Fostex MR-8

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobby Vanzandt
  • Start date Start date
junplugged,

Thanks. Fostex has some detailed support pages. That does answer lots of questions. They even mentioned that Boss BR 532 is among the MR 8's direct competition.

The Boss is $100 bucks more, excluding a few accessories. But it does seem to do a bit more. And I can't believe it is difficult to use. Does it (BR 532) have USB port? Has anyone tried out both units?
 
Just got a Fostex MR-8. I bought the Zoom PS-02 when it first came out, the Korg PXR4, the Roland BR532, and the Tascam PocketStudio 5 too. Okay, so I have bouts of very bad GAS. I also have experience with ADATs in a real studio, a Tascam 688 and a 488, a Roland VS-840 (first CD), a VS-1680 (second CD), and several computer-based multitrack programs including Pro-Tools.

I originally heard about the MR-8 on the rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic newsgroup in early November and trotted off to MusiciansFriend.com, credit card in hand, and picked one up. MF was pretty slow in getting the unit to me, maybe they were waiting on a shipment, I don't know; it took two weeks to arrive.

The thing is great though. It's of course far bigger than the Zoom and the Korg and slightly bigger than the Roland. I must say however that the Zoom and the Korg are in very different categories than the Fostex and the Roland. The Fostex is the easiest to use but none of the others are all that hard. The Korg probably has the worst user interface.


I sold the Tascam soon after I bought it. If you go over to tascam.com and visit the PocketStudio forum (which I should have done before I bought it) you'll see why.

All have removable media, the Korg, Zoom, and Roland use SmartMedia and the Fostex uses CompactFlash. Right now the cost per megabyte is similar though you can get bigger CompactFlash cards. The Fostex will only use type 1 cards so you can't use a MicroDrive or the really large CF cards.

I have been able to easily connect both the Korg and the Fostex to my PC (XP). All the tracks on the Fostex are available as 16/44 .wav files directly off the device. The Korg's files are .mp2, which seem to work exactly like .mp3 files.

Using a Zio SmartMedia reader I can move the data from the Zoom and the Roland to and from the PC for backup and archiving. Roland supplies a free utility that converts tracks from the 532 to .wav files and back. This works well though you have no way of moving the drum tracks. Zoom supplies a similar tool but I have not used it other than to see if it really works - it does.

All of the devices have pretty good electric guitar processing. The Fostex, because of the simplicity of the user interface (only three buttons for amp sims), only offers three but they are acceptable. The other effects such as reverb are a bit boingy on all of the units. The Zoom might have a bit of an edge in quality here but not much.

The Fostex has four effects buttons (in addition to the amp sims) for room, hall, plate, and delay. There is a knob to adjust the delay time or the reverb length, depending on the effect selected, and the four mono channels have effects sends that adjust the wet/dry mix for each channel. It doesn't appear that you can use 'verb on the two stereo channels.

The Fostex has three "mastering" buttons that are pretty much just a LOT of compression and a bit of EQ put across the stereo bus. If you have other outboard gear or a computer to do mastering, the results are better but, if the Fostex is all you have you can use it to get pretty good levels to the final mix. Getting a hot enough signal to CD is a very common question on almost all recording-related news and discussion groups.

I've run good audio into each unit to test pure recording quality. I mic'd my Martin OM-28v with a Neuman TLM103 running into an HHB FatMan. The results are pretty good with all the units, though it's hard to get a bad recording with that signal chain. If you're going to ultimately distribute .mp3 files it really doesn't matter. You could easily do all acoustic recording with each unit's internal mic and get pretty good results. Going to CD, the Fostex has a bit of an edge, though the Roland, even though it's compressed, is pretty good.

For portability the Zoom is my favorite. It fits easily into the ccessory pocket of a guitar case and, with it's bass and drums backing track, is very useful for writing and cutting demos of song ideas. I've used the Zoom as a walkman on occasion. For me, it's quite entertaining on long flights to fool with a mix or arrange the bass and drums for some new ideas. The Zoom, being small, doesn't draw any attention either.

