FOSTEX or KORG?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billisa
  • Start date Start date
B

billisa

New member
I have a Fostex VF80CDR that I love. It's built like a tank and it sounds great. It's easy to learn and it's never crashed. Also, it's burned about 100 cd's with not one skip...

But now I want more tracks. I'm strongly considering a VF160. However, before making a decision, I also want to consider the Korg D1200mkII or D1600mkII because they can each do 24bit recordings. My sense of the VF160 is it's also built like a tank, etc. etc, but it cannot do 24bit. I can certainly live with that, but does anyone know how stable/well built the Korg units are? Do they use a 3.5" HD (the VF's do)? Mechanically, how quiet are they?

I've heard they're easy to learn and are sonically great units, but that's pretty much it.
 
To be fair to yourself you gots to put the Yamaha AW16G into the mix too. :)
 
I'd have thought so.

Bill we're doing extensive tracking both days this weekend with the Yammie - drums (6 mic's submixed to 4), guitar mic'd and DI'd, bass DI'd and vocals. BV's and solos to be overdubbed. Should be interesting - I'll let you know how we get on, and how easy or otherwise it is to use with all this going on.
 
I'm sure the Yamaha makes fine recordings. Here's what gives me pause... I'd like to stay with a unit using a 3.5"HD. Prior to buying a VF80, I spent a lot of time on the aw16 site, as well as others... In both the "newbies" and "bugs" sections there, among other issues, it just seems that there's a lot of talk about system crashes and the need to reformat and optimize the HD (not to mention complexities of the unit). Now I'm sure all machines have issues, but in using my VF80 daily since February it has NEVER frozen, crashed or come anywhere close needing a reformat. ALL of the now 100 discs I've burned on it have come out with no problems. Every review I've read of the VF160 (while not 100% favorable) seems to talk about its operating system stability. That is very important to me. This is a guess, but I wonder if the Yamaha's 2.5" drive makes system issues more likely. Perhaps not. It does seem that upgrading the internal drive on the Yamaha is not as simple as on a Fostex. There is apparently one drive that will work on an aw16, whereas several will work on a Fostex. One reason I didn't go with a PC from the beginning, outside of portability, was system stability that a self-contained DAW should deliver. So from that standpoint, since I don't work for Fostex, I was willing to look around to see if I could get 24bit quality, 12-16 tracks, AND rock solid stability. Maybe the Yamaha offers that. On the VF160 you often hear people talk about its effects, limited eq, small LCD, but in lurking on the Fostex forum (here and elsewhere) for quite sometime, complaints about system crashes are very rare.

But I'm open, and appreciate wider perspectives.
 
Garry Sharp said:
I'd have thought so.

Bill we're doing extensive tracking both days this weekend with the Yammie - drums (6 mic's submixed to 4), guitar mic'd and DI'd, bass DI'd and vocals. BV's and solos to be overdubbed. Should be interesting - I'll let you know how we get on, and how easy or otherwise it is to use with all this going on.
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry. You're insight is always spot on.
 
Id choose the Korg...because its the closest thing to the Akai. Which was my choice ultimately.

Korg has a new 32 Ive seen.:cool:
 
Hi,
that korg d1200mkII...is that comparable in ease of use with the boss 1180cd? Pretty close i mean. Ease of use is important like the Boss but i love the 24 bit sound of the roland higher end stuff. I can't deal with the roland's layout but the boss is super simple/intuitive comparetively. i play guitar and this is mostly for live stuff. quick to record, no thought for setting up.
ANY advice certainly appreciated. thanks!
 
Did 16 hours with the AW16G over the weekend, using another Yammie product, the MG12/4, as a submixer/preamp for four of the drum mics and also a preamp for the guitar amp mic. 8 songs, all recorded live. The Yammie was straightforward enough to use that once all the levels were set I could hit record and then concentrate on bass playing. You feel some pressure doing this with all the band there and the machine made it easy.

Everybody was delighted with the quality of both the playbacks and the tracking mix to their cans. The drummer's been playing for decades (we're no spring chickens!) and said he'd never heard himself recorded so well.

A downer was the -10dB out on both Stereo and monitor - I had to run it back through a spare stereo channel on the mixer before sending it to the headphone amp, which of course also tied up a pair of outs from the mixer. It's a shame that they haven't put in a proper, robust balanced +4dB out.

Bill one thought for you about this is the more extensive range of effects and "mastering" options built into the Yammie. Irrelevant for me (I'm just gonna burn .wav files of each track and mix on the PC) but as you do everything in the box I'd have thought it a consideration. By the way can you pm me your home address - I'll send you a CD in a few weeks.
 
AFAIK only the Vf160 in this bunch has the option to record more than 8 tracks simultaneously. Limiting yourself to the maximum of 8 simultanously recordable tracks will seriously limit your possibilities when it comes to capturing full band performances. Garry's setup here is a prime example of the kinds of workarounds you'll have to come up with to make up for the lack of available inputs. After having only 2 tracks at your disposal this far might make 8 tracks look like a lot to work with but in reality that's not the case.

For $200 you could buy a Behringer ADA8000 that would give you 8 additional mic preamps with phantom power and enable you to record all 16 tracks simultaneously on the VF160 so you wouldn't have to worry about something like submixing drums to four tracks like Garry here has to do with his Yahama. I've had two of these ADA8000s since august and they are great units especially considering the price and would truly compliment the VF160 in making it the ultimately portable 16 track recording rig.
 
