MRC Prodigy Express - Good/Bad????

[Anonymous]

I'm thinking about buying the MRC Prodigy Express. Found it online for $99. Anyone have any good/bad experiences to share? How does it compare with Bachmann E-Z?

[jnichols]

I've had no experience directly with the MRC PE, but I did have a Prodigy Advanced for a little while and found it to be a pretty good system. There are a lot of limitations to the system of course, but you if you are looking for any kind of programming features, you would be better off getting the PE rather than the Bachmann unit. The Bachmann unit is really meant just to run trains, and is very simple to use, but is also very limited in features.

My two cents worth on this topic still remains the same however... For an extra $60, you can pick up a Digitrax Zephyr and not have to deal with a close ended system architecture. In my mind unless you really like the handheld cab for the PE, spend your money on a system that can grow with your DCC needs, not trap you under them... [;)]

Jeff

[rrinker]

You can upgrade the PE to the PA, at least someone at MRC is finally on the ball. But they failed to score the touchdown - compare the two handhelds, while they are the same size and have the same number of buttons, for whatever reason MRC decided to move things around between the two. Sure the PE has fewer features, but they could have just left off some labels for the things that the PE doesn't have. But instead they shuffled the controls around as well - switching between one handheld or the other is going to be horribly confusing. They even moved the direction button!

--Randy

[davekelly]

I've had my PE for almost two months now and abosolutely love it. Limitations? You bet. Ability to expand - yes, but not as much as some others out there.

I've discussed these in a couple of other threads, but I"ll summarize my thought process here.

Price. Around $100 bucks. Not the cheapest, but far from the most expensive.

Walkaround. This was a major point for me and was one of the determinants in choosing between the PE and the Zephyr. Now before I get flamed, I will say that I have no idea if the "jump port" on the Zephyr can be used to attach a walk around cab, it very well might be, but that would be an additional cost.

CV readback. The PE does not have this. This is a very very handy capability. The Zephyr does have this as does the Digitrax Super Chief (why the mid level Digitrax set doesn't eludes me). The PE can have this ability if you use a PA cab. I consider this criteria as a draw.

Computer Interface. The PE does not have this. Those that use this capability seem to swear by it and I can see where it can be very useful. Digitrax wins this criteria. I thought long and hard about this and decided that I can do without it.

Output. The PE has an output of something like 1.6 amps. I think the Zephyr is about 3, but I could be wrong. For me the output of the PE is sufficient for my current needs. Should I need more, boosters can be added to increase the output. Because of my current needs I considered this criteria a draw. If I were running more locomotives I would have to give Digitrax the advantage.

Functions. The PE has a few more available than the Zephyr. This was not a big deal for me. Both have sufficient functions to keep me happy. Of course the Digitrax has that "playable whistle" feature which seems real cool. Again, I think I can do without that. So even though the PE has more functions, I considered this criteria a draw.

Wireless throttles. MRC does not have this capability and I don't know if they have one in the works or if one can even be done with the PE/PA. I don't see wireless in my future, so it was not a big deal to me that MRC doesn't have it.

Expandability. While many will say that the MRC system is not expandable, it is, although not to the extent that Digitrax, Lenz and NCE seem to be. I would have to give this criteria to Digitrax.

Consitting. There are a couple of ways to make up a consit. Apprently MRC's methods are not the most efficient when it comes to sending data from the system to the decoders and it is my understanding that if you were to run many consits the system will bog down. As I don't see running any more than a couple of trains at a time with the majority being single locomotive setups, this was not a concern to me. For my needs this criteria was a draw.

What others use. I don't belong to a club and don't have any MRR friends in my area, so the ability to use my cabs on another layout was not an issue. Those that belong to clubs or operate on other DCC layouts may want to factor this in when deciding on a system for them. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to run, say a Lenz system at home, a MRC system on a friend's layout and a NCE at the club. Confusing to say the least.

History. Digitrax, Lenz and a few others have a solid history of DCC. MRC's is somewhat tarnished after bringing in a couple of systems that were later dropped and became darn near useless because of lack of upgradability. This was a concern and had me leaning towards the Zephyr.

