Fostex FR2

[Worleybird]

I bought a Fostex FR2 excited to be recording upto 24 bit 192kHz...what a dissapointment! I don't know why you would waste your time...why record such a marginal digital conversion at such a high bit rate? I went out recording on the street with it, my wife listened to it and said, "uggh! something's wrong! I so didn't want to believe it was so...but yes, I think it sounds like a tin can! Too good to be true. What I use it for now is to capture the digital signal off of my new mytek 192 AD converter...but sadly there, the Fostex can only record a digital AES signal upto 96kHz...makes me wonder about whether or not Fostex is actually sampling at 192kHz? Don't know. What I do know though is thumbs up to the Mytek 192 AD converter. Awesome, and very portable.

[Kent]

Posts like this trouble me.

Not enough information is given to warrant the slagging off of the product. Sure, you can add the info later; but all the information pertaining to your front-end and back-end chains must be considered in order to make a credible case against a singular piece of equipment. This info should have been stated along with the rant. Including your methodology in capturing the signals.

There are a couple of reasons that I can immediately think of as to why the unit will only accept 96kHz on its AES input. Is there a sole AES input? If so, please do your research before you buy.

[Worleybird]

Originally Posted by Kent

Posts like this trouble me.

Not enough information is given to warrant the slagging off of the product. Sure, you can add the info later; but all the information pertaining to your front-end and back-end chains must be considered in order to make a credible case against a singular piece of equipment. This info should have been stated along with the rant. Including your methodology in capturing the signals.

There are a couple of reasons that I can immediately think of as to why the unit will only accept 96kHz on its AES input. Is there a sole AES input? If so, please do your research before you buy.

I thought it was obvious.

The signal chain was mic to the Fostex. ie.. I used the internal Fostex mic preamp and the internal Fostex AD converter and find that the recordings sound muddy. I don't mean to disturb you kent...just telling you an unhappy experience.

As for capturing AES input...I am glad that it does, because I can at least use this unit as a protable hard disk. I didn't buy it for this purpose, I bought it as a standalone unit.

[MIKEHARRIS]

if its performance disappoints you...wait till you experience Fostex service

[nkf]

Originally posted by Worleybird
I thought it was obvious.

The signal chain was mic to the Fostex. ie.. I used the internal Fostex mic preamp and the internal Fostex AD converter and find that the recordings sound muddy.

Recently I used my FR-2 and Neumann RSM 191 and found the recordings very good sounding and not muddy at all. I used it with 44.1 Khz and 24 bit.
What microphone did you use?

[Worleybird]

a neuman ku-100.

When I really noticed a big difference is when I compared it to recordings made with a Mytek 192ADC....recording SACD analog output through the Fostex, using the Fostex's internal AD converter and then comparing it to the same audio captured using the Mytek AD converter (same player, same CD...only difference was the AD converter).

This is obviously an unscientific study...it is just my own personal experience. The Fostex is a good value, for 1,200 or so you are getting a portable device that is your preamp, DA converter hard drive (compact flash), AD converter and captures at up to 24/192. Wow! and you hope that a $1,400, dedicated AD converter will do a better job of AD conversion than a $1,200 device that packs it all into one box. So, maybe it should be obvious, but I had such high expectations that, since the Fostex captured at 24/192, it therefore MUST give audiophile quality recordings and I could just purchase this one device and it will do everything. Maybe it is a little bit like, oh, that Kodak digital camera has 14 megapixels!!! then why do all of the professional photographers use the cannon that ONLY shoots at 11 megapixels, or even their 8 megapixel version? well, the canon's 11 or 8 megapixels are better than Kodak's 14 megapixels.

[faeflora]

I don't mean to be a poo, but have you tried using other pres? Maybe the converters are ok but the ppres are shiz.

[C.Lambrechts]

have to agree with Kent here on the aes thingy. single wire goes up to 96k .... 192k stereo would need 2 aes inputs to support dual wire.

[mr.gefell]

you can have the pre and the line-in /ad section upgraded on these units by doug oade.

doug@oade.com

[nkf]

Originally posted by Worleybird
Wow! and you hope that a $1,400, dedicated AD converter will do a better job of AD conversion than a $1,200 device that packs it all into one box. So, maybe it should be obvious, (...) Maybe it is a little bit like, oh, that Kodak digital camera has 14 megapixels!!! then why do all of the professional photographers use the cannon that ONLY shoots at 11 megapixels, or even their 8 megapixel version? well, the canon's 11 or 8 megapixels are better than Kodak's 14 megapixels.

I think you described the situation very well, I also would expect dedicated AD conversion better sounding than the internal one of an all-in-on-box.
Funny that you mentioned digital cameras ... my other work field (art) is photography and it's a good way of double usage of the big compact flash cards (e.g. Lexar 2GB). Have you also encountered that with the new firmware 1.06 for the FR-2 buffering while recording works much better and allows with more CF cards reliable recordings when using higher bit depths and sampling rates? Slower cards were unusable before when going higher than 44.1/16.

(Of course it's OT but ... concerning the Kodak ... I disagree. I have one (ProSLR/n) and I think the camera has higher resolution than the current Canons. The Canons are more suited for a faster workflow and are more rugged which is more important to many pros working for press)

[Worleybird]

I have the Kodak 14n - yes, the resolution is better, but I don't think the dynamic range is as good as the canons, especially in the shadows...and the green reproduction seems a little off. Ofcourse, nothing beats film.

I have had good luck my CF cards with the Fostex. I have used Transcend's 45x 512MB, a San Disk 2 GB regular card, and a San Disk Ultra II 2GB card. They all work well. I also have a new Lexar 4GB 80x card that seems to work well...I haven't really tested it that much though, and it is a little difficult to get into and out of the card slot/because it is so thick.