The Roland fills the songwriting niche very well too. Though it's not as portable as the Zoom it has slightly better sound quality and has more drum patterns. None of the drum patterns on any of the devices is programmable tough you can arrange strings of built-in patterns into "songs". The instant-on aspect of all of these devices is very handy. I keep the 532 close by for working on ideas when I don't want to boot up my VS-1680.

The Fostex is by far the best of the lot if you want to do finished
products. Even the internal mic is good enough to do acoustic tracks that are going to sit in a mix. You'll need to supply drum tracks if you need them since it is the only device that has no backing tracks. It does have a metronome and will supply MTC or MIDI sync to a drum machine.

Using an SM57 and the built-in mic sims yields very nice results. In a couple of hours one afternoon I cut a handful solo acoustic guitar tracks on the Fostex, moved them to the PC, trimmed and normalized them in SoundForge, and burned a CD. I could easily use the CD as a demo to get gigs if that's all I had. I'd probably even sell it at gigs, if that's all I had, without a second thought.

The Korg is a fine device but, for me, it doesn't fill a need. It's on
permanent loan to a buddy. The Zoom is my portable tool, the Roland is my "studio B" for working on ideas, and the Fostex is going to travel to the summer cabin or boat with me when I'm able to get some vacation time.

John Williams
http://www.mp3.com/handpicked
 
some questions about the mr-8

Let's say I recorded a few tracks on the mr-8 all sync'ed in time. Now if I copied these tracks INDIVIDUALLY up the PC and then import them into a multitrack program (n-track, Protools, etc.) as separate tracks, will they then play in time again?

I'm asking because this way I can free up tracks in the mr-8 again if I need more than 8 tracks for the song.

Another question I have is whether the mr-8 really can record 8 individual tracks. I am slightly confused by the description of mixing down to tracks 5 & 6, and then tracks 7 & 8. That almost sounded like I cannot use tracks 5, 6, 7 & 8 individually. If I can actually record 8 separate tracks, can each track be panned to create a stereo mix?

Thanks if you can help clarify.

DC
 
Digit
Yes you can import the individual tracks and they will be synced if you start the tracks at the same time. That is the method I use instead of mixing to 7-8 then output to WAV. When you open the song folder you will see a bunch of WAV files with numeric file names that are leftovers from earlier takes so it’s hard to tell which are the tracks you want, it looks like the numbers with the lowest value are the most recent. If you go to menu, “song”, “delete unused” you can get rid of a lot of the “scrap” files and free up some space.

You can record on individual tracks 1-4 but you have to record to 5&6 and 7&8 (example you can’t record to ch 8 only)
Hope this helps. I’m still learning but so far I like my MR.-8. There’s a lot less noise than the low-dollar sound card I’ve been using.
 
my first Fostex was the X-15 4 track. Anyone ever use that one?

So the next Fostex is the MR-8, a bit of an improvement.

There seems to be a lot of variation in the price of the 256mb cf cards. Has anyone tried one yet? in the MR-8?

As far as availablity, I've only seen Mus Friend have them, so far.

I just got a cheap Lexar Media CF card USB reader. at Target for $28. Since I still like win 98 SE I need to read card that way since drivers for MR-8 spec for later o/s ver.

-j.
--------
www.geocities.com/junplugged
 
I’ve got an X-15 that I bought in 1986 or 7. Still works great.
 
The FD-8 and MR-8 are two slightly different boxes,...

and probably all the comments have been covered.

The FD-8 is very easy to use. It has a great 8 input full analog mixer with only a single level of menus and no built in effects, the MR-8 I believe would probably have more menus, built in effects, and the MR-8 only has 2 inputs.

The FD-8 has 16/44.1k hifi and 16/32k economy recording, and the MR-8 has [???] 16/44.1k & 16/22k [???]