I went with the PE. Looking down the line I see myself adding a PA cab a couple of extention plates and maybe a 3 or 5 amp booster within the next year or so. Thus I will have a system with at least 3 amps and 2 walkarounds for something like $250.00. I think this is a little less than adding a DT400 to a Zepher, but more than adding a utility throttlle to the Zehpher. Because I want the full capability in a walkaround, if I went with the Zepher I would have to get a DT400.

Just because I went with the MRC PE, please don't get the idea that I dislike Digitrax, Lenz, NCE etc. I don't. They are all great systems - just ask someone that owns/operates one. The PE was simply the one that fit my needs the most.

While I am happy as heck with my PE, I cannot recommend it to you. You need to determine what your current needs are. What your future needs might be. What you don't need, but want now and in the future. They you need to do some homework. Review the numerous threads here on DCC systems. Read the review in the magazines. Check out websites such as Tony's Train Exchange. See what others think. Only then can you decide which system is best for you.

Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

In the December 2005 issue of Model Railroader there is a DCC buyers quide. While i'm not in the market for DCC yet the only DCC system i have liked so far is the Prodigy express. (i like the PA too since it's almost the same , but more expensive) After seeing the ad for prodigy DCC on the back of a recent (jan 2006?) model railoroader i really like the cab for the PE. I could almost understand how to run it by just looking at the picture.

[Anonymous]

I'm a newbie to DCC, and I chose the PE because of its price and the fact that I won't make very many demands on the system, a simple one will do. I got it to run my On30 models on a pair of modules I have yet to build. My HO scale modules are still on regular DC and will stay that way probably. I wanted DCC with my On30 stuff mostly for the sound - and it works just great!

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback!!!

[davekelly]

Keep us updated when you make your selection. I think it is helpful when a person discusses why he/she made the decision that they did. It is also highly helpful when a person posts his experiences, both good and bad with their newly obtain system.

[Anonymous]

Im interested in how it works, the PA is worthless and all of the MRC decoders are junk as well. maybe this is better?

[davekelly]

If you think the PA is worthless I very much doubt you'll like the PE.

[Anonymous]

Well, PA doesnt function properly. If it worked like it should It would be a fairly good system.

[jnichols]

Dave,

As always you post clear and easy to understand thoughts, and your logic about your decisions are spot on. As I read more DCC this vs. DCC that posts, I really wished I would have spent more time with the PA I had for a short while. I'm quite certain that over time the system would have grown on me. The limitations are there when compared to other systems, but honestly for the most part I thought it was well thought out and I loved the handheld the first time I snatched it up and ran a train!

As you and others probably already know, I post often whenever this topic comes up, and I enjoy reading other peoples thoughts and theories about their systems. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a bad DCC anything at this point. It's so much more enjoyable to run trains with DCC, I really only feel bad for those stuck in the analog age and are unwilling or unable to check DCC out. Heck, I just bought a B-mann EZ Command system for my brother, and we ran trains on it for a couple of hours and both had smiles all night long... [:D]

I realize I preach the word of Digitrax quite often, and as it is my current DCC "religion" it's what I've come to know and love. I keep telling myself that one day I will swap the old Digitrax hardware for a Zimo setup just to try it out, but that day hasn't come yet. I'm also glad that most of the people who post about the PA and PE are happy with the products, as that's the most important thing ultimately.

I look forward to future posts from you guys!

Jeff

[Anonymous]

I have the PA. Contrary to some opinions expressed, I find it to be a good system. It has excellent functionality with higher end trains like the Atlas Gold series with sound etc. Also, at over 3 amps, it allows for some expansion before you have to think about adding power boosters. But to answer the basic question posted, I would say to definately go with the PE over the Bachmann EZ. With the VERY limited functions available to the EZ, I can see where you would outgrow it almost immediately. DCC is probalbly one of the most addictive parts of model railroading IMHO. Once you see what you can do with DCC compared to DC all you want is more. Downsides to the PA and PE are that there is no wireless cabs. This would be nice as my layout grows, however, with cab extension plates, I can take one of my two cabs around the layout with me and just plug it in within reach. This can get a little expensive if you have a huge train room as the jacks are about $40 ea. So unless you would not need any or maybe just 1 or 2, a system with wireless capability would be a better investment. One thing for sure, don't worry about buying a DCC system and not liking it compared to your DC system. You will not want to go back.

