I’ve just gone through the effort of talking my Sweetwater salesman into selling me the mLAN16e to interface my Motif ES with their Creation Station computer.  Now I’ve just read from a site called motifcity.com (hosted by jforce expert, Mark Johnston) see:
[url=http://motifcity.com/forums/thread/76.aspx]http://motifcity.com/forums/thread/76.aspx [/url]
He says (and I quote): “ I would recommend staying away from mLan. It is an inferior protocol (in my experience) and not suitable for anyone who would rather work on music than on optimizing their computers every day”.  He goes on to say:  “ I personally feel the best way to go--if you are using the Motif as your creative sequencing axe-- is to simply feed all four outs (main and assignables) to a multi-port audio interface and directly into the computer as audio. In my experience, that is by far the most stable, reliable, and dead simple way to go about it. I just group like instruments to outputs, like this:

Bass guitar - out1
Bass kick - out2
Pianos, strings, - out3
Leads, hi hats, etc - out4

So I end up with four mono audio tracks to work with in the computer. And they are all lined up and in perfect sync. All I need to do then is apply some compression, deductive eq, etc and I’m ready to burn to disc. I find that if I have a really good mix in the Motif (which is totally attainable) I don’t need to do much to it when I get it into the computer.

Now, if you want to do most of your mixing in the computer, then you might want to get an AIEB2 card with all of its outs so you can send more tracks over in their own lanes into your software app.

It really comes down to--once again--the destination of your work.. i.e. for demos, music for friends and family, home videos, your i-pod, etc etc etc etc then the 4 assignable outs will more than suffice if you learn to use the Motif’s mixing tools (my Essential Mixing guide will be a huge help here). If you want a more commercially viable mix, I absolutely think you should get the AIEB2 and take advantage of all of its outputs for discreet mixing flexibility in your software.

PS: having a quality audio interface is paramount when sending analog out of the Motif to the computer. Get the best soundcard (with the best AD converters) you can afford. I highly recommend the RME line of audio interfaces. The Fireface800 is absolutely stellar.

Have I made a silly mistake by selecting mLAN for my audio and midi interface?  I’m very unknowledgeable about computers so I’m very worried I’ve placed a barrier to my DAW work.  It’s almost too late to change my order without causing Sweetwater to get argumentative, but I really want to make my Motif’s work with my new computer as easy and professional as possible.  Thanks to you gurus for any help you can give me.

Re: mLAN16e versus RME interface and AIEB2

You worry too much.

Do you know the article to which you refer is 2 years old?

mLAN works great, when the latest drivers are installed properly, and you don’t muck up your DAW with a lot of junk and unessential services.

So, read the Beyond the Manual documents on mLAN and Studio Manager, read the forum on installing mLAN (look to 01XRay.com’s forum, also), and get the latest drivers from Yamahasynths.com.

mLAN is the best way to work with Yamaha synths, and it is an amazing technology—still. I love mLAN, my 01X, and my i88X. I learn new ways to use them every week, and I’ve been an mLAN user for over a year and a half now.

Relax, take a stress pill, and start imagining what you’re going to do with 16 audio channels out, and 8 audio channels back in to your synth.

Also, start looking at the specs for the 01X. You’ll want it, next.

Have fun!

Re: mLAN16e versus RME interface and AIEB2

heh, heh.  You put me in my place, without making me look like a complete fool.  Just maybe 60%.  Sounds like good advice.  I just get a little tense when Mark Johnston, the guy who writes the tutorial books (for Motif City) on mLAN and Motif, advises not to get it, it makes you think, uh, maybe I shouldn’t get this.  But I didn’t know that was a 2 year old article.  Why are there so many forum posts expressing users’ difficulties in getting mLAN up and running with no problems?  However, in light of your advice, it sounds like a great thing, however is it more feasible for those such as myself with very little engineering and computer skills, should seek just an audio/midi converter such as the one included with the SONAR 660 Power Studio (identical to an Edirol FA-66)?