The Flashcard memory really is a short number of track minutes. Remember that it's 8-tracks plus virtual tracks, and that all takes up memory/disc space, and any way you slice it, an external or internal HD on the FD-8 is very much more track record time than a flash memory card.

Being an FD-4 owner myself, and looking at the MR-8, I'd say probably the MR-8 would be harder to learn than the FD-8.

FD-8 & MR-8, there's a lot in the box, and both being slightly different style units with different features, it kinda depends on what you're looking for, and your recording needs.

To me, a great analog front end mixer is a great feature on a recorder product, hence the entire basis of the Portastudio industry, including every portastudio-type design like the FD-8. Based on my current needs and attitudes about recording, the MR-8 just begs the issue of having an external mixer to get beyond the 2-input limitation,... and therefore in my eyes is not really a self-contained setup any more.

And signal routing,... based on knowing the FD-8 pretty well and NOT having studied the MR-8 manual too closely, I'd venture to say the outbound/inbound signal routing options are better on the FD-8, including monitor, line, analog/digital, and aux I/O's.

Not that an MR-8 plus external mixer is a bad solution, it's not, in fact it would be a very nice setup, but the FD-8 gives you everything in one package, less built-in effects, which has never been an issue to me, since I have all sorts of outboard effects gear.

$350-$400 for a nice used FD-8 is fair, and it's a great product, never mind it's a few years old.
 
Okay now, here's another option,... DMT-8 std vs. FD-8

As I said above, I think the FD-8 is a superior product, but now how'bout the DMT-8, standard, [not vl].

I know JR#97 said his opinion that the FD-8 is better than the DMT-8, and he can explain himself if he wants, but as I see it, the DMT-8 might actually be better, based on what I know and like about recording gear,... mind you, a strictly personal opinion.

The FD-8 is great, and I like it very much. Having said that, I see that the DMT-8 has an LED-meter front panel, where the FD-8 has an LCD-meter front panel. I prefer LEDs, because they are much more visible, from any angle or distance. I get fits in the studio because I can't see the FD-4's display from any distance or any angle.


The FD-8 [and FD-4] are 2-track-simul-record-max/2-BUSS-mixer units, and as I see, the DMT-8 is a 4-track-simul-record-max/4-BUSS-mixer. I think we'd all agree that an 8x4 mixer and 4-simul-record is better than an 8x2 and 2-simul-record.


I've only seen a DMT-8 up close a few times, and as I remember, the DMT-8 has 2-band sweepable EQ, and the FD-8 I'm sure has 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ. Honestly, I think 2-band-sweepable and 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ are both good and fairly comparable. However the DMT-8 seems to offer more features than the FD-8, so transitioning back to 2-band-sweepable eq is no problem. The newer Portastudio units I have use 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ [424mkII/III], and the older units I have use 2-band-sweepable EQ [244]. I'll take either, and I don't have a real strong preference, but I actually think 2-band-sweepable is probably a little better, by a very small margin. [3-band sweepable, like on the 388, is most awesome].

Lets see,...

METERS: [X] DMT-8 LEDs [ ]FD-8 LCDs

FUNCTION: [X] DMT-8, 8x4/4-simul-rec [ ] FD-8, 8x2/2-simul-rec

EQ: [X] DMT-8, 2-band sweepable [ ] FD-8, 3-band, mid-sweepable

RESULT: I think I just convinced myself to go out & buy a DMT-8 STANDARD, [not 'vl', which I think stands for 'very-lite', the DMT-8vl not being as full in features as the DMT-8 standard].
 
MR8 Flash Cards

When I ordered the MR8 from Musicians Friend I ordered a 128 MB card from them for back up memory. They sent a Simpletech Digital Media card that the Fostex will not recognize. They will not take this $70 card back . I "installed" it. No way to know it would not work until I placed it in the machine. Now they want me to send it to Simpletech. There is nothing wrong with the card, it just wont work in the recorder.

