Mister Fostex vs Missus Zoom

[Krakit]

I posted a thread asking for comparisons of the Fostex MR-8 and the Zoom MRS-4. Here's a link:


MR-8 vs Zoom MRS-4 thread

Since I am getting more and more convinced that the Zoom is the way to go (over the beloved Fostex) I am asking for some examples, not discussed in the aforementioned thread, why I should go with the MR-8 instead.

Thanks,
Carl

 

[Axe4Yahweh]

Sorry Carl, I use the MR8s Big Brother.

However, I read your entire thread and wonder where you get the 3 Minute Recording time on an MR8? Also, the MR8 does have Virtual Tracks just like the MRS4. I know this because most new MR8 users always seem to have trouble getting rid of em.

There's a whole lot of tunes recorded with the MR8 here, ya ought to checkem out.

Everytime I think of converting a Laptop for recording on the go, I remember both the MR8 and MRS4. They are both cool lil machines.

CR ><>

 

[GT]

Good move Krakit,

Get all the information you can!!

I would like to ask a couple for ya.

What kind of onboard eq does the MR-8 have?

How good is the onboard guitar proccesor?

GT

 

[Krakit]

Well, there's nothing about virtual tracks in the Fostex manual. However, I did read through some of the threads that talked about using the "Undo" controls to get back old takes that have been recorded over. That dosen't sound very, stable to me. More of an idiosyncracy and not a designed feature. Can't say that it gives my any kind of warm fuzzy, particularly since most people seem to be manipulating them on their PCs and not at the unit itself.

As for the 3 minutes, I got that from Fostex's own website. They claim that the 128MB card that comes with the unit has only 3 minutes of approx track time if you use all 8 tracks.

Teeny Tiny.

Carl

 

[Krakit]

Another plus that I feel the MRS-4 has and the MR-8 does not is the inclusion of two AUX inputs. These inputs allow for my drum machine (by coincedence a Zoom RT 323) to be plugged in, controlle by the MIDI out of the MRS-4 and saves me another couple of tracks for drums during mixdown.

Also, I can imagine sending a loopback for internal mixdown and outboard effects (something a bit more high end than the onboard effects) for mastering.

Carl

 

[billisa]

Well, there's nothing about virtual tracks in the Fostex manual. However, I did read through some of the threads that talked about using the "Undo" controls to get back old takes that have been recorded over. That dosen't sound very, stable to me. More of an idiosyncracy and not a designed feature. Can't say that it gives my any kind of warm fuzzy, particularly since most people seem to be manipulating them on their PCs and not at the unit itself.

As for the 3 minutes, I got that from Fostex's own website. They claim that the 128MB card that comes with the unit has only 3 minutes of approx track time if you use all 8 tracks.

Teeny Tiny.

Carl

This sounds like one of those "I already bought a piece of equipment. Now let me try to justify it..." type of threads. While I don't happen to own an MR8, just the fact that it is an 8-track machine with 16bit uncompressed audio puts it in a different league than than any current 4 track.

 

[Krakit]

Well, I haven't bought anything yet.


I'm still trying to decide and unless I hear more pluses from the Fostex people, I'm going to get the Zoom.



Carl

 

[Axe4Yahweh]

I just went back and looked at the Zoom site. You get 17 mins of track time on that 32 Mb Card. That's all of 4.25 mins if all 4 Tracks are used. Say you used all 8 Virtual Takes on all 4 Tracks, that gives you about 30 seconds of recording time.

The Zoom uses a proprietary format that must be converted on computer to WAV. Format and vise versa. The MR8 uses standard 44.1/16bit .Wav Format thoughout the process.

Both of these machines are designed to use bounced tracks to increase space and both are designed to be used with computer.
The process of coverting the files on the Zoom to .WAV to get them into a recording program for mixing and/or editing then back to the Zoom format to go back on the Zoom seems to be a real negative to me. With the MR8, you can go to computer directly via USB with no file conversion.

What you need to figure out is what your needs are and how many tracks you need. Neither machine is supposed to be the be all and end all of Multitrack Recording. Both are designed to be used with a puter for optimum results. Both are bargain basement machines capable of amazing results. I haven't heard any of GT's recordings since he first got his MRS-4 up and running last year. The recording I did hear was good. I have heard the results here of the MR8 and they are good too.

One thing for sure, you won't find a Zoom Forum here when ya have questions about it.

CR ><>

 

[Krakit]

Well cash is tight, so it's either the MR-8 or the Zoom.

However, I don't intend to use the 32MB card that comes with the Zoom. I can get a 128MB card for the Zoom for only $20.

That will give me skads of recording time for only $20.

To get a comprable amount of recording time on the MR-8 I would have to spend as much or more than either machine costs in total.

Carl

 

[Krakit]

The lack of a Zoom forum IS disconcerting. However, I have noticed a grass roots movement to get a Zoom forum established here.

I have already taken the liberty of joining both the MR8 and Zoom MRS-4 forums on Yahoo groups.

Part of the research process

Carl

 

[Krakit]

Hey, GT!

How long do the file conversions take on the Zoom?

I'm willing to invest a bit of time on my part to save some coin, but if it takes quite a while, I could get frustrated and not happy!