[knewsom]

If you need the unpowered extension plates for the PA, you can get them for $18 apiece from MicroMark.

[davekelly]

Jeff,

Aw shucks. For good or bad my education and training has me thinking this way for all my major purchases. Even though it results in me being pretty confident with my decision it often takes months! If I had a dime for every hour I spent making my DCC decision I probably could have bought the SuperChief with 3 or 4 wireless throttles!!

Dave

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I would say to definately go with the PE over the Bachmann EZ.

[#ditto] the EZ only has 2 digit adressing where the PA has 4 digit (so you can use the engines road number)

[ramoutandabout]

right now we are building a 9 x 11 with a couple additions to come a big yard and a mainline around the basement in time to come. form what i have seen the pe looks easier to use i would have no more than three operators at once , i have talk to lhs one sells both runs digitrax the other only sells digtrax been doing a lot of reading and i tell ya what they both soon like good systems although it sounds like you can do more with the digtrax, ( not really sure what more is ) so i'll keep reading thanks guyes

ray

[ramoutandabout]

bump!

[chateauricher]

If you compare Digitrax's Zephyr, and Super Chief (SC) systems with MRC's Prodigy Express (PE) and Prodigy Advance (PA), it would seem that the PE and PA systems lead the pack overall. I refer you to the "DCC System Comparisons" chart on page 78 of the December 2005 issue of Model Railroader.

MAX CABS : Zephyr 10; SC 120; PE 99; PA 99. note : extra costs may be incurred to use extra cabs.

# LOCO ADDRESSES : all include up to 9999 possible addresses

2- / 4-DIGIT ADDRESSING : included in all systems

CONSISTING : included in all systems

SPEED CONTROLS : all systems include knob/dial speed control. note : PE & PA also include push-button controls.

MAX CURRENT : Zephyr 2.5 A; SC 5.0 A; PE 1.6 A; PA 4.0 A

POWER BOOSTERS : available for all systems at extra cost

WARRANTY : 1 year warranty included with all systems

# OF FUNCTIONS : Zephyr 10; SC 13; PE 16; PA 20

SUPPORTS SOUND DECODERS (12 functions) : Zephyr, partial; SC yes; PE yes; PA yes

WALK-AROUND CABS (tethered) : Zephyr optional (costs more); SC yes; PE yes; PA yes

WIRELESS CABS : Zephyr optional (costs more); SC optional (costs more); PE no; PA no

SUPPORTS ACCESSORY DECODERS : Zephyr yes; SC yes; PE no; PA yes

ROUTE CONTROL : Zephyr no; SC yes; PE no; PA yes

MSRP (in US dollars) : Zephyr $199.99; SC $449.99; PE $169.98; PA $329.98

Having no experience with any DCC system, I cannot testify to their quality. I only offer the above information (quoted from MR Dec 2005; p78) as an aid in Rdbleu's decision-making process.

However, judging from the information above, I am leaning towards the MRC's Prodigy Express for my 7 ft x 8½ ft "around-the-walls" N-scale layout.

Being that it is a small-ish layout, the ability to have 120 cabs, or wireless cabs just is not necessary. I simply can't fit 120 people in my train room. And, seated in the middle of the room, I can reach most of the edges of the layout.

If I find the 1.6A not enough, I can buy a power booster and still keep it affordable. I don't think I would need more than 1.6A since I just don't see myself running more than 3 trains at a time anyways.

Upgrading to the Prodigy Advance would mean I only have to buy a PA cab. That, with the PE cab I already have, would give me two cabs. Since fitting more than 2 people in my train room would be overcrowding, I don't need more than that. For the number of times I would have a second operator present (maybe 5 or 6 days a year) just isn't worth spending a lot of money.

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

If you compare Digitrax's Zephyr, and Super Chief (SC) systems with MRC's Prodigy Express (PE) and Prodigy Advance (PA), it would seem that the PE and PA systems lead the pack overall. I refer you to the "DCC System Comparisons" chart on page 78 of the December 2005 issue of Model Railroader.