Does anyone have the web link to Fostex that the manual refers to on page 16 to see what cards are confirmed by fostex?

The unit works fine but the memory is way short in the highest resolution. One thing for sure Im not gonna order another from Musicians Friend.
 
I've seen a few people out there debating about geting the MR-8 or the Tascam PocketStudio. John Williams was right when he said one check of the Tascam BBS will clear things up. Here are few choice quotes from the Tascam REP on the site:

"For those of you who don't like the feature set of the PS5. Too bad."

"For those of you who "assumed" that PS5 would have features that it does not have, I can't say that I feel very bad for you."

"If you can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research before you spend your hard earned cash, that is YOUR problem."

Yikes.
 
Re: Okay now, here's another option,... DMT-8 std vs. FD-8

A Reel Person said:
As I said above, I think the FD-8 is a superior product, but now how'bout the DMT-8, standard, [not vl].

I know JR#97 said his opinion that the FD-8 is better than the DMT-8, and he can explain himself if he wants, but as I see it, the DMT-8 might actually be better, based on what I know and like about recording gear,... mind you, a strictly personal opinion.

The FD-8 is great, and I like it very much. Having said that, I see that the DMT-8 has an LED-meter front panel, where the FD-8 has an LCD-meter front panel. I prefer LEDs, because they are much more visible, from any angle or distance. I get fits in the studio because I can't see the FD-4's display from any distance or any angle.


The FD-8 [and FD-4] are 2-track-simul-record-max/2-BUSS-mixer units, and as I see, the DMT-8 is a 4-track-simul-record-max/4-BUSS-mixer. I think we'd all agree that an 8x4 mixer and 4-simul-record is better than an 8x2 and 2-simul-record.


I've only seen a DMT-8 up close a few times, and as I remember, the DMT-8 has 2-band sweepable EQ, and the FD-8 I'm sure has 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ. Honestly, I think 2-band-sweepable and 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ are both good and fairly comparable. However the DMT-8 seems to offer more features than the FD-8, so transitioning back to 2-band-sweepable eq is no problem. The newer Portastudio units I have use 3-band-mid-sweepable EQ [424mkII/III], and the older units I have use 2-band-sweepable EQ [244]. I'll take either, and I don't have a real strong preference, but I actually think 2-band-sweepable is probably a little better, by a very small margin. [3-band sweepable, like on the 388, is most awesome].

Lets see,...

METERS: [X] DMT-8 LEDs [ ]FD-8 LCDs

FUNCTION: [X] DMT-8, 8x4/4-simul-rec [ ] FD-8, 8x2/2-simul-rec

EQ: [X] DMT-8, 2-band sweepable [ ] FD-8, 3-band, mid-sweepable

RESULT: I think I just convinced myself to go out & buy a DMT-8 STANDARD, [not 'vl', which I think stands for 'very-lite', the DMT-8vl not being as full in features as the DMT-8 standard].
Click to expand...

I have a DMT-8. The display is actually bright blue flourescent, which to me is even better than LEDs. To me, the recorder sounds as good as any 16/44.1k recorder I have ever heard. The routing is flexible but not terribly intuitive. Make sure you get a manual with it. Editing is pretty limited, too.

the DMT-8's huge drawback is backing your data up. Unless you have one of the DATs specified, good luck. I have tried all manner of schemes to back my data up and none of them have worked. I can get the data backed up to the target, but the DMT-8 is never satisfied when I try to reload it.

Fortunately, I have found that (using the Fostex COP-1 to switch from optical to coaxial S/PDIF) I can use the backup routine to record a .wav file into the computer and, using multitracking software, cut the backup into sections and line them up using the little "synch blips" the DMT-8 puts in the file and have all my tracks synched up in the computer. My soundcard has 8 outputs, so I can simply play back from the computer and use my DMT-8 mixer to mix down with pretty much the same results. But I have never successfully loaded a backup back into the DMT-8.

with hard drives as cheap as they are, one could just buy a new one when the old one fills up. There are two problems with this:

1. the DMT-8 can't recognize more than 8.4gigs of hdd space. The drive will probably work, but it's a shame to waste so much of it.

