G
gelon
New member
Of course, all of these "mods" will completely void out the warranty, I imagine...I don't get it; why weren't they thinking about that when they designed these machines?
skippy
New member
I don't know what they were thinking. Warranty issues don't bother me much: most consumer electronics have a concrete warranty anyway ("once your feet hit the concrete outside the building, the warranty expires"). I did get a warranty replacement on my first 1624: it was DOA, and they replaced it very promptly. But I don't believe that it'd be very pleasant trying to get warranty service after any delivery issues were handled...
In fact, I don't recall even seeing the warranty paperwork on either of my units. If there was any, it was probably the standard 90-day thing: so as soon as you've verified that the unit isn't DOA, its usefulness is probably over in any case!
In fact, I don't recall even seeing the warranty paperwork on either of my units. If there was any, it was probably the standard 90-day thing: so as soon as you've verified that the unit isn't DOA, its usefulness is probably over in any case!
G
gelon
New member
D series extension for controller
Skippy, Is there anything special about the controller extension cable (that Fostex offers for $50 - at "approximately" 16 feet...), or is it a serial or parallel cable (or similar animal). If it's some sort of "normal" computer cable, wouldn't it be cheaper to pick up something at the local computer store? $50 seems steep for 16'.
Skippy, Is there anything special about the controller extension cable (that Fostex offers for $50 - at "approximately" 16 feet...), or is it a serial or parallel cable (or similar animal). If it's some sort of "normal" computer cable, wouldn't it be cheaper to pick up something at the local computer store? $50 seems steep for 16'.
ausrock
Well-known member
Skippy,
The following is an email I just received from Syntec, the Aust Fostex people:
"Dear Chris
The cost of the parts to do this hardware upgrade will be$ 324.00 inc GST Pro sell price.
If you wish us to fit these parts our labour cost will be $165.00.
You willalso require a new caddy and bay Model 9044 which you will have to order from the Sales at Syntec.The Retail price of this $ 199.00inc GST.
We do not keep any of the parts to do this up grade in stock,they would have to be ordered from Fostex.
Also the unit wilkl have to come to us for the software upgrade.
Regards
Brian Murphy
Service Department
Syntec International
service@syntec.com.au"
So I guess that kind of answers that. Software upgrades can only be done by the distributor (at least here in Aust). Those prices are $Aust., so approx., halve them for $US.
Regards,
ChrisO
The following is an email I just received from Syntec, the Aust Fostex people:
"Dear Chris
The cost of the parts to do this hardware upgrade will be$ 324.00 inc GST Pro sell price.
If you wish us to fit these parts our labour cost will be $165.00.
You willalso require a new caddy and bay Model 9044 which you will have to order from the Sales at Syntec.The Retail price of this $ 199.00inc GST.
We do not keep any of the parts to do this up grade in stock,they would have to be ordered from Fostex.
Also the unit wilkl have to come to us for the software upgrade.
Regards
Brian Murphy
Service Department
Syntec International
service@syntec.com.au"
So I guess that kind of answers that. Software upgrades can only be done by the distributor (at least here in Aust). Those prices are $Aust., so approx., halve them for $US.
Regards,
ChrisO
H
HFFritz
New member
FYI, I grabbed a male/female D15 cable from the computer room at work and it works fine.
G
gelon
New member
Cable, etc.
Great! Thanks for letting me know; that's one less thing I've got to worry about (or spend more money on!).
And, as an aside, thank you as well, Skippy, for all your help and ideas. I've been going through a lot of your other posts and have found them to be very helpful and informative. It's good of you to share your experience with the rest of us - I appreciate it. Gelon
Great! Thanks for letting me know; that's one less thing I've got to worry about (or spend more money on!).