Again without trying to sound biased, you need to be very careful when reading comparison lists like this. Comparisons like this are all over the place, but you need to invest more time and read between the numbers as they rarely tell the whole story. While the PA is a great system (as I've stated before I have no experience with the PE), it may or may not work for your particular application. In my case, the complete lack of zero stretching (or the ability to run an analog locomotive), no practical application of universal consisting, no computer interface and the inability to read back CV values on the mainline were the deciding factors in what system would run my trains, a Digitrax system. Now from your list above, are any of these things even mentioned? No, of course not and the reality is they may not even be important to you but they were deal breakers for me... [;)]

The other things to keep in mind when reading these comparisons, is that wrong or misleading information is posted all the time. For example, they list the Zephyr as only having 10 functions in this comparison, this is incorrect. While the keypad on the Zephry only has ten buttons, the Zephyr is really a Super Chief at heart and certainly supports 13 functions when used with DT series throttles. There is also a mention of route control. Again, while you may not be able to access this function from the Zephyr itself, when using any of the DT series throttles route selection works great. So is it accurate to simply say the Zephyr won't do something? Or would it be more accurate to say that in it's stock configuration it won't do something? I don't know, you be the judge.

Like many Digitrax users, I could throw out literally dozens of features and twice that number in products Digitrax has that MRC doesn't and probably won't ever have (and you will never read about them in a magazine comparison I can assure you), but does that mean the Digitrax systems are always a good fit for everyone? I don't think so. Many of the advanced features and the huge selection of equipment available is overwhelming to some, and I wager to guess most will never even tap the potential of these systems. For me (and I consider myslef somewhat of a power user), it's cheap insurance to know that I have one vendor to get all my DCC products from, and the fact that they will be 100% compatible with one another is very important.

Look, MRC has made huge strides in the DCC arena as of late, and they are worthy of a look for sure. There is a ton of great information available online and in printed form about the various systems. Just make sure you do more research than reading a magazine comparsion before plunking down your hard earned dollars.

As this topic seems to get a bunch of attention, and I know Joe did something similar last month, I am considering putting together a feature be feature comparison so that people trying to make an educated decision will know what to look for in a system. I might enlist the help of a couple of forumites that have more experience with the other systems, as my experience is limited to just a few.

Jeff

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols
Again without trying to sound biased, you need to be very careful when reading comparison lists like this. Comparisons like this are all over the place, but you need to invest more time and read between the numbers as they rarely tell the whole story.

I have been looking at several DCC systems. The information out there is often imprecise, inaccurate, conflicting or just dead wrong. More often than not, what information submitted in online forums is subject to personal biases (often quite extreme (ex.: "System X is perfect and everything else is worse than cr@p")). What isn't wrong or biased either leaves you with so many unanswered questions, or is such "information overload" making the choices so confusing as to be useless. It would be nice if someone could set up a computer program where you input your needs and wants, and it then spits out a prioritised list of reccommended systems. Alas, the closest we have to that are comparison charts like the one in MR.

QUOTE: While the PA is a great system (as I've stated before I have no experience with the PE), it may or may not work for your particular application. In my case, the complete lack of zero stretching (or the ability to run an analog locomotive), no practical application of universal consisting, no computer interface and the inability to read back CV values on the mainline were the deciding factors in what system would run my trains, a Digitrax system.

I currently only have 3 locomotives (2 Katos and 1 Atlas), none have DCC decoders; but are DCC-ready (I made sure of that). I plan to convert them to DCC as soon as I have a DCC system (and a working layout), so I don't need to have the ability to run analog.

As for consisting ... What difference is it if the DCC system supports or doesn't support universal consisting ? A consist is a consist, isn't it, regardless of how you make it happen ?

I don't see a need for me to have a computer interface on such a small layout as the one I am building. Frankly, I don't have room in the train room for a computer even if I wanted to hook it up to the DCC system.

I don't see a problem using a programming track to read CV values (I had anticipated needing a programming track when I was designing the layout). Besides, don't you run the risk of accidentally programming the wrong locomotive (or locomotives) if you use the mainline for programming ? So to err on the side of safety, and knowing my kind of luck, I think I'll go for a programming track.

QUOTE: The other things to keep in mind when reading these comparisons, is that wrong or misleading information is posted all the time.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that one.

QUOTE: For example, they list the Zephyr as only having 10 functions in this comparison, this is incorrect. While the keypad on the Zephry only has ten buttons, the Zephyr is really a Super Chief at heart and certainly supports 13 functions when used with DT series throttles.

