digital recorder sound quality

[Escalator?]

Hi everyone
I'm going to ask what I feel is probably a question with no good answer, but I'm gonna ask it anyway... (what you think of that?)

I'm interested in comparing different digital multitrackers purely in terms of sound quality. Meaning, for one thing, the quality of the AD converters, but also simply how GOOD a recorded product sounds.
Now, clearly the different brands all have similar sound-reproduction capability - and with that the case, which machine sounds better to any one person's ears is a very subjective thing. But I still wonder: does any one brand come up with a slight edge over the others - ignoring onboard effects, ignoring ease of interface, and purely concentrating on how faithfully it captures the sound of a voice or instrument?
And I'm thinking of comparison between Akai, Fostex, Korg and Yamaha (which are the main brands I hear talked about anyway).

A related and probably more important question... how much is quality of sound reproduction going to change between old and new units made by the same company?
I.e., how much did Fostex upgrade the quality of the AD conversion between the VF16 and the VF160? Or Korg between the D16 and the D1600? etc.

-e?

[TexRoadkill]

Convertor quality improves with each new generation. The best convertors on any recorder are probably the Radar systems www.izcorp.com

If you check out some tunes in the Mixing Clinic you can get a feel for what different recorders sound like. Usually anyone who is getting a killer sound on a all in one DAW is using external pres and possibly convertors.

[dwillis45]

My gut tells me that most of the mid-priced SIAB (Studio-In-A-Box) recorders will offer similar quality converters and preamps. And, if there are sonic differences, they would tend to be "flavor" or "color" variations rather than quality differences.

Does the quality of these units improve over time? I hope so, but I wouldn't look for dramatic changes between models like the VF16 and the VF160. Most of the uprgrades, here, focus on add-ons like a CD burner.

[billisa]

I think the primary difference in the results you'll get between given recorders in the same relative ballpark has way more to do with your technique than the technology.

As to the Fostex units (VF160), one great strength is the operating system which optimizes and saves as you go. System crashes are rare (and usually due to not waiting an extra second for the HardDrive to access/write data). Actually losing data is almost unheard of -- in a year of use, with 100+ programs, I never have, ever.

The HardDrives on the Fostex's are 3.5" Maxtors or Western Digital's or Fujitsu's... So if you need to replace or upgrade, there's plenty of inexpensive options. The VF160's don't need a fan, so they also run very quietly compared to some others.

BUT I believe the Yamaha's and Korgs will do just as fine a job (some say better).

James Taylor's "Hourglass" was done on a 16bit Yamaha about 7 years ago. Great sound.

[dwillis45]

Originally posted by billisa
James Taylor's "Hourglass" was done on a 16bit Yamaha about 7 years ago. Great sound.

Bill: I've always been confused about that one. A couple years ago I saw a 60 Minutes piece with James Taylor. He had a portable Yamaha sitting on a coffee table and talked about recording his work at home on the Vineyard. But everything I read about Hourglass indicates that he also used a Yamaha 02R digital mixer with a world-class studio engineer (Frank Filipetti) behind the board during recording.

http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/topic/...pro4/James.htm

I also assume that the album was mixed in a New York studio, possibly using traditional outboard equipment and an analog console. I can't figure out if the original recording was routed to the portable Yamaha recorder through the 02R using onboard pre's and converters or if another recorder was used.

[Escalator?]

Hey,
good point about technique vs. technology. When I get in the thick of trying to compare machines and their individual differences that are often on the level of minute detail, sometimes I have to remind myself that it's really less about minute details than how you bend the recording equipment to your own ends.

I had originally been thinking about going for a Korg, but I've found a couple Fostex machines that I think are now the direction I'm leaning. It seems I hear nothing but praise for Fostex regarding how much quality you get for your money. I'm all for not breaking the bank.

Looks like my choice now, though, is between a new VF160 and a used VF16 that's being sold with a set of monitors. With the used seller's asking price versus the music store's discount on the new machine, it probably figures to be 200 bucks difference. With one, I get the internal CD burner plus the new model's level of quality, but will need to buy monitors; with the other, I get the monitors, save some $ (which is good in case I later decide I don't like the setup and want something else) but will eventually need to buy a burner. Flip a coin.

Does anyone know anything about how Fostex monitors are?

By the way, where in CT is Branford?

-E?

[billisa]

Originally posted by Escalator?

Does anyone know anything about how Fostex monitors are?

By the way, where in CT is Branford?

-E?

Fostex is actually Foster Electric Co. in Japan, and they have been making speaker drivers for decades (before they got into Analogue and Digital multi-trackers). Their PM05 and 1.0 monitors have received nice reviews.

If it was me, I'd go with the new machine that will have the CDburner...

Branford is a few miles east of New Haven.

[billisa]

Originally posted by dwillis45
But everything I read about Hourglass indicates that he also used a Yamaha 02R digital mixer with a world-class studio engineer (Frank Filipetti) behind the board during recording.

As I recall, an interview of Filipetti that I read definitely said it was a 16bit recording done on Yamaha equipment, but whether it was a mixer or an actual HardDrive standalone, I don't remember. At the very least it shows how phenomenal 16bits can sound (something which gives me great encouragement).

[chessparov]

Having a acoustically treated room and/or top notch reverb if you're recording dry, is more important than
16 bit vs. 24/96 A/D conversion.

Chris

P.S. The stock 02R pre's were used on Hourglass.