And, as an aside, thank you as well, Skippy, for all your help and ideas. I've been going through a lot of your other posts and have found them to be very helpful and informative. It's good of you to share your experience with the rest of us - I appreciate it. Gelon
G
gelon
New member
1624 and Alesis Studio 32
Skippy, I read somewhere on here that you've been using an Alesis 32 in your studio. How are you hookin' up the direct outs to the 1624? Are you using y cables? And how has the mixer worked for you? I'm interested, 'cause I've got a Studio 24 sitting here in the box (I ordered it thinking I was gonna be doing mostly 8-track stuff. And after I ordered the 1624, I figured I might get by with some creative routing), and I'm still thinking about sending it back and ordering a 32. I'm mainly concerned with getting 16 tracks back into the board for mix down. Be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Gelon
Skippy, I read somewhere on here that you've been using an Alesis 32 in your studio. How are you hookin' up the direct outs to the 1624? Are you using y cables? And how has the mixer worked for you? I'm interested, 'cause I've got a Studio 24 sitting here in the box (I ordered it thinking I was gonna be doing mostly 8-track stuff. And after I ordered the 1624, I figured I might get by with some creative routing), and I'm still thinking about sending it back and ordering a 32. I'm mainly concerned with getting 16 tracks back into the board for mix down. Be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Gelon
skippy
New member
Two points- I just tried a VGA extension cable, and it did _not_ work: the standard VGA extension (which is missing pin 13) won't do it. Blank display: checking the schematics from the service manual, all 15 pins are used. However, if you can find an extension that just wires all 15 pins straight through, it should work. Check before you buy.
Using the Studio 32 with the 1624 is very straightforward: you have 16 direct outs from the board, which go to the 16 track inputs (well, they do if you get an external 8-channel converter so that you can record 16 at once!), and you have 16 track outputs from the 1624 which go to the 16 tape returns. It's an inline board (with separate tape channel inputs), so no repatching was required for normal operations. The two were made for one another.
The Studio 24 is going to be a little harder to work with: you don't have a 1-1 mapping of track-to-channel. You only have 8 direct outs, but then the basic 1624 only has 8 actual input converters: the converter for input 1 can record onto track 1 or track 9. So half of your patching (the input side) is actually handled for you in the recorder: you can enable any input signal onto 2 tracks. That's how I handled the 1624 before I got my external converter (the AC2496) so that I could track all 16.
The output side (monitoring and mixdown) will be something more of a pain. The Studio 24 was really meant for an 8-track project studio, so you'll be repatching and hacking around quite a lot. The good news is that many things you do really work as stereo pairs (stereo drum submixes, keyboard submixes, and so on). So I'd be tempted to develop a working style that let me use channels 1-8 as my hot recording channels, to tracks1-8. I'd set the track1-8 outputs up to the channel1-8 tape returns. Tracks 9-16 I'd then set up on the four stereo inputs, and I'd submix, bounce, and then _move_ stereo pairs of tracks over on those real tracks to keep 1-8 available for tracking. The 1624 does digital track moves easily and cleanly- so you could bounce down to a pair, and then move them off to tracks15-16 to free up your primary 8 for further tracking.
The problem with the stereo input channels is that they don't have EQ, if I remember correctly. But they'll certainly work for you in the short term, and once you have a working style starting to develop, you'll probably find that you've outgrown that board.
I outgrew the Studio 32 pretty quickly, and moved on to a Soundcraft Ghost. However, I wasn't trying to learn an new working style- I was just redeveloping my old one from back in the day, and found that I really needed the flexibility that the Ghost gave me. I'm a lapsed large-format guy, anyway...
The Studio 24 is a little underpowered for a 16-track application. If you _can_ do the swap, I would do it: you're in for a lot of repatching, and doing more overhead/custodial work than you really need to, with the smaller board. I don't know about you, but that would detract from my productivity. Actaully, no- it'd _piss me off_. (;-) If you stay with the 24, get out the soldering iron and build a patchbay...
Using the Studio 32 with the 1624 is very straightforward: you have 16 direct outs from the board, which go to the 16 track inputs (well, they do if you get an external 8-channel converter so that you can record 16 at once!), and you have 16 track outputs from the 1624 which go to the 16 tape returns. It's an inline board (with separate tape channel inputs), so no repatching was required for normal operations. The two were made for one another.
The Studio 24 is going to be a little harder to work with: you don't have a 1-1 mapping of track-to-channel. You only have 8 direct outs, but then the basic 1624 only has 8 actual input converters: the converter for input 1 can record onto track 1 or track 9. So half of your patching (the input side) is actually handled for you in the recorder: you can enable any input signal onto 2 tracks. That's how I handled the 1624 before I got my external converter (the AC2496) so that I could track all 16.
