Fostex MR16HD or Yamaha MD4s ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter delbidoo
  • Start date Start date
D

delbidoo

New member
Hey Guys..... I'm new to home recording and I'm out to bye a unit. Which do you think is the better recorder.... a secondhand Yamaha MD4s or a new Fostex MR16HD. Any opinions appreciated...... Cheers
Don::
 
Comparison time:
4 tracks (Yamaha) vs. 16 tracks (Fostex)
Storage Media:
Mini DataDiscs (140MB) @ $9.99(MF price)--Yamaha vs.
80 GB hard-drive @ $0.00 extra cost --Fostex
Recording time:
37 minutes @ 4 tracks--Yamaha vs.
8 hours @ 16 tracks--Fostex
Mixdown:
Requires outboard mixing/mastering using analog RCA connectors--
Yamaha vs.
Internal mixing/mastering, mixdown to computer using USB port, or
mixdown to external digital unit using S/PDIF output--Fostex
Phantom power:
Yamaha--no
Fostex--yes
Warranty:
Discontinued Yamaha hardware--no
Fostex--1 year parts/labor mfr. warranty

Now which looks better?
 
What is the eq parameters on the 16 track Fostex? I have heard some bad things about the low eq on some of the other units.
 
That would depend: if one uses the MR16 for internal mixdown/mastering, the EQ might be critical. If one uses the MR16 for tracking and then transfers the tracks to a PC or MAC for mixing and mastering, then the EQ on the Fostex isn't necessary since the EQ would be handled by N-Tracks, Cubase, or whatever software is being used.
I've been using a VF-80 for almost five years now and the EQ has always been adequate for my needs. YMMV. Of course the Yamaha MD4s only comes with 3-band analog EQ resident to the mixer section, and you cannot do anything to change the frequencies being EQed. The Fostex OS, while limited, has more flexibility.
 
I could move it to computer, but am thinking for simplicity sake, about self -contained work. Is the Mr16HD any better worse, etc. than the Tascam 2488, or the Zoom or other brand 16 track machines for all iin one projects?
 
I'd say look at the different makes and models. Download their owner's manuals and read them. Find local dealers who stock the units so you can look at them up close and personal to check out the construction and layout.
Each make/model has their benefits and their drawbacks. I have a friend who has a Zoom and gets very good results. And, truth to tell, if the Zoom unit had been available when I purchased my Studio-In-A-Box, I probably would have purchased the Zoom instead of my Fostex VF-80.
One thing to count on: you will need external mic pre-amps. While all the units have pre-amps with phantom power, those pres are not very powerful.
 
Last edited:
I bought a Fostex MR16HD/CD a few months ago and, for the price, I'm very impressed. I do have a few concerns with it though. I've found that I need a mic pre-amp - had to turn the trim to max to get any decent input. The EQ's are OK for some applications, but I'm getting an external compressor to provide more control than I get with the presets. The USB is a bit sensitive. I've found that you need to disconnect and reconnect frequently or the MR freezes up. Using Wave Manager (a Fostex download) is a must! Having said all that, I've just produced my first CD of our songs and I'm very pleased with the results.
 
The pricing on the MR16HD right now just seems too good to pass up. $400 w/o an internal CD. Looks like it's a standard laptop CD so the one from my recently dead Compaq may slide right in. If not we have a USB CD/DVD burner that should work and I figure most of the CD burning will happen at the computer anyway.
 
How about Tascam's DP-01?

I'm also looking for a standalone recorder and Tascam offers the 40 GB DP-01 for $269. I'm not really looking to mixdown using the standalone unit. Which one would you go with the Fostex or the Tascam? I know one advantage the Fostex has FX built-in, right? I don't think I'll be interested that much in effects as much as just pure recording quality and ease of use.
 
The only reason I ruled out the Tascam DP-01 is that it's restricted to only 2 simultaneous inputs. That seems to really limit it's use to playing over existing tracks. Plus in some situations you may want more than two mics at one time; like a grand piano for example or a choir.
 
Last edited:
Is it just a standard laptop cd burner? Then what would I need to have the software for it to run?
 
delbidoo said:
Hey Guys..... I'm new to home recording and I'm out to bye a unit. Which do you think is the better recorder.... a secondhand Yamaha MD4s or a new Fostex MR16HD. Any opinions appreciated...... Cheers
Don::
Click to expand...


I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall that the MD format operated below (32 kHz)the 44.1kHz sampling rate of the VF/MD series recorders. If so, there will be a sound quality issue and transfer issues via S/PDIF.

Paj
8^?
 
No,...

(Maybe a moot point by now, 'cause this thread is old and topic's been covered pretty well),... but...

The Yamaha MD series (MD4/MD8) portastudio-clone recorders have an A/D converter which adheres to 16-bit/44.1kHz sampling rate, but it's the ATRAC data reduction that seems to drive people nutz, which (in it's day) was a HUGE source of controversy.

ATRAC data compression is not the same as audio compression. However, it's a scheme that bases it's data reduction on the premise that human hearing tops out at about 16kHz, also the idea that in audio a louder sound will mask a quieter sound, thus audio data that falls within those two ranges can be discarded. That's the only way they could fit any useable length of audio on that tiny little disc. This is what drove "audio purists" nutz. That, along with the rapid advances in technology, & the fact that MD and ATRAC was not marketed well, is why MD was short lived and ultimately failed in the marketplace.

Most people these days wouldn't touch Minidisc as a recording format, with all the other "linear PCM" format recorders out there, but if you don't mind buying into a "dead" medium, MD is alright for most people's needs, whether they believe so or not. Sometimes it depends on how cheap you can get into MD on the used market. Sometimes MD is a steal or a "sleeper" deal. YMMV.

I have a few Minidisc recorders, and they're alright. Despite the buzz and myths on MD, you can't "hear" the ATRAC compression. It's just the idea of "reducing" the data below the "16/44.1" (CD standard) that absolutely drove people nutz!:eek:;)
 
Sorry!...

Paj said:
I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall that the MD format operated below (32 kHz)the 44.1kHz sampling rate of the VF/MD series recorders. If so, there will be a sound quality issue and transfer issues via S/PDIF.

Paj
8^?
Click to expand...

Another moot point!

The Yamaha MD4/MD8 has no digital outs, S/P-dif or otherwise!:eek::eek:;)
 
Well, we've had a little time to play with the MR16HD since Xmas.

Overall I think it's a pretty good unit. Certainly for the price I think it's great deal. It's not the easiest thing in the world to master but then considering the user level of experience maybe it's not so hard :confused:

The built in preamps did a fine job with our MKL 603. With the MKL 2001 the gain had to be turned most of the way up and there seemed to be a fine line between not enough gain and clipping. Prehaps less than stellar preamps are a common reason why that mic great a bad rap?

I did pick up an old Roland MMP-2 to try out it's preamps. I'm not sure if that's going to work since there's no way to actually bipass the built in preamps. Maybe if they're turned down all or most of the way they have little effect??

The method of saving multiple tracks is cumbersome. There are preset pairs you can bounce to but that's not much help unless you're mixing on the unit. You can map any of the four inputs to a different tracks but that has other limitations. For example you have to use the inputs in order. So say you record a guitar on input A and vocal on input B saved on track 1 and 2. Now you want to go back and rerecord the vocal singing to the playback of the guitar on track one. One way I see to do this is move the input for the vocals mic to input A and then arm track 3 to record as you playback the "song" from track 1. Another method would be to record a blank track for the guitar to track 3 and the second vocals to track 4. It always records the armed tracks from input A, B, C and D in order.

Of course if you can transfer the recorded tracks to a computer then it's not a big deal. Haven't tried yet but it appears all of the individual tracks can be saved and accessed as WAV files even though an initial read of the manual suggests you can only save tracks 15/16 as a stereo WAV file. Easy of transfer to/from a computer was one reason I selected the MR16HD. It's a little convoluted but still better than most.

It would really be nice to have the choice of higher bit depth and sample rate. It would also be nice to have digital inputs and both MIDI in as well as MIDI out. But, to get these features on another recorder the price doubles. USB audio interfaces offer these features but to be fair you have to figure in the cost of the laptop and to get four mic inputs ups the ante substatially. You're basicly back to the cost of the MR16HD and are tied to a computer with all the complications that can create.
 
I've been using a VF160 for 6 years now. If I needed to replace it, I'd go with a lightly used or new VF160EX. There are truly great, solid and reliable units.
 
Good to hear you've been happy with the Fostex product for a number of years. Looks like you'll have to settle for slightly used if you ever have to replace the VF160 since that unit is discontinued.

