I'm looking at getting an MR8 mkII as a songwriting scratch-pad. It seems to have the features I want for that purpose. I know of a few people that don't particularly care for them, but I'm just wondering if its mostly the feature limitations people have an issue with or if there are bigger problems with reliability and/or sound quality. So, before I take the plunge, tell me what sucks about the MR8 (either mkII or the original).
What sucks about the MR8?
- Thread starter nkjanssen
- Start date
...
this is all for the mr-8:
-the effects aren't that hot, but ya know, I did use the verb a little and if used sparingly it'll work OK.
-the amp simulations are useless, unless I'm doing something wrong; who doesn't have a modeller or mic an amp anyway?
-if you get the MR-8 and it's got the 128 card, you immediately need to get a bigger card to bump up the time to a useable amount for a song; depending on the length of your songs, you may have to drop a little bit on the card. I get by with a 256 I think it is. Cost me like 10-15 bucks if I recall off ebay. But my songs are shorter than 5-6 minutes anyway.
-you need to live with the fact that you'll have to be good (or at least not mind) bouncing down tracks to free up more tracks. it basically stems from the fact that tracks 5/6 and 7/8 are tied together and once stuff ends up there, you don't have control over the panning and effects.
-it's harder than computer-based recording in that you don't have the nice little wave readout graph thingy where you can automatically go in there and slice and dice.
this is all for the mr-8:
-the effects aren't that hot, but ya know, I did use the verb a little and if used sparingly it'll work OK.
-the amp simulations are useless, unless I'm doing something wrong; who doesn't have a modeller or mic an amp anyway?
-if you get the MR-8 and it's got the 128 card, you immediately need to get a bigger card to bump up the time to a useable amount for a song; depending on the length of your songs, you may have to drop a little bit on the card. I get by with a 256 I think it is. Cost me like 10-15 bucks if I recall off ebay. But my songs are shorter than 5-6 minutes anyway.
-you need to live with the fact that you'll have to be good (or at least not mind) bouncing down tracks to free up more tracks. it basically stems from the fact that tracks 5/6 and 7/8 are tied together and once stuff ends up there, you don't have control over the panning and effects.
-it's harder than computer-based recording in that you don't have the nice little wave readout graph thingy where you can automatically go in there and slice and dice.
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
You can overcome all of that by taking the tracks to pc via USB.GreenDank said:
You will also have to go to the Fostex website and download the updates in order to fix the bugs in the system.
The biggest issue that I have with it is that the pre amps are sorry. You will need an outboard pre or a mixer to overcome this.
treymonfauntre
Magic Bag Of Sounds
my problems:
- came with a memory card that could record 24 total minutes. totally useless even recording stereo tracks
- no phantom power
- shitty pres
- if anybody were to try to mix in this box they would be a FOOL, even the p;dest version of windows could "master" better than the mr8
- 2 inputs at once is stupid for a piece of hardware that boasts itself on having 8 tracks. sorry, but newbies see 8 tracks and assume they can do 8 tracks at once!
- came with a memory card that could record 24 total minutes. totally useless even recording stereo tracks
- no phantom power
- shitty pres
- if anybody were to try to mix in this box they would be a FOOL, even the p;dest version of windows could "master" better than the mr8
- 2 inputs at once is stupid for a piece of hardware that boasts itself on having 8 tracks. sorry, but newbies see 8 tracks and assume they can do 8 tracks at once!
...
I dunno guys. For mixing, I don't see how you're using your computers with great results. Are you guys doing the set-it-and-forget it method and then dumping that mix down to a WAV premaster? I need to tweak the levels as it's being mixed down, and the MR-8 can do that both internally and if you send the signal out to the computer during mixdown (assuming you're recording it on the computer at that point).
I just don't like setting one level for each thing in the computer and then just pressing a button saying "OK capture everything at the level set." I need to be able to fade down say a vocal part here, maybe I want the bass to stand out there, etc. How do you guys do that in a program like Cubase during mixdown?
