Fostex VF16 compared to VF160

[Slaytanic Dude]

I've been looking to start a small studio, and ebay has great prices as far as multi-track recorders go. The VF16, the older model of the 160 is far cheaper, and I have used the VF160 before and have liked the sound. What is the difference between the two? Do they produce the same quality of sound? I'm in college and don't have alot of money to spend on quality. I'm pretty good with computers as well so would a hard drive recorder be better? I simply want to have a studio to record decent sounding music. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks.

 

[carelessorc]

I used a VF16 for about two years, then changed to a VF160. Audio wise the specs are identical, and I couldn't hear any difference in recorded sound quality.
The 160 is:
- slightly bigger,
- much quieter - virtually silent in fact - the 16 was noticeably noisy (as in difficult to
use a condensor mic in the same room)
- has an on-board CD burner
- has a bigger hard drive (a lot of 16s were fitted with a 5 gig hard drive, 160s started at 20 and many have bigger). Teh hard drive can be upgraded on both models.

You mention 'hard drive recorder': do you mean computer based?
It depends what you want to do:
e.g. if you will be recording many tracks at once, in various locations, then the 16/160 would be more convenient (and probably cheaper).
If, on the other hand you will be recording mostly one or two tracks at a time, in the same place, then a PC based solution might be more open ended (if your PC can handle it). The PC can be a bit unpredictable: latency and device conflicts seem to cause problems.
Some VFers these days seem to be recording on the VF and mixing on the PC.

I think the VF is simple and reliable.

Good luck

Orc