To be sure the VF160 has more features than the MR16HD but then again it sold for twice the price! What's strange is that Fostex doesn't really have a replacement for the VF160. The MR16HD/CD is the "top of the line" for their current digital multitrackers. I have to wonder why Fostex went away from the ideal of "virtual tracks" like they had on the VF160? Maybe it was to facilitate computer transfer but the current track recording and bouncing scheme leaves much to be desired. Since the MR16HD has the same size harddrive disk space can't be the issue and it seems like it's purely a software issue.

The feature I most wish they'd carried over to the MR16HD is the ability to record from digital inputs. A least one coax and one optical in/out would be really handy. I also think it was a bit short sighted to not include MIDI IN/Thru on the MR!6HD since lacking that it becomes difficult if not impossible to sync two units together. That would seem to be the logical upgrade path for Fostex to promote since they've dropped the VF160. The longer sliders on the VF160 give the unit a much more "professional" look and feel but the short sliders on the MR16HD work OK and the compact size is a plus.

The MR16HD does have a few features which I think are better than the VF160. Although the VF160 had the capability to record from twice as many inputs simultaneously it only offered two XLR inputs vs the four on the MR16HD. Since the majority of our recording will be via microphone that's a biggey. If would be nice if they'd retained at least the dual insert paths instead of limiting it to only input A on the new machine. The other obvious difference is the addition of a USB interface and the ability to easily transfer .WAV files back and forth from a computer. Hopefully the MR16HD will have as long and reliable life with as good a resale value and I'll be a happy camper :+)
 
Alden_Sloe said:
I did pick up an old Roland MMP-2 to try out it's preamps. I'm not sure if that's going to work since there's no way to actually bipass the built in preamps. Maybe if they're turned down all or most of the way they have little effect??
Click to expand...
So, either the Roland doesn't have such great preamps either or the Fostex is better than I thought. Still playing around with this but using external preamps (and effects) is as simple as turning down the gain all the way on the Fostex.
Alden_Sloe said:
The method of saving multiple tracks is cumbersome... For example you have to use the inputs in order. So say you record a guitar on input A and vocal on input B saved on track 1 and 2. Now you want to go back and rerecord the vocal singing to the playback of the guitar on track one.
Click to expand...
I think I was making this more complicated than it really is. In the above example just play back the "Song" with the level slider for track 1 (guitar) turned up and the level for track 2 (original vocal track) turned all the way down. You "arm" the inputs individually so only "arm" input B (the vocal mic) and arm track 3 to record on the second take. What you should be left with is a "Song" with the guitar on track 1, the original vocals on track 2 and the voice over on track 3. Clear as mud :confused:

Played just a tiny bit with the effects. For a beginner they seem more than adaquate. It's really easy to use and when/if you want to get more into it there's quite a selection to choose from and learn how they effect the shape of the sound. If you're doing a recording session, even in your own home time is valuable. Having the effects and other functionality built in to the recorder seems like a good deal. I'm sure someone that's experienced would have no problem controlling it all just as quickly from a computer but for the novice I really appreciate the ability to use the "all in one box" approach and then be able to go back to the computer after recording to do more fiddling around :o
 
To be sure the VF160 has more features than the MR16HD but then again it sold for twice the price! What's strange is that Fostex doesn't really have a replacement for the VF160
Click to expand...

The MR-series is a replacement for the VF-series

I have to wonder why Fostex went away from the ideal of "virtual tracks" like they had on the VF160? Maybe it was to facilitate computer transfer but the current track recording and bouncing scheme leaves much to be desired. Since the MR16HD has the same size harddrive disk space can't be the issue and it seems like it's purely a software issue.
Click to expand...

Fostex went away with VT, because of Hardware and Software integration..

The feature I most wish they'd carried over to the MR16HD is the ability to record from digital inputs. A least one coax and one optical in/out would be really handy. I also think it was a bit short sighted to not include MIDI IN/Thru on the MR!6HD since lacking that it becomes difficult if not impossible to sync two units together. That would seem to be the logical upgrade path for Fostex to promote since they've dropped the VF160. The longer sliders on the VF160 give the unit a much more "professional" look and feel but the short sliders on the MR16HD work OK and the compact size is a plus.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with this, I do feel some features that was from the preivous VF-series should have been included in the MR-series.

I really hope you enjoy your MR16:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top