Two things: (1) 13 is less than the 16 offered by PE or the 20 offered by PA. (2) Is the Zephyer supplied with a DT series throttle (cab), or is that an optional equipment upgrade you have to spend more money to get ?

QUOTE: There is also a mention of route control. Again, while you may not be able to access this function from the Zephyr itself, when using any of the DT series throttles route selection works great. So is it accurate to simply say the Zephyr won't do something? Or would it be more accurate to say that in it's stock configuration it won't do something?

I tend to think that the people who put together MR's DCC systems comparison chart did so using the systems as they are sold; without any upgrades (eg: power boosters; throttles (cabs); optional accessories; etc). To do otherwise would be far too confusing as there way too many possible combinations with all the available options. In the interests of accuracy, they, perhaps, should have said "Feature X is available for the extra cost of buying Part Y" (or something like that).

QUOTE: Look, MRC has made huge strides in the DCC arena as of late, and they are worthy of a look for sure. There is a ton of great information available online and in printed form about the various systems. Just make sure you do more research than reading a magazine comparsion before plunking down your hard earned dollars.

For most of the last year, I have followed just about every DCC-related topic on this forum; read what I could from the manufacturers' web sites; and talked ad nauseum with the owners of the LHS. Each one tells a different and conflicting story about each system. It is virtually impossible to get a straight answer about anything.

QUOTE: As this topic seems to get a bunch of attention, and I know Joe did something similar last month, I am considering putting together a feature-by-feature comparison so that people trying to make an educated decision will know what to look for in a system. I might enlist the help of a couple of forumites that have more experience with the other systems, as my experience is limited to just a few.

Please do !!! But, wait ! Isn't that what MR did in their December issue ?

I definitely am VERY interested to be able to refer to a more in-depth comparison than MR did. I do agree that their article left a lot to be desired. How will you make yours different or better ? What sorts of comparisons would you make that MR did not ? What information will you include that MR omitted ?

[Anonymous]

I don't know about the PE, but I have the the PA. It's the only DCC system that I have ever dealt with. It's made me a believer in DCC. I will never go back to DC.
I have not gotten around to useing all of its capabilities as of yet ( I am still working on the track layout).
I do have on section of track up and running that let me do some testing. Maybe I am just lucky but I have had good luck with all my sound decoders from MRC also.
I just wanted to say that the prices mentioned here differ from what I paid for my PA system (brand new) which was 189.99 from a major advertiser in MR.
The PA seemed like the all in one package that I wanted to use, so I went for it, and have been very happy with it so far.
ennout

[ramoutandabout]

what are cv values and what are some of the features that dixitrax has that mrc does not

thanks

ray

[Anonymous]

ramoutandabout ,
CV are Configuration Variables, receive and hold entered data that allow the decoder to be tailored to a specific loco or accessory, some CV's are also called registers.

As far as what other features does digitrax have that MRC does not?
I think the digitrax can some how be hooked up to a computer, MY MRC PA can not (at least at this time). There may be other features, I am not sure.
ennout

[davekelly]

Tim,

You asked about consitting. While I don't consider myself a DCC expert, it is my understanding that the different methods of consitting each have a different method of sending the info from the system through the rails to the decoders. Apparently MRC's method is pretty much a brute force method - pump a bunch of data through the rails to run the consit. While acceptable, it is my understanding that if running alot of consits that this will bog down the system.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me can post some good info re: consitting.

[rrinker]

The different manufacturers have their own terms for different forms of consisting, which is part of what makes it so complicated sounding. But there really are 3ways to do it:

1. All locos in the consist have the same address. This works on ANY DCC system. If you have three locos, all with address 1234, they will all move when you controlt hat address. And in the case of sound equipped locos, they will all blow their horns and ring their bells.

2. The command station handles the consist. When you create teh consist, your command station 'remembers' what loco addresses you have assigned to the consist. The controlling address doesn't even have to be one of the actual loco addresses, it can be just a dummy. For example, use train numbers, so the consist is addressed as 5, for "Train 5" and is composed of locos 175,256, and 543. When you make a throttle change, the command station sends commands to each address it 'knows' is part of the consist. On most systems, function commands only go to the unit selected as the 'lead' or front loco, so only 1 horn sounds. Yes this means more DCC packets int he signal, but unless you are in a large club situation with a lot of operating locos, DCC is fast enough that there will be no noticeable command lag.