Wise words from Pete. However, (and I have no connection with Yamaha) I think the other consideration is sound quality. I used a VF80 for 12 months or so, and the Yammie makes much nicer sounding recordings. Nothing to do with the 8 versus 2 track input - even A/B ing single tracks shows the difference. I presume the recording "guts" of the VF160 are the same as the 80 - AD and all the rest of it. If not, and the 160 sounds as nice as the Yammie, then I've been a silly boy, for the reasons Pete points out.

Nevertheless, after a 24 hr break I've just replayed the stuff we recorded over the weekend and believe me I'm grinning from ear to ear:)
 
For my purposes, recording 16 tracks at once will never come into play. "Never say Never!" Even 8 at once is an outside possibility, because I'm constructing music beds and songs one/two tracks at a time. 4 at once could be a possibility.

I must say I'm much enamored of the Fostex approach to working in that the VF's are almost like tape -- no saving, just turn it on/off. And for all the shortcomings of the manuals, they're fairly intuitive. Plus the operating system seems extremely well though out -- even with 49 programs now on my VF80, I can't imagine having to format the drive, for instance.

In addition, the programs saved in the FDMS-3 format can be loaded as is on a VF160, with all the settings, eq, effects, in tact...

But obviously sound quality has to be a key factor. Has anyone opened up any of these machines to shed light on the AD/DA convertors used, other parts, etc? I think the VF80/160 convertors may indeed be the same...

I was just looking at a Yamaha today. Very solid piece of gear it seems. The Korg D1600 with the touch screen seems more plasticky, but also very intuitive (plus it will do 24bit, that of course becomes 16 bit on a CD!).
 
The beauty of the VF160 is really the the ADAT interface that gives you the option to replace the VF's converters and mic pres with something better. With Yamaha you're stuck with what comes in the box originally and in general Yamaha is an AS IT IS box like most of the low end multitrackers too but with Fostex you have upgrading and connection options that just don't exist in the competing machines.

For the price (taken form www.musiciansfriend.com) of the AW16g you can have both the VF160 and the Behringer ADA8000.

Here's some talk about the ADA8000 thay you might find interesting:

http://sawstudiouser.net/board/viewtopic.php?TopicID=129
 
Very surprised to read the positive reviews on the Behri AD's. I'd have thought at that price they'd be the same ones they use in their Feedback Destoyer / multiband EQ which are so bad that even I can tell they're bad.

Incidentally in the UK the VF160 alone is slightly more expensive than the AW16G.
 
PeteHalo said:
The beauty of the VF160 is really the the ADAT interface that gives you the option to replace the VF's converters and mic pres with something better.
Click to expand...

I own an external compressor (FMR RNC), plus a couple of VTB1 pres., so the option of inserts is useful. I must say however, I've not at all been disappointed by the pres on the VF80. I know, people often disparage the built in pres on HDAWS (whether Fostex or whatever), but I've found mine to be pretty clean. I really think the differences are very subtle, and not necessarily a clearly quantifiable indicator of which are "better" or "worse". Given how accurate digital recorders are, how can a manufacturer get away with putting in bad electronics?

This may spark a flame (not really), but I think digital technology has dramatically closed the gap between what very expensive/inexpensive gear can now provide.

I still pull out James Taylor's "Hourglass". Phenomenal recording done at a Martha's Vineyard summer home, on a Yamaha 16bit recorder!
 
I still pull out James Taylor's "Hourglass". Phenomenal recording done at a Martha's Vineyard summer home, on a Yamaha 16bit recorder!
Click to expand...

Well, ahem, that was my point:)

Just go and listen to one. Might make all the talk about Behri this into Fostex that irrelevant.
 
Garry Sharp said:
Well, ahem, that was my point:)

Just go and listen to one. Might make all the talk about Behri this into Fostex that irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It might, but I think all the current models available, across the board, would be more sophisticated than what was used in 1997.

By the way, if I was to stay in the Fostex family, then all my discs saved in the FDMS-3 format will load into the VF160, with all the various settings in tact. As you can see, I'm like a bulldog, very brand loyal!!! (I'd put a smile in, but I haven't figured out how to insert them in text.)
 
VF-160 review

There is a VF-160 review in the July issue of Pro Audio Review by a long-standing user of Digital recorders (paid $75K for his first one!). The Fostex does seem to have a good rap on stability, sound-quality, and number of tracks for simultaneous recording v. price. My TRIO goes through 8 live tracks like nothing, so having the 16-track capability is nice.

I seen good reviews for the Yamaha.

Have you considered the Fostex 2424's?

Paj
8^)
 
Re: VF-160 review

Paj said:

Have you considered the Fostex 2424's?
Paj
8^)
Click to expand...

Yes, but this would require the purchase of extra equipment to get to a finished CD... (Mixer, effects, CD burner) Also, I like the portability of an all-in-one unit.
 
Another VF-160CD perk

billisa:

If you're interested in live recording, the VF160CD might be tough to beat at the moment for the price. Right out of the box it does 10 simultaneous tracks if one of your sources is S/PDIF.

Good review of the VF160 for live recording in the July 2003 issue of Pro Audio Review.

Good Luck,
Paj
8^)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top