are you using to keep your M-16DX "propped up" (as seen in your studio pics)? Is it a "BKT-S" bracket (normally for the Sonic Cell)? Or is it a "home-made" solution?

--- EZX12

P.S. I received the M-16DX yesterday. I purchased it from an out-of-State "G.C." store that had it on "clearance". I ordered it directly from a store manager via telephone, who assured me it was not a "demo" or "used"; it was supposedly "new in the box".

Now... would you be surprised to learn that the unit arrived SERIOUSLY "used" and scuffed up... with "Belkin" cables? Based on a half-removed label on the box, it looks like it was a "used trade-in". Nooooooooo...

I trust you know what "G.C." means. Argggh! (I'm returning it. They do not appear to be objecting. We'll see.)

No worries... found one in Canada for less, which offsets the horrendous cost to ship it State-side. (I actually end up saving a couple bucks). I'll just be waiting... waiting... waiting... a little bit longer.
jeeby
Posts: 4
Joined: 09:58, 10 August 2020

Re: PiaKnow: Edirol M-16DX versus...

Post by jeeby »

Turbojet wrote: I just can't beleive that EDIROL would do such a foolish thing to have headphones/control room volume POST Master and not in paralel or PRE...

I'm hoping I'm missing something here...
Is that why the signals from those 2 come through mono, and really flat? It's been driving me crazy the past couple days, finally realised today I'd need to route headphones through the main mixer out in order to get decent sound.

Is that how everyones M-16 works?

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=57682&p=319814#p319814
Post Reply