Zoom MRS-4 vs. Fostex MR-8

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krakit
  • Start date Start date
Krakit

Krakit

Rzzzzz!
Ok, here's the deal. I'm comparing both of these supposedly non comprable units.

I think that they are actually very similar indeed and that since the MR-8 can only record 2 tracks at a time (just like the MRS-4) that they are indeed very alike.

The things that it seems the MR-8 has over the MRS-4 seem pretty obvious.

7 physical faders
Higher resolution
USB port
supposedly unlimted media expandability
balanced mic inputs
tons of onboard tweakers
included 128MB FC and AC adapter.

What does the MRS-4 seem to have over the MR-8?
Tons of affordability. Affordability, not in the form of retail price, but in recordable media.

My understanding about the MR-8 (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that with the included 128MB FC, you get about 3 real minutes of recording time. That is really tight, if you asked me, for such an expensive media. The MRS-4 uses SmartMedia cards, the 128MB variety can be had for around $20. Furthermore, I am informed that you get more than just a mere 3 minutes of recording time on the included 32MB Smart card than the MR-8 gets out of the 128MB FC. I am assured that buying a 128MB Smartcard and USB reader would keep me very content record time wise.

I also found an online retailer that will sell the MRS-4 AC adapter for $5 with the purchase of the MRS-4 itself (at $219).

Now, I know that I would also have to buy a Smartcard reader (about $10 more) for a grand total of $255 for the whole package. Still less than the lowest price ($279) that I have seen the Fostex go for.

Still, am I really better off? I don't know. I've heard both units demonstrated as mp3's, but mp3's are really no way to judge.

I also understand that the onboard effects on the MRS-4 are superior to the Fostex, but again, I haven't been able to judge this first hand, so I only have hearsay on that score.

I am selling a lot of gear just to get by right now, but I would like to have something to record on!

After several successful eBay auctions I could easily afford either the MR-8 or the MRS-4 (with tons left over for food and toilet paper):cool:

I can already hear the resounding "get the Fostex, you fool!", but before you admonish me off the bat, consider this. 3 minutes is not even close to long enough a recording time for me to be happy. I would certainly have to get a larger FC which would cost me hundreds of dollars more. So, tell me, is it really worth it?

Perhaps I have bad information and my facts need revising, please let me know if that is the case. I want to get something soon as I have sold everything else that I use to make recordings and want to keep making music no matter how poor I get.

I am sure that overall the Fostex is the better unit, but at my financial lever I can't rationalize the added expense of 512MB or 1GIG Flash Cards.

Thanks,
Carl
 
First, please post a link where I can buy 128mb Smart Media cards for $20, please.
Second, I frankly prefer the Korg PXR4 to either of the above units. Why? It also records 2 tracks at a time, once you figure out how. It uses Smart Media also, and will give you 90 track minutes on one card in high resolution. It has a USB port. It comes with the wall wart included, but will also track for hours on a pair of AA rechargeables. It has a drum machine and a tuner, and a rather high quality built-in electret condenser mic. No kidding, you'd be amazed at the quality that mic can deliver.
Most imprtantly, it fits in my guitar case. It does amp modeling and 'verbs, has a metronome, and is now down to $300. Because it's small, no one took it seriously. But that's why it's so cool. Because it's small, it's actually there when I need it.-Richie
 
Thanks, Krakit. The price on 128mb SM cards has been coming down because the 256mb SM card is coming out soon, and the Korg people say the Pandora will support it.
Just a note, if you want to record 2 tracks at a time on the PXR4, you can only do it through a 1/8" miniplug stereo input. For remote recording this works very well with a Sony stereo one point mic that runs on batteries. For more versatility, I use a DMP3 for the front end, so I can plug any mics I want into the DMP3. I got the Pandora as a toy, but it has turned out to be a tool, and a very good one.-Richie
 
I just did a little research, and well, it looks nice and all, but not for me.

As a keyboard player I really need two 1/4" phono inputs at a minimum. Also, both the Fostex and the Zoom have a midi port for my drum machine. The Korg does not.

It looks lovely, do not get me wrong, but I'm going to have to choose between the beasts that I have already dumped into the arena.

Carl
 
I understand very well, Krakit. I think the Pandora is biased towards guitar payers by design. I wouldn't know what to do with 2 1/4" jacks, or for that matter, midi. The 1/4" jacks aren't a problem. Just send them to a Y-connector with 2 female 1/4" jacks to 1 stereo miniplug and go to the stereo line in. Midi is another matter, the Pandora doesn't do that.-Richie
 
In my experience, once you introduce adapters into the equation, you introduce poor sound quality.

I don't know if that holds true for passive electronic instruments like a guitar, but it sure does with active stuff like keyboards.

Carl
 
Well I'm no technogeek, but this BBS has plenty of those. Adapters are usually of pretty low quality, that's why we have soldering irons. I delieve that introducing one (high quality) adapter into a short signal chain will have a negligible effect on the signal. And many guitars have active electronics, from my Taylor to a Parker Fky, both of which I've recorded with the Pandora. But it still won't do midi.-Richie
 
Richard Monroe said:
Well I'm no technogeek, but this BBS has plenty of those. Adapters are usually of pretty low quality, that's why we have soldering irons. I delieve that introducing one (high quality) adapter into a short signal chain will have a negligible effect on the signal. And many guitars have active electronics, from my Taylor to a Parker Fky, both of which I've recorded with the Pandora. But it still won't do midi.-Richie
Click to expand...

Still, we are talking stereo outputs from my keyboards. I would hate to introduce any eratic impedence factors in one channel or the other.

Carl
 
Ok, last night I downloaded and read the entire manual for the MRS-4.

My biggest qualms about this unit are pretty minor. Things like not having a physical pan pot and using a virtual pan from the LCD menu. :rolleyes:

Today, I will download (and print the over 100 pages) of the Fostex manual.

Here is the deal in a nutshell.

Can anyone tell me how I could squeeze more time out of the Fostex by making sacrifices? I don't just mean by recording at a lower resolution (although I would do that, but I read on Harmony central that you can't transfer lower res files to the PC as wavs), but things like restricting myself to only 4 tracks. I'm guessing that I could double the song length if I do that, yes?

Or maybe some glimmer of hope that Flash Cards will similarly drop in price like the Smart Media cards have just done?

My only point of contention so far is the time limitation on the Fostex, otherwise, it would be a no brainer. Fostex for sure.

I don't mind being a frugal ping pong bouncer for a few months until I can afford to buy a larger capacity Flash. IF I CAN BE SURE THAT DURING THOSE FEW MONTHS I WILL GET MORE THAN 3 MINUTES OF USEFUL RECORDING ON WHAT FOSTEX GIVES ME!

Carl
 
22.1 KHZ, that is the low resolution on the MR-8.

Granted the high resolution on the MRS-8 is only 32 (low 16), but that's still better than 22.1.

Plus, the Zoom has 8 virtual takes per track while the Fostex, appears to have none. At least I haven't discovered any in the documentation yet.

So, that's two more points for the Zoom.

I've got to tell you, I'm leaning Zoom-ward and I really want to hear reasons that put the Fostex back on top.

Carl
 
Hey Krakit,

I have a MRS-4, and will be happy to answer any and all questions, I don't have the Fostex, so I won't pretend that it is better or worse.

I printed this thread out, for convenience.

On printed page:

1. MR-8 over MRS-4, everthing you mentioned is correct, but I think with either machine, you will most likely end up using a card reader, unless you keep the recorder permanantly pluged into a computer, as unhooking wires is a bitch.

Much easier to just unplug the smart card.

2. If you do what I do, one song at a time, and then dump to computer, a 64MB card should do fine. That should be relatively cheap. The 32 MB card is mighty slim on time.

The MRS-4 will get better MB milage the the MR-8, due to lower resolution. I personally think the Zoom made a very acceptable trade off in this area. It sounds pretty damn good to me.

Which ever one you buy, I think you will still end up using your computer for storage.

3. There is only ONE usable onboard guitar effect on the Zoom, that would be chorus You WILL need a guitar proccesor. I never use my Zoom for guitar proccesing. There is no distortion, at all.

4. The Zoom does have a decent amount of reverb choices, not too bad.

5. Something the Zoom has that I wouldn't want to live without, is the parametric EQ, it allows you to pick one specific frequency for high, and one for low. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INVALUABLE. This may be where the Zoom beats the Fostex. I don't know. Let me know.

If you have any more questions about the MRS-4, I would be happy to help.

GT
 
Thanks GT.

I'm reading through the manual for the Fostex right now and I'm still leaning toward the Zoom.

It does suck that there are no physical controls for Pan, but I supposed that I can live with that.

However, can you do active panning with the Zoom? What I mean is can you travel from left to right and back again in real time (or even as a programed thing) on the Zoom? I like to do this sort of thing a lot and would miss it if I couldn't do it anymore.

Carl
 
Krakit said:
Thanks GT.

I'm reading through the manual for the Fostex right now and I'm still leaning toward the Zoom.

It does suck that there are no physical controls for Pan, but I supposed that I can live with that.

However, can you do active panning with the Zoom? What I mean is can you travel from left to right and back again in real time (or even as a programed thing) on the Zoom? I like to do this sort of thing a lot and would miss it if I couldn't do it anymore.

Carl
Click to expand...

Carl,

Just went into my studio, you can pan from center to dead right, or left in ten seconds flat. This can be done in real time.

Also a correction, EQ is not parametric. You can choose one frequency in the treble end, choices are: 8K, 6K, 4K, 2K, 1K, 800, and 500 cycles.

In the bass end, choices are: 2K, 1K, 800, 500, 250, 125, and 63 cycles.

EQ, more than anything else, is what would sell me one over the other, that and decent reverb. Just my 2cents.

GT
 
10 seconds is a really long time in musical terms and that's from dead center to hard right/left? That means 20 seconds from hard right/left to hard left/right. :(

Is there a way to program pan sweeps? Something a little faster?

If there were a MIDI input I could attach a controller, hmmmm to bad.

I don't remember reading about assigning the faders to anything in the manual, but I wasn't really looking for that my first pass.

It would be great if you could assign effect sends or stereo pans to a fader.

Carl
 
Krakit said:
10 seconds is a really long time in musical terms and that's from dead center to hard right/left? That means 20 seconds from hard right/left to hard left/right. :(

Is there a way to program pan sweeps? Something a little faster?

If there were a MIDI input I could attach a controller, hmmmm to bad.

I don't remember reading about assigning the faders to anything in the manual, but I wasn't really looking for that my first pass.

It would be great if you could assign effect sends or stereo pans to a fader.

Carl
Click to expand...

Carl,

20 seconds from hard left to right is correct.

There is no way to program pan sweeps.

I usually pick a pan point and leave it there, never got into pan sweeps, so for me pan speed was never an issue.

The only thing I can think of that would acheive this on the Zoom, would be to record a part to two mono channels one panned hard left, and one hard right, at the same time.

Then during a bounce to stereo, you could manually manipulate the two mono sliders up and down, to achieve any pan speed you would like, yes?

Are you looking for the old Jimi Hendrix type of panning fx? Interesting!!

GT
 
Well, I've used such gimicks in the past. I have one piece of music that I do pan swaps a lot in called Atomic Robot.

I just happen to dig that effect, especially in headphones.

Oh well, I suppose there's a way around everything if you look hard enough.

Still waiting to hear what the Fostex fans think about this discussion.

:D

Carl
 
Krakit said:
Well, I've used such gimicks in the past. I have one piece of music that I do pan swaps a lot in called Atomic Robot.

I just happen to dig that effect, especially in headphones.

Oh well, I suppose there's a way around everything if you look hard enough.

Still waiting to hear what the Fostex fans think about this discussion.

:D

Carl
Click to expand...

Hey Carl,

You peaked my interest, so I tried recording a single guitar part to two mono channels panned hard left, and right.

Then during playback, moved the two sliders up and down, worked great, this might even be a better effect than a single pan control, actually sounded more human, if you know what I mean, less dead pan, if you will excuse the pun.

On the down side you have to use two channels, instead of one.

Very cool effect, you made me try something new!!

GT
 
You're welcome GT.

I'm still waiting to hear from the Fostex enthusiasts.

I can't wait forever and the Zoom is the front runner right now.


Someone please provide arguments in favor of the Fostex MR-8 or I will have to conclude that the Zoom MRS-4 IS the better machine and make my purchase accordingly.

:D

Carl
 
Krakit said:
You're welcome GT.

I'm still waiting to hear from the Fostex enthusiasts.

I can't wait forever and the Zoom is the front runner right now.


Someone please provide arguments in favor of the Fostex MR-8 or I will have to conclude that the Zoom MRS-4 IS the better machine and make my purchase accordingly.

:D

Carl
Click to expand...

Carl,

Why not take your query to the Fostex forum, I'd love to hear what they have to say about the MR-8.

I'll follow you in!!

GT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top