I dunno guys. For mixing, I don't see how you're using your computers with great results. Are you guys doing the set-it-and-forget it method and then dumping that mix down to a WAV premaster? I need to tweak the levels as it's being mixed down, and the MR-8 can do that both internally and if you send the signal out to the computer during mixdown (assuming you're recording it on the computer at that point).
I just don't like setting one level for each thing in the computer and then just pressing a button saying "OK capture everything at the level set." I need to be able to fade down say a vocal part here, maybe I want the bass to stand out there, etc. How do you guys do that in a program like Cubase during mixdown?
So, what I'm hearing is:
1. Effects are somewhere between barely useable and terrible. Fine by me. Wouldn't use them anyway, other than maybe a bit of 'verb.
2. Amp and mic simulations are useless. Fine by me. Wouldn't use them at all.
3. Need more memory. Check!
4. Only 2 inputs. No problem here. Only need 2 for my purposes.
5. Not a lot of tracks. No problem here. Wouldn't need more than 4 tops for my purposes.
6. No phantom. That's an issue with the original, but is solved on the mkII.
7. Preamps suck. If they're really noisy, that may be an issue. If they are moderately workable, though, then it's not a concern. I don't mind if the sound is somewhat veiled and if they don't have much headroom or handle transients well (which is the case with most cheap pre's). I can work around that. If they are hissy, though, that may create problems.
In sum, it seems that the mkII would probably work for me as a songwriting scratchpad, as long as I factor in the cost of a bigger memory card. And as long as the pres aren't really noisy. Can anyone comment on that last point?
1. Effects are somewhere between barely useable and terrible. Fine by me. Wouldn't use them anyway, other than maybe a bit of 'verb.
2. Amp and mic simulations are useless. Fine by me. Wouldn't use them at all.
3. Need more memory. Check!
4. Only 2 inputs. No problem here. Only need 2 for my purposes.
5. Not a lot of tracks. No problem here. Wouldn't need more than 4 tops for my purposes.
6. No phantom. That's an issue with the original, but is solved on the mkII.
7. Preamps suck. If they're really noisy, that may be an issue. If they are moderately workable, though, then it's not a concern. I don't mind if the sound is somewhat veiled and if they don't have much headroom or handle transients well (which is the case with most cheap pre's). I can work around that. If they are hissy, though, that may create problems.
In sum, it seems that the mkII would probably work for me as a songwriting scratchpad, as long as I factor in the cost of a bigger memory card. And as long as the pres aren't really noisy. Can anyone comment on that last point?
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
You take the tracks pre-bounce (so that you have individual waves, not a stereo mixed track) and use software (like audition, ntrack, etc) and mix the tracks in software.GreenDank said:
You can mix on the MR-8, but you can't really tweek it, have no control over effects or eq, and the overall results aren't that great.
treymonfauntre
Magic Bag Of Sounds
GreenDank said:
automation
i'm really surprised you're saying mixing in the mr8 is easier than mixing in software.
treymonfauntre said:
What could be easier than moving a slider up and down as the song is playing? Granted, I've never used automation during my computer recording, although from what I'm imagining it involving is me having to find the times at which I would want to raise and lower volume sliders and then I'd have to test it out, tweak it to fine tune it, and click with my mouse about 100 times to achieve the result of me taking my hand and moving a slider up and down on the mr-8 while the song is playing. I can see how automation would be a VERY useful thing, but after about 1,000 mouse clicks involved in computer recording, editing, mastering, mixing, etc. I get to the point where I'm ready to throw my mouse out the window.
Now for effects and EQ and such, I end up just adding those to the WAV files in my computer, re-saving those WAvs, and sending them back to the unit.
So I guess it comes down to my subborness to really learn my computer recording programs inside and out by reading the manual for Cubase (which is about as fun to me as cracking open a book on physics), my developing hatred for mouse-clicking (since I do it all day at work), as well as me wanting to "keep it real" by manually moving sliders.