2. You have to do a significant amount of disassembly to remove the hard drive. It's not intended to be user replaceable. I went in mine to have a look and decided it wasn't something I wanted to bother with (and at the time I was repairing laptop computers for a living!)

If you can work with these limitations, the DMT-8 is a good machine, especially since they are getting cheap. I don't know how any of these features stack up against the VF-8 or FD-8, since I have never used either one.

(edit--the DMT-8 also does not do the "virtual track" thing at all)
 
dyuob said:
try this for the compatable cards: http://www.fostex.co.jp/int/hdlist/mr8cflist.html
Click to expand...
Good link, thanks. I've tried to search for a couple of these cards. 256 is good start for upgrade. I found the Ritek256 for sale, but only on one obscure site. I found a lot of Lexars, but not the 256 24x speed. Then I found the Lexar 256 24x in a Tigerdirect catalog, but not on their website.... Maybe in a few weeks the 256 24x's will be easier to find. I'll keep searching anyway.
 
Thanx for the info.

The FD-8 and DMT-8 are both fairly good machines, both with slightly different features. It kind of depends on what you want, and what you're willing to sacrifice, in features,... with sound quality probably being roughly the same.

The MR-8, I don't know, but it's a slick new unit that has an even different feature set from the FD-8 and DMT-8, and again, it depends on what you're looking for.

I've read some posts that speak very favorably about the MR-8, but I as of yet have no first hand experience with one. The pricepoint of $300 for an 8-track makes the MR-8 a very attractive buy, almost any way you slice it, despite it's design limitations.
 
I intalled a Lexar CF reader on Win 98 SE and it works with the stock cf card from the MR-8. Each track has an individual .wav file and a number. I wanted to hear my mix to tracks 7&8 in stereo, but they were there only in mono, in 2 separate files. So I had to go back to the unit and convert 7&8 to a stereo wave file first and it was fast and then when i popped the cf card in reader, i was able to d/l the stereo wave file and play it in winamp.

The wave file is under a different file folder on the card called 2mix.

My levels are really low on the winamp signal graph thing, and I can tell from other tunes that it's really low and I had to crank up all vols along the way just to hear it. I'll convert to mp3 and check it, but i think i'll have to do next track with the mic preamp i got since first try.

The other nice thing was that I copied the entire contents to my hdd on pc for backup. Next I'll try to restore after deleting.
 
MR-8 with Mackie 1202 mixer?

I am very interested in the MR-8 to replace PC recording. I'd like to use my Mackie 1202 as a front-end/mixer so that I could continue to use the Mackie's phantom power and mic pre-amps. I was hoping to use the XLR outputs on the Mackie to connect to the XLR inputs on the MR-8. Would that work? Is there a better method?
 
MR8 Thing

You can go to the Fostex web site and down load a wav. manager, that you can use to download tracks individually to edit and return to the MR8 and it is free.
 
gomanvangough said:
I am anxious to hear some MR8 user reports. I wonder if you can transfer a wav file from PC to the MR8?
Click to expand...
I have been using the mr8 for a few months now, and I love it! :D You can transfer wave files to the mr8 through usb with a program that you download from the Fostex site called "Wave manager". The files have to be mono, 16 bit, 44.1khz, and they will transfer with no problems. You have to rename them tr01 (track 1), tr02, etc... I have nothing but praise the mr8. I upgraded the software, got a 512 flash card, and transfer all my tracks to my pc to mix and master.
 
wow, how'd you dig up this old thread??? Man, this was over 2 years old! So old, I started reading it like it was new, then I saw a post by me, and I didn't know what I was talking about, then I saw the date.... There are better threads than this to dig up, it's got seriously dated info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top