UR824 v UR816C

I need a new interface. I need 16 microphone inputs. I was looking at buying 2 UR824s but then I see the newer UR816. What is the best choice? I’m mainly interested in the control room integration as I use it in a limited way with my Presonus RM16ai and its excellent. Also need good monitoring for drumming. Why do the two interfaces still exist? Wouldn’t the UR-C replace the 824? Why is the UR-C called 16 x 16 and the 824 is 24 X 24? Does this include possible connections? Counting non physical connections is confusing, even for sales staff. One person directed me from the 824 to the 816 “because you need 16 inputs” I want a setup that will last for a reasonable period of time with full support. Thanks very much for any suggestions.

Why buy 2 interfaces when you only need one and then combine that with an ADAT extension like f.e. the Behringer ADA8200.
I use that with the UR816C and have 16 inputs and outputs.
I guess the 824 has no further driver support in the near future? I’m not sure. The 816 is the newest so probably the longest support for now.
The URC is the newest and supports USB 3 (the 824 is USB2).
Also has MIDI ins and outs, the 824 does not have this feature.
It can function within the controlroom of Cubase also but you need the DSPfx mixer to make the adjustments, that cannot be done in Cubase when you use the Controlroom. I don’t have a problem with that, I use the Controlroom.
And yes, they always advertise with the extended connections possible, so the 824 has 2 ADAT connections which gives a total of 24 inputs.
The UR816C only can handle 1 ADAT extender so that makes a 16 inputs in total.

Thanks for the reply. Very helpful. I did consider an extension ADAT like the Behringer but wouldn’t this mean less monitoring control/different response over those inputs? That would mean the overheads and room mics for example. That’s why I thought buying two, though more expensive, would make sense.

I like the Midas preamps of the Behringer even somewhat better than the UR816’s.
What do you mean by less monitoring control? You have 2 headphones outputs on the UR816C with 4 different mixes to make in software available.
Using even the line outputs (on the URC as well on the Behringer) for a further monitoramp like f.e. Behringer HA series, you would have even 4 different phone-mixes send to more than 4 phones or speakers. Would that not be enough for your goal?

When you buy two URC’s you cannot use them as 2 interfaces together, Cubase will only allow 1 interface at a time.
So you would just use the second URC as an “extension”, an expensive one.

Would Steinberg really not want to sell me two interfaces? That seems very strange. In their promotional videos they show dual racked URs. I appreciate your input put I made my studio a Behringer free zone a few years ago and I’m not going back. The hardware just didn’t last for me and it was multiple devices all ended up in landfill.

If you do not value the new ADA8200 from Behringer(way better than the previous 8000!) then I would advise you to try the URC first before buying, because I am afraid it will not last very long either. It still is a low budget interface.
The phone jacks f.e. are very crappy and I would not give those a long life, but I do not use them so no problem for me.
Also I connect everything only once and permanent in my homestudio so the Behringer suits me fine.

Hi, I know this is an old post… I am sort of doing what you suggest… I’ve been using the UR824 for a while now (love it, rock solid) and wanted to add additional inputs. I considered the Behringer option or a Presonus digimax but decided to go for a UR816C, use it as my main interface with the UR824 connected via ADAT for an additional 8 inputs. As mentioned, the UR824 does not have MIDI while the 816 does.

Couple of things I’m not sure about… It was mentioned that Cubase only accepts one interface at a time yet as you said, Steinberg clearly states that two 816’s can be connected at a time, although I’m not sure in what capacity.

So would my UR824 would no longer be connected via USB? only to the ADAT connections on the 816?
Still trying to sort this out… stay tuned!

Only ADAT connections between the 824 and the 816.
only the 816 in the USB port, then you will have 16 inputs in Cubase. Pretty straight forward

I’d be interested to hear how this goes . . .

Thanks. Got it.

FWIW, this is almost exactly my situation. I have a UR816-c (which replaced my MR816X), and for extra inputs, I use a Behringer ADA8000. For outputs, I have my main monitors, a mixcube, and for sending four cue mixes to the live room, I have a Behringer HA4700 headphone amp.

I haven’t noticed any difference between the pres in the UR816c as compared to my old MR816X, but I did do a “shootout” between the ones in the MR816X and the Behringer ADA8000 pres, and thought the Steinberg ones were better. The Behringer ones stood up surprisingly well, though. Neither holds much of a candle to my other four more expensive pres, though.

When you connect an “extension input” device via ADAT, the monitoring works the same way in the UR816c as it did in the MR816X, which is probably the same for any of their other devices. It shows up as its own input in Cubase and monitor / mains routing, etc. all work just like the inputs from the interface itself, whether in direct monitoring mode or not.

The routing in the UR816c is a bit fiddly, but I’ve more or less gotten the hang of it. Instead of connecting physical out buses to physical outputs, with the UR816c you connect “DAW Direct” outs (virtual output buses) to the physical outputs. So, DAW Direct out 1 to physical output #1, connected to the first channel in on the headphone amp, etc.

The drivers for the UR816c are superb. I can track 16 mono tracks and 8 stereo tracks (all just through a common input, but I don’t think that matters) at 48 samples (5ms round-trip latency) - all while playing a youtube video in the background, adjusting preferences, setting up key commands, checking and unchecking the “direct monitoring enabled/disabled” button - with no dropouts over about a 7 minute period.

The one thing that makes me crazy - and I hope they find a fix for it - is the routing with respect to the built-in FX. Let’s say you have a singer who wants some of the reverb in their phones. Fine… set up your input bus, enable the RevX reverb, monitor the singer in the control room… hear the singer and the Reverb… great. Nope. Singer says, “can you give me the reverb please?” The reverb (or whatever other FX, channel strip, whatever) - it seems - can ONLY be routed to a physical output - not a virtual output. That’s why I hear it in my monitors, but can’t route it to the phones.

At this point, I seem to need to do one of two things to employ a workaround, neither of which I never had to do with the MR816.

  1. Physically connect the headphone out on the UR816c to a headphone channel input on my headphone amp.
  2. Disable Control Room.
  3. Set up a talk-back channel manually so I can communicate with the singer.


  1. Strap the reverb plugin into an insert on the channel. (obviously the easier of the two options, and surprisingly doable with the drivers and the shockingly small amount of latency that can be achieved.


Gaaaah! I mean, usually, singers are happy enough tracking without reverb. But geez…

As for “Behringer free zone…” I dunno. I’ve outgrown most of my Behringer stuff too, but I’ve had my share of it along the way and have almost zero issues with them. For bang-for-the-buck gear, you can’t beat it, and even at twice the price, it would be hard to beat for what you get.

Sure, my SSL Alpha channel beats the pants off of the Behringer Mic2200, but at 8x price, it should. It doesn’t mean I can’t make a usable recording without spending over a grand per channel, though.


I had the ADA8000 and now have the ADA8200 which has way better pre-amps, in fact i still doubt of they are even better than the UR816C’s.
But I mostly still use my Yamaha N12 for recordings and external pre-amps.
I wil further do some tests with your explanation mentioned and come back with results.
I am very pleased with the UR816 as my second interface, mostly for outboard gear connections, but as you say, the routing is not that easy and poorly explaned in the manual.
And thanks for joining the UR816C world on this forum, pratical users advice is always welcome.

This post is double and I answered in the other one: