FD-8 vs DMT-8VL, what's the big difference?

A Reel Person

A Reel Person

It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Okay, here's one for you vintage-Fostex gurus.

I can see minor differences between the FD-8 and DMT-8VL, such as one has LCD and one has LED meters, respectively. Also, the DMT-8VL apparently has an ADAT interface, standard, and the FD-8 doesn't.

They both have relatively the same mixer, same edit functions, same record resolution, E-IDE internal and SCSI external drive capabilities, and both record analog only 2-simultaneously.

What's the huge difference between the FD-8 and DMT-8VL, and why would I buy one over the other. The DMT-8VL is obviously newer, but what's the biggest difference or selling point between the two units?:confused:
 
The FD8 kicks ass all over the DMT-8VL. :cool: Ok, not a lot, but enough for me to get an FD-8 over the DMT. Here are my reasons:

The FD-8 DOES have ADAT i/o.. which can also be set as SPDIF i/o. If I'm not mistaken, the DMT only has SPDIF..

The FD-8 has a better EQ section... 3 bands with sweepable mids. The Analog mixer also has a dynamic range of 105db whereas the DMT only has a dynamic range of 80db.

The FD-8 has 16 virtual tracks for a total of 24 tracks.. only 8 of which can be played at a time, but moving/editing tracks is cake. Using the ADAT input, you can record 8 tracks at once. Using the SPDIF with 2 analog channels, you can record 4 at once. I do like that the DMT has a 8 direct outs. To get around that lacking feature on the FD-8, I just use the ADAT out.

The FD-8 has scrub capabilities and some a better editing/location/blah blah features.

The FD-8 is pretty wide open on the SCSI options. I run a 9 gig SCSI HD backing up to either a SCSI ZIP 250 OR SCSI Jaz 1 gig. I'm not sure how picky the DMT is on SCSI devices.

The FD-8 LCD display is much more informative than the DMT LED display. Although, the FD-8 is relatively flat on the unit and you have to be standing almost on top of it to get a good view. There is a contrast adjustment, but I still had to jack up my unit a bit with a book to get a more useable viewing angle.
The DMT-8 has a 2 gig limit, whereas the FD-8 has a 30 gig limit. However, I chose to go with an external SCSI HD drive. Better performance than the laptop HD that is optional with the FD-8.

Price... I picked up my FD-8 for $350 including a scsi zip 250 with 3 disks.. from this site even! On ebay, the DMT-8's go for just a tad less if that... so why not spend the extra 20-30 clams and upgrade to the FD-8? So I did!

The price is on ebay for the FD-8 is dropping every month. I saw one go for $175 no reserve.. probably an idiot selling it... average price is in the $375 range. Not bad for 24 tracks eh?
 
Thanx for the info & quick response, I'll check specs more later.

I thought the DMT-8VL was newer than the FD-8, and therefore I assumed the DMT-8VL would have better features and specs than the FD-8.

Was I wrong? [... a first! Haha];)
 
The FD-8 did come out after the DMT-8VL. I almost bought the DMT when it first came out, but ended up getting a new axe instead. The FD-8 wasn't out for very long before it was phased out for the VM200/VR800 combo and then the VF-08.
 
A-ha!

It's incredible how short product life cycles are these days. Anyway, I think the FD-8 is a cool machine, that I'm still checking into, and may get one some day, when financials permit. Thanx. ;)

How's the FD-4/FD-8 web page coming?
 
Re: A-ha!

A Reel Person said:
It's incredible how short product life cycles are these days. Anyway, I think the FD-8 is a cool machine, that I'm still checking into, and may get one some day, when financials permit. Thanx. ;)

How's the FD-4/FD-8 web page coming?
Click to expand...

The page is coming slow. I got distracted by my new (new to me anyway) Fostex VM200 digital mixer. With the VM200 and my FD-8, I can blow the doors of the VF-08. Motorised faders are so cool....

I've noticed some very short product cycles with Fostex. Kinda makes ya wonder. If all they did was just to improve on an existing product, I think they'd do just fine. I bet a lot of people would fork out for an FD-8 with a stock internal HD and 24/96 resolution. I don't care for the digital mixers on a lot of the recorders out there and I think a lot of people would like having an analog mixer to their digital recorder. And like I noted above, the analog mixer on the FD-8 is pretty damn good.
 
Definitely. Being mainly an analog enthusiast, myself,...

I definitely prefer the analog mixer/digital recorder hybrids.

I currently have the FD-4 and Tascam 564, as fairly new acquisitions, and they're great, except 4 tracks is relatively limiting.

In analog, I have loads and loads of gear, mostly 4 and 8 tracks, plus a reel-24-track also, and I can't say I'm unhappy with analog.

I just love gear, either recording gear or musical instruments, and I continue to add stuff to my collection, all the time.

Like most other people on this board, I have 16 and 24-track DAW software [MAGIX] on my 'puter, but unlike most, I'm not a big fan of the DAW recording and mixing, on a virtualized display. I use DAW software on the 'puter mainly for 2-track mixdowns. I know, I'm strange, and not in step with the masses.

My biggest near-term goal is to practice and play more, and utilize all the great gear I already have, stuff too numerous to mention.

The FD-8 is next on my list of gear acquisitions, as financials permit. It looks like a really swell unit. Even though I'd prefer something that records 4 or 8 simultaneously, being mainly a solo 'artist', 2-simul is really not limiting me too much. It's just the idea of being locked down to 2-simul that I find limiting, in theory, in case I want to go outside and record bigger ensembles, max-2-simul could be a problem. At home by myself, it's not really a problem.

Thanx.

;)
 
I hear ya man. Most of career was spent working with analog. Studer, Otari, Ampex, Sony, blah blah blah... We used a DAW when I was a mastering engineer, but only for specific things. Most of the time it was just analog from beginning to end. I still prefer to track to analog, but there are a lot of things about digital that solve a lot of logistical inconveniences.

The FD-8 can record more than 2 at a time.. in fact, if you used the SPDIF out of the FD-4, you could record 4 tracks at once. Add an ADAT A/D converter and you can do 8 tracks at once.
 
JR#97 said:
I hear ya man. Most of career was spent working with analog. Studer, Otari, Ampex, Sony, blah blah blah... We used a DAW when I was a mastering engineer, but only for specific things. Most of the time it was just analog from beginning to end. I still prefer to track to analog, but there are a lot of things about digital that solve a lot of logistical inconveniences.

The FD-8 can record more than 2 at a time.. in fact, if you used the SPDIF out of the FD-4, you could record 4 tracks at once. Add an ADAT A/D converter and you can do 8 tracks at once.
Click to expand...

can you please explain whole procedure ? from what cabels what i need and stuff , thanks in advance and thank you very much
 
Hi all. I'm new to this forum and this is my first post. I'd just like to add that the DMT8vl and theFD8 are really good but I've had nearly 20 years of constant (and at times very busy) use out of the original DMT8. I've got 3 of them all linked up and I can only think of 3 times in all these years that they have let me down. They can record 4 tracks at a time and if you replace the original IDE drive you can get 3H + recording time. The best bit is though, you've got 8 line outs at the back so you can plug the DMT8 into a far superior desk. They used to go for £1500 they now Ebay at £50 and the 40gig IDE drives are £1. Anyone else ever used one of these wonderful things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top