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
I think what you really want is a 24 or 36 channel mixing board and a DAW.GreenDank said:
I tried doing it all in the MR-8 when I first got it, and the first thing I noticed is that the maximum track count I could get out of it was 14. Most of the stuff I am doing right now has a 20-30 track count.
So I will record to the MR-8, and take all the tracks to pc. I will bounce down the basic rhythm tracks to free up space, then continue to record to the MR-8, each time taking the tracks to pc. I am much happier with the results I get. I did a comparison with using mixing software vs. doing it all on the MR-8. The MR-8 didn't come close. Yeah, a mouse pales in comparison to real faders, but the results speak for themselves.
ziisus...
you guys are really burning tracks.. are you recording an orchestra of some sort?
I've got mr8hd, lazy as I am I never want to fiddle with pc in middle of recording, so 8 tracks have been enough. Usually 2xrhythm guitar a bass and sometimes a solotrack.. drums from pc. But to our band demos the drums were recorded with mr8hd on 4 tracks, so, they could be bounced to 5-6 and do rest, then bounce the lot to 7-8 and convert to a stereo wav.. if wanted to take the easy way...
The mr8hd was a bitch before updated the software, crashing from time to time. Even after updates it hascrashed once in middle of usb-transfer, and lost a whole song from the hd. But the hd gives ya 127 hours of recording time, easily a dozen songs..
Not very strongly built either, llready has contact-issues on the xlr-terminals and so on, but as a scratch-pad somewhat usable.
you guys are really burning tracks.. are you recording an orchestra of some sort?
I've got mr8hd, lazy as I am I never want to fiddle with pc in middle of recording, so 8 tracks have been enough. Usually 2xrhythm guitar a bass and sometimes a solotrack.. drums from pc. But to our band demos the drums were recorded with mr8hd on 4 tracks, so, they could be bounced to 5-6 and do rest, then bounce the lot to 7-8 and convert to a stereo wav.. if wanted to take the easy way...
The mr8hd was a bitch before updated the software, crashing from time to time. Even after updates it hascrashed once in middle of usb-transfer, and lost a whole song from the hd. But the hd gives ya 127 hours of recording time, easily a dozen songs..
Not very strongly built either, llready has contact-issues on the xlr-terminals and so on, but as a scratch-pad somewhat usable.
wilko
Marking my territory
GreenDank said:
I used to do it your way but I kept getting frustrated by lack of decent eq on the MR8. Now I record to the highedt levels on the mr8 (not clipping) and then mix it on ntracks.
As I used to mix everything on the MR8 and often I used more than 8 tracks I was continually bouncing back and forth to the MR8 and I tended to use the memory up untill the card was full.
Now as I mix on the pc I find the results much better.
I do like the MR8 and I have no intention of replacing it...!
daav
Flailing up a storm.
1. Pres are useless.
2 16 bit is a challenge for dynamics.
3. effects blow chunks
4 buttons got tricky sometimes .
5 needed to buy outboard mixer or preamps, and extra memory card to use effectively.
I just dumped everything to PC.
Good stuff - 2 headphones jacks was nice. price was right for me getting started.
Baslically boils down to "it was a great intro to recording, but to do anything remotely "serious" (not pro, just clear recording with some real mixing and effects) required buying a bunch of extra gear and the same learning curve as if i were tracking directly to the DAW in the first place."
I would reccomend it for a scratch pad for ideas, but not to make real recordings.
Daav
2 16 bit is a challenge for dynamics.
3. effects blow chunks
4 buttons got tricky sometimes .
5 needed to buy outboard mixer or preamps, and extra memory card to use effectively.
I just dumped everything to PC.
Good stuff - 2 headphones jacks was nice. price was right for me getting started.
Baslically boils down to "it was a great intro to recording, but to do anything remotely "serious" (not pro, just clear recording with some real mixing and effects) required buying a bunch of extra gear and the same learning curve as if i were tracking directly to the DAW in the first place."
I would reccomend it for a scratch pad for ideas, but not to make real recordings.
Daav