Carl

 

[GT]

Re: Hey, GT!

How long do the file conversions take on the Zoom?

I'm willing to invest a bit of time on my part to save some coin, but if it takes quite a while, I could get frustrated and not happy!

Carl

Hey Carl,

First off the Zoom uses 32/16 bit, instead of the standard 44.1/16 bit. Like I said before this is a trade off that buys you more recording time per memory card.

To download into computer you use Zooms free Card Manager software.

When you upload into the computer the file stays at 32/16bit, no file conversion takes place, this also saves space on your hard drive. It can then be mp3'd as is.

File conversion will take place when you burn to cd with Windows Media, for a three minute song, this takes about ten seconds or so, and is done automatically during copy to cd mode, very easy.

GT

 

[Krakit]

Re: Re: Hey, GT!

Hey Carl,

First off the Zoom uses 32/16 bit, instead of the standard 44.1/16 bit. Like I said before this is a trade off that buys you more recording time per memory card.

To download into computer you use Zooms free Card Manager software.

When you upload into the computer the file stays at 32/16bit, no file conversion takes place, this also saves space on your hard drive. It can then be mp3'd as is.

File conversion will take place when you burn to cd with Windows Media, for a three minute song, this takes about ten seconds or so, and is done automatically during copy to cd mode, very easy.

GT

Thanks for the quick reply GT. Guess you don't sleep much either.

Well, Zoom is still the front runner with me.

I'm really disapointed that there hasn't been more campaigning for the Fostex, which I am sure is a fine machine.



Tick Tock Tick Tock, can't hold back forever, gotta buy something soon!

Carl

 

[billisa]

Re: Re: Re: Hey, GT!

Thanks for the quick reply GT. Guess you don't sleep much either.

Well, Zoom is still the front runner with me.

I'm really disapointed that there hasn't been more campaigning for the Fostex, which I am sure is a fine machine.
Carl

People here really seem more interested in making great sound than in becoming reps for a particular piece of gear. If the data compressed sound isn't an issue, why not just get the Zoom?

 

[Krakit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, GT!

People here really seem more interested in making great sound than in becoming reps for a particular piece of gear. If the data compressed sound isn't an issue, why not just get the Zoom?

Well, I had hoped that people with experience with the two products that I am looking at might be kind enough to share their experiences with it before I spend cash on it.

GT was nice enough to help me out in terms of the Zoom and it's capabilities, seems that no MR-8 owners have come forward to expound the virtues of the Fostex.

I'm just looking to get something I'll be happy with. I'm not trying to waste everyone else's time.

As it stands, I think I'll make my mind up this afternoon.

Carl

 

[Axe4Yahweh]

I guess all the MR8 users are either making music or on vacation. This place is usually crawling with em. LOL

CR ><>

 

[Krakit]

It's all academic now anyway. I put down the cash for the MRS-4 this afternoon (as threatened) .

When it arrives by UPS, I'll let you know how tickled I am.

Carl

 

[dave in toledo]

mr 8

while i have no experience with the zoom, i am very happy with the mr8, very user friendly and great sound. I have not read any negative comments on the mr 8 other then recording time, and thats not an issue anymore with the new bigger cards and all the pc use. I love it and am very happy with my purchase......

 

[GT]

It's all academic now anyway. I put down the cash for the MRS-4 this afternoon (as threatened) .

When it arrives by UPS, I'll let you know how tickled I am.

Carl

LOL!!!

This thread took a turn for the funny.

Carl, I hope you learned your lesson, never mess with the Fostex people, they're too busy making music.

Zoom people ROCK, and or roll!!

Have a great time with your new toy. If you have any more questions when you get it, I'll be glad to help. Sorry about that billisa.

GT

 

[mrx]

It's all academic now anyway. I put down the cash for the MRS-4 this afternoon (as threatened) .

When it arrives by UPS, I'll let you know how tickled I am.

Carl

Too bad more MR8 users weren't around this weekend. I just your posts.

The proprietary file format is reason enough stay away from the Zoom - if you are going to be working with a PC. You'll notice that many MR-8 users still use the original card. It's so easy to record tracks, drag/drop into an app like n-Track, transfer a stereo mix back, record more tracks, etc., that you can create tunes with unlimited tracks, so the time limititation is really a very minor issue. As for the undocumented 'virtual tracks' - same thing, they're on the card if you need them transfered to a PC for mixing.

All of the units that use compression to save space (Zoom, Korg, Tascam, Boss) can have issues as the number of recorded tracks increases. All of these schemes work by removing frequencies that the ear wouldn't normally "hear". That's fine for ripping a CD, where the mix won't change, but if you record a guitar track, the compression may remove frequencies that would be critical if played along a second guitar track. The gist of it all is that machines that compress the audio tend to sound "muddy" as more tracks are recorded, and bouncing just makes the problem worse.

True, the MR-8 essentially has no effects, but again, used with a computer it doesn't matter. As much as I personally didn't care for the Tascam PS-05, if you're looking for a cheap, all-in-one 4 track, that might be a better choice than the Zoom since it can play MIDI files, create MP3's, has built in backing style tracks that can be programmed into songs, and some pretty good vocal and guitar effects.

It all depends on if you're going to work with a computer or stand- alone.