3. Decoder-based consisting. Newer decoders have a CV19 which is used to set a consist address. Some DCC systems can program this on the fly in Ops Mode, others require a trip to the program track. When the decoder has an address programmed into CV19, it responds to that address, not the standard short or long address. Most sound decoders have additional CVs that control which functions work with CV19 and which don't - that's how you control the multiple horn and bell issues. It works like #1, except that when you clear CV19, the original loco address is still there. CV19 works like a 'short' address, 1-127 are the valid values (or 1-99 depending on your DCC system). 129-255 duplicate 1-127 except it causes the loco to run in the opposite direction - ie, connecting two A units back to back.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

I was considering getting a Prodigy Express but decided to spend a little extra on the Prodigy Advance (Just got it this past Saturday) I went with the PA for the higher booster power and extra functions that are available. (future loco's may use even if the current ones do not). I will make my own plate extensions and longer cords for the handheld. For my needs the PA seemed the best fit and the price was right. (I got it for a lot less than MSRP) Tony trains has additonal handhelds for $80. Digitrax was the other system I was considering but didn't want to spring the Super Chef system.

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

If you compare Digitrax's Zephyr, and Super Chief (SC) systems with MRC's Prodigy Express (PE) and Prodigy Advance (PA), it would seem that the PE and PA systems lead the pack overall. I refer you to the "DCC System Comparisons" chart on page 78 of the December 2005 issue of Model Railroader.

Again without trying to sound biased, you need to be very careful when reading comparison lists like this. Comparisons like this are all over the place, but you need to invest more time and read between the numbers as they rarely tell the whole story. While the PA is a great system (as I've stated before I have no experience with the PE), it may or may not work for your particular application. In my case, the complete lack of zero stretching (or the ability to run an analog locomotive), no practical application of universal consisting, no computer interface and the inability to read back CV values on the mainline were the deciding factors in what system would run my trains, a Digitrax system. Now from your list above, are any of these things even mentioned? No, of course not and the reality is they may not even be important to you but they were deal breakers for me... [;)]

Jeff

Jeff, I couldn't agree with you more, and I certainly couldn't have said it better.

I only have two questions for the folks who say the PA is "better":

1) Can't you look past the marketing hype "gee whiz" numbers used to describe the PA, and the price of the starter sets, as the only criteria to judge which system (not which starter set) is really better?

2) Haven't you read any of the other threads/posts on this subject? The ones where all that marketing hype and those "gee whiz" numbers are completely debunked? For example, from a previous thread:

Marketing hype:
The PA can address 99 throttles, while the Zephyr can only address 10.

The real story:
It would take $1600 in expansion plates ALONE to accommodate 99 throttles, not that anyone would ever want to. HOWEVER, limiting us to the more realistic number of 10 throttles, a Digitrax UR90 and 9 UT4 throttles are less expensive than 9 additional PA throttles and the expansion plates needed to support them. Plus, with the UR90 and the UT4's you get IR (tetherless) operation that isn't available on the PA at ANY price.

And that's just one example...

Steve

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
I don't see a need for me to have a computer interface on such a small layout as the one I am building. Frankly, I don't have room in the train room for a computer even if I wanted to hook it up to the DCC system.

Layout size isn't the deciding factor. It's what you want to do on/with the layout.

A computer makes programming and tweaking deocders a snap. I'll never go back to programming decoders with a throttle!

It enables realistic signalling and dispatching.

Even no space for a computer in the layout room can be a "benefit" if you ever decide to use a dispatcher during operating sessions, because you will be forced to locate the dispatcher in a remote location.

Heck, by using JMRI (Which is free), your dispatcher can be very remote!
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/index.html

Steve

[knewsom]

Actually the MRC PA throttle ($58 @MicroMark) is cheaper than the UT4 ($65@TTE the cheapest place I could find it). The PA Extension Plates ($18.50@MicroMark) are cheaper than the UR-90 ($35@TTE), but you would need 4 Extension Plates to hook up the 9 additional throttles vs 1 UR-90. But that is only if you plan on using IR.