Re: mLAN16e versus RME interface and AIEB2

I think I’m repeating myself here, but the first month I owned the mLAN16E, I agreed with the other writer. When it all fell into place and I heard just how good the ES sounded through mLAN, my opinion flipped 180 degrees.

Will you be happier with the other hardware? The FA-66 has a good reputation—perhaps this is a better choice for you.

Another issue: Sonar’s audio engine can be very quirky, and is far more sensitive to PC performance fluxuation than other DAW software packages. You might have these kinds of problems no matter which you choose, so I feel safe in saying that you will have a few configuration headaches before your DAW platform is stable and tuned to your needs no matter what audio hardware you choose—there are no guarantees that any of this stuff will work together! That’s why some people go with Digidesign and a Protools system. (They pay for that convenience, believe me, but still—there are no guarantees.)

So, I think your choice of hardware should depend on your needs and goals, and not on an anticipated ‘out-of-the-box” experience.

If you’re looking for a simple and reliable recording/editing system using Sonar, the FA66 is a very nice package that meets those needs, nicely. I gives you 6/6 audio channels + 1 midi port via 1394a cable, and has ports for an external condenser mic and 1/4” plug. More importantly, it supports zero-latency ASIO direct-out recording which is essential for your day-to-day enjoyment of the system.

There’s also a lot more people over on the Sonar forum who have this hardware and can offer practical support if you need it. I think this is a good choice for you.

On the other hand, the mLAN 16E does all that and more. It supplies 16+2 output / 8 input 44.1/48KHz 24-bit audio channels, plus 4 midi ports on the same 1394a 6-pin cable, also supporting low latency monitoring, and offers further expandability through 01X and i88X hardware, as well as other devices in the mLAN family. It is also integrated into your synth, which has it’s own advantages, depending on your installed options.

All this power comes at the cost of complexity. As I said, it takes time to learn, time to configure, time to debug, but once it’s running and you’re armed with the proper knowledge to use the system as its designers intended, you’ll be awed by this extremely versatile system for a long time.

If this is where you’re going/want to be, then by all means, go mLAN. If the idea of this complexity is intimidating, you may not be happy using mLAN. (My background includes a graduate degree in computer science, an undergrad in EE, and almost 30 years in design and development of system software and products for computers, servers, networks, and the like. The first month of getting mLAN configured and de-glitched in my studio were difficult.)

So, you have a little thinking to do. Ask yourself where you’re going with this, and how much of that involves Yamaha technology. mLAN is specific to Motif/S90 ES/XS so far. Although the spec was open, no one else really ran with the protocol extension—I think it’s a tragedy and short sighted on the part of Korg and Roland, but the facts remain.

Don’t misunderstand—I’ve plugged my Fantom rack into mLAN via the SPDIF I/O on the 01X and the Roland has no problems sync’d to the Yamaha bus clock. An old Kurz k2000 rack connects via the optical port on an i88x. An older Roland synth and my Hammond clonewheel both plug into the network via analog inputs, and I have lots more of those open for newly acquired devices, whatever may come. mLAN has plenty of digital connectivity via the network component devices, but it would have been far simpler to manage (through the Graphic Patchbay software) had they supported mLAN natively.

Korg was on the bandwagon early with hardware for the early Triton that supported the first mLAN versions, but did not upgrade to the 400kb/s mLAN bus, leaving their own customers to wither and die on the vine.

Well, enough of my griping. PM me if you have any more questions and I’ll be happy to help if I can.

Re: mLAN16e versus RME interface and AIEB2

Hello there,

I agree with you mlan16e is great integration to the motif es, but there is nothing to compare to RME Firewire f400, f800 interface , they are more stable at low latency and they permit you to create great heavy vsti project, but at they other hand when you ‘ve got a motif you do not need such heavy power so the mlan16e is more than enought and you will must all you need for a half price

see you

reut