The output side (monitoring and mixdown) will be something more of a pain. The Studio 24 was really meant for an 8-track project studio, so you'll be repatching and hacking around quite a lot. The good news is that many things you do really work as stereo pairs (stereo drum submixes, keyboard submixes, and so on). So I'd be tempted to develop a working style that let me use channels 1-8 as my hot recording channels, to tracks1-8. I'd set the track1-8 outputs up to the channel1-8 tape returns. Tracks 9-16 I'd then set up on the four stereo inputs, and I'd submix, bounce, and then _move_ stereo pairs of tracks over on those real tracks to keep 1-8 available for tracking. The 1624 does digital track moves easily and cleanly- so you could bounce down to a pair, and then move them off to tracks15-16 to free up your primary 8 for further tracking.
The problem with the stereo input channels is that they don't have EQ, if I remember correctly. But they'll certainly work for you in the short term, and once you have a working style starting to develop, you'll probably find that you've outgrown that board.
I outgrew the Studio 32 pretty quickly, and moved on to a Soundcraft Ghost. However, I wasn't trying to learn an new working style- I was just redeveloping my old one from back in the day, and found that I really needed the flexibility that the Ghost gave me. I'm a lapsed large-format guy, anyway...
The Studio 24 is a little underpowered for a 16-track application. If you _can_ do the swap, I would do it: you're in for a lot of repatching, and doing more overhead/custodial work than you really need to, with the smaller board. I don't know about you, but that would detract from my productivity. Actaully, no- it'd _piss me off_. (;-) If you stay with the 24, get out the soldering iron and build a patchbay...
ausrock
Well-known member
Skippy,
I presume you read my post re the upgrades. It would seem that direct contact with Fostex Japan, may be your only course of action.
I presume you read my post re the upgrades. It would seem that direct contact with Fostex Japan, may be your only course of action.
skippy
New member
Yes, indeed. The US distributor is sticking to their story. Of course, now that lots of new buyers just picked up 824/1624 machines at the fire sale prices, maybe we'll be able to browbeat Fostex US into changing their story. They are pushing the D2424 _hard_, though: it must have one hell of a margin built into the pricing...
Thanks for checking for me, sir. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Thanks for checking for me, sir. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
G
gelon
New member
Thanks, Skippy, for the reply. I was lookin' at it that way, too (using the stereo channels, bouncing, etc), but agree that it would definitely slow things down, even with a patch bay or two. How much is the converter (AC2496)? That was the thing holdin' me back - I was worried about only having 8 ins on the deck. I was just tryin' to save money for other goodies, but the 32 will run me only about another $400, so I guess I can hang. It'll be worth it for the short term. And you're right; I already anticipate outgrowing the board, but don't know whether what I have to say at this point justifies a larger pay out. Be interested to hear how the board measured up to your standards, i.e. bang-for-the-buck factor. Thanks, Gelon
skippy
New member
The AC2496 converter box was about $700 through Full Compass. I very seldom need to track more than 8 at a time, but I wanted to be ready to do it if I needed to, and I have used it once or twice- enough to have made it worth it. Having only 8 converters isn't really a showstopping limitation, unless you do large-group rock and roll, and record all-up- not many home recordists do that.
Having only 8 channels that you can really mix with _is_ a killer, because it forces you to bounce and submix much more than you should really have to. You *can* do it (lots of people with 4-tracks do great work!), but one of the great attractions of going with a 16- or 24-track recorder is the ability to preserve your mix options right up until the last minute. I'd absolutely go for the 32 before going for more converters: the 32 isn't gonna come down much in price, but converter technology is maturing in real time, and getting cheaper _and better_ day by day. At least for my preferred working style, having enough channels is a key item. Work with the 8 converters you have in the 1624 for a while, and see how often you _need_ more.
The 32 was fine for me. Its mic pres are adequate, although noisy at higher gains (for ribbon mics, perhaps). Those on the Mackie boards are arguably better. The inline monitoring setup is a *big* win, so that monitoring and mixdown can be done without repatching. The board has decent EQ, and enough signal routing flexibility to get you going. The effects returns are a little funny: they don't allow some of the routing I'd prefer, like the ability to put efx on the headphone sends without awkward repatching or using up more input channels.
