MR-8: Gains set so high!?

A

Ayastigi

New member
I'm a home-recording 'nube that recently decided to take some initial steps in the shallow end of the pool with the purchase of the Fostex MR-8 and some inexpensive MIC's.

The question: I've noticed that I have to set my MIC gains extremely high to get any decent volume on a track. By this I mean up to (and beyond sometimes) the last 'dot' on the gain POT. Also, when in this range the gain seems to be extremely sensitive. The slightest twist will result in drastically different volume levels. Is this normal with the MR-8?

Gut Feeling: This is probably just the cheap MIC's (Nady SP1 & SP9) but as this is my first multi-tracker, I have no point of reference.

Comments appreciated.
-John
 
Don't blame the mics. I have tried rather expensive mics and this same thing happens with me. I suggest you buy what is called a mic preamp.
 
With no external preamp and using a dynamic mic you might as well go ahead and turn the gain all the way up. A lot of people on here use different external preamps, but I bought a Behringer UB802 mixer that I use as a external preamp. Does a great job for only $59.

The preamps in this mixer were rated very high by almost everyone on the n-track forum and after using it I agree.
 
Here are some options...

The Studio Projects VTB1 (one channel) goes for about $US129.
The M-Audio DMP3 (two channel) goes for about $US199.

The VTB1 is incredibly quiet, even with the gain way up, so you can turn the pre's on your MR8 all the way down...

The DMP3 uses highly respected Burr-Brown chips, and is also very quiet. In this price range you won't find any other pre's that come as highly and universally regarded. There aren't the only ones to be had, but they are ones with which you almost can't go wrong.
 
I had the same prob with the vf160

So it seems like a general problem with the Fostex range.

Using a Sure sm58 I had to whack the gain right up to say 95% to get a hot signal, and yes any slightly higher than that and the signal would clip into the red.

I recently bought a condenser mic and the situation is a bit better now. With a condenser you use phantom power which boosts the signal from the mic. However, I still have to turn it up way highter than say I would for guitar or keyboard, up to 75% say.

You can work with it with the cheap mic and gain turned way up, but you have to use mic technique in order to avoid clipping and distortion. Practice.
 
Re: I had the same prob with the vf160

glynb said:
So it seems like a general problem with the Fostex range.
Click to expand...

It seems that way, and also with some other brands... Most forums seem to encourage the use of external pre's. I must say I had no problem getting more than adequate levels with my VF80/Studio Projects B1 condensors, but I still got separate pre's. My son says he can't hear the difference! The nerve!!!
 
Pre's? Not convinced!

The way I see it if I can get a hot enough signal without using extra external pre's then I might as well continue as I am. What's the point in adding something else to the chain as pre's would have to be used as an insert to the vf160.

If someone has a thing about 'warming up' the sound by using pre's that try to emulate a tube sound like the older equipment used to have, then that's a choice they make. Personaly I just want a 'clean' recording and any tone or sound I want I get from the instrument's tone.

I have a large disphragm condenser mic which (I am told) adds 'warmth' to the sound anyway. I honestly think that some of these changes to the sound that people on here strive for are so subtle as to not be noticeable to the average listener (like your son).
 
Re: Pre's? Not convinced!

glynb said:

I have a large disphragm condenser mic which (I am told) adds 'warmth' to the sound anyway. I honestly think that some of these changes to the sound that people on here strive for are so subtle as to not be noticeable to the average listener (like your son).
Click to expand...

Agreed. Totally. While I am very happy I got my VTB1's (because they can boost anything exponentially w/o noise), on a lot of stuff I've done, I doubt if they made a discernable difference. Now some will say if I'd spent $500. or $1,000, then I'd hear a difference. Perhaps, but is it a difference that translates to "better" or just "different"?

To hear some of the adjectives used on other forums regarding certain gear you'd think the differences involved were stunning. i think this is misleading. I would say the noise difference in my SP B1 mics and the Samson CO1's is quite apparent, but that's source equipment, not pre's...

In a recent review of the Vf160, the author described the internal electronics as "transparent". That's a great compliment.

As I've said, I find the effects on the VF80 quite nice. Others are pretty disparaging, but I think if used judiciously, the reverbs are great. I just met a guitarist who's played professionally in a California band for 9 years. He brings a VF80 with him to perform just so he can use the mic simulators on his vocals,! He likes them that much.

Question, because I need more tracks, I'm considering a VF160 (which is what I should have gotten to begin with!).

Others are saying to consider the Korg D-1200 (or1600) or the Yamaha aw16... Have you got any first hand insights you can share? I am biased toward the VF160 because I love my VF80, and want a stable system. But I'm open because many love the aw16, and the Korgs do 24bit and are easy to learn.
 
preamps?

I've had positive results by adding an external preamp. The difference can be sublte, however, depending on the quality of the preamp and the type of mic you use. The problem with this type of "upgrade" is one of marginal cost. You spend $800 on a recorder, $100 for headphones, and even more for monitors and then someone says you need an outboard preamp. So you buy a decent low-end preamp (under $500) and begin recording. Your gain issues have gone away but you're not sure if the qality of the sound is better or just different. And in getting either "better" or "different" you've spent 1/3 of your total cost on some shinny 19" piece of metal that has to be rack-mounted. You wake up the next day and begin your search for the perfect rack to mount your new preamp. The rack you select cost $75 because you wanted metal rather than pressed wood and formica. You also decide on a larger rack which will fit additional outboard gear. You realize that you need cables to hook up your new gear so you throw down an additional $20-30. A month or two later you begin filling up your empty rack with an outboard EQ to address the fact that you recorder does a poor job handling low end EQ. Then you look for an outboard compressor to deal with the fact that your built-in compressor only functions on two tracks. You realize you either have Gear Aquisition Syndrome or that the devil and the dollar are in the details: the marginal cost of added audio quality is high!
 
Or to put it another way...

- the cost of 'marginal' added audio quality is high !!!!


True story, I used to know a guy who was obsessed with buying hifi equipment. In the days of turntables (pre-CD) he used to show me his latest cartridge and used to swear how big an improvement over the last one it was (gold connections etc). Couldn't tell any difference myself, the old one sounded great to my ears. The punch line was that he was DEAF in one ear, due to a swimming incident as a boy!

This is an example of 'gear syndrome' whereby people seem to get caught up in obsessively buying gear, almost for its own sake.

I think in SOME cases (not all) people would be better off spending time on their music rather than acquiring new bits of gear for marginal benefits.

If the song/track is a killer song/track people will like it regardless of any slight quality issues, and conversely a crap song no matter how well recorded isn't going to impress anyone!

Beyond certain basic standards of sound quality, like i said, most of your audinece won't hear any difference IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top