But all in all, it's a good board: I still have mine, and it now lives in my location recording/FOH rack. You can do _much_ worse for an entry-level board. I moved on because I like large-format consoles much more (100mm faders, large and visible buttons), I needed more input channels (the additional 8 I use for my E-drum rig), I really wanted the additional routing flexibility, especially for headphone and foldback mixes, the better mic pres for the kind of acoustic-based music I usually do, and the mute automation- which I originally thought of as mostly a toy, but have already become _addicted_ to.
It's wierd: I got back into this as a hobby, but I'm already treating it as a business again. It's just my mindset, and I've stumbled into a surprisingly large client pool. Not enough to make a living with, but enough to pay for more toys (;-)... So the Ghost was primarily an investment in speed, productivity, and a lot of things that most home recordists do not really _need_. It's a fantastic board, but realistically I could have stayed with the 32 and done good work as well. Bang for the buck there was _very_ high, IMNSHO.
The big thing that the 32 offers is the inline monitoring: that's key, and there aren't many other entry-level boards that offer that feature. But, as in all things, your mileage may vary...
Having only 8 channels that you can really mix with _is_ a killer, because it forces you to bounce and submix much more than you should really have to. You *can* do it (lots of people with 4-tracks do great work!), but one of the great attractions of going with a 16- or 24-track recorder is the ability to preserve your mix options right up until the last minute. I'd absolutely go for the 32 before going for more converters: the 32 isn't gonna come down much in price, but converter technology is maturing in real time, and getting cheaper _and better_ day by day. At least for my preferred working style, having enough channels is a key item. Work with the 8 converters you have in the 1624 for a while, and see how often you _need_ more.
The 32 was fine for me. Its mic pres are adequate, although noisy at higher gains (for ribbon mics, perhaps). Those on the Mackie boards are arguably better. The inline monitoring setup is a *big* win, so that monitoring and mixdown can be done without repatching. The board has decent EQ, and enough signal routing flexibility to get you going. The effects returns are a little funny: they don't allow some of the routing I'd prefer, like the ability to put efx on the headphone sends without awkward repatching or using up more input channels.
But all in all, it's a good board: I still have mine, and it now lives in my location recording/FOH rack. You can do _much_ worse for an entry-level board. I moved on because I like large-format consoles much more (100mm faders, large and visible buttons), I needed more input channels (the additional 8 I use for my E-drum rig), I really wanted the additional routing flexibility, especially for headphone and foldback mixes, the better mic pres for the kind of acoustic-based music I usually do, and the mute automation- which I originally thought of as mostly a toy, but have already become _addicted_ to.
It's wierd: I got back into this as a hobby, but I'm already treating it as a business again. It's just my mindset, and I've stumbled into a surprisingly large client pool. Not enough to make a living with, but enough to pay for more toys (;-)... So the Ghost was primarily an investment in speed, productivity, and a lot of things that most home recordists do not really _need_. It's a fantastic board, but realistically I could have stayed with the 32 and done good work as well. Bang for the buck there was _very_ high, IMNSHO.
The big thing that the 32 offers is the inline monitoring: that's key, and there aren't many other entry-level boards that offer that feature. But, as in all things, your mileage may vary...
G
gelon
New member
Thanks, again, Skippy. I've decided to stick with the Studio 24 for the time being. I think it will be pretty workable, and with the stereo channels and a couple of patchbays, I should be able to do some decent work. I need to develop a working style anyway, and very often (as Stravinsky often said) limitations spark creativity rather than hinder it. I've got a lot to learn, so I think this will be a good starting point.
Another plus for the mixer is its size (I didn't realize how small it was until I unpacked it), and space is another limitation I have. The stereo channels do have EQ, but no frequency selector for the mids nor inserts. But for a mixer at that price point and size, it's really quite versatile.
Another plus for the mixer is its size (I didn't realize how small it was until I unpacked it), and space is another limitation I have. The stereo channels do have EQ, but no frequency selector for the mids nor inserts. But for a mixer at that price point and size, it's really quite versatile.