PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Ive been planning on buying an Ultra A16 but have just spotted the Fostex VC8, an 8 Channel Adat -> Analogue convertor.

The obvious difference between them will be that the fostex only does up to 48Khz and it will take up more space as it requires 2 units.

However, at about half the price it does seem worth considering. The fostex is £199 for 8 channels (%398 for 16) and the Ultra A16 is about £750.

Does anyone have experience of both? What is the impression on the A16, is the sound quality likely to be better?

Thanks

Well I must admit, I do tend to think the A16 Ultras are a tad pricey. I don't know anything about the Fostex units however so I can't really help.

But I do want to ask people in general - do you think the A16's are a bit overpriced?

Well initally they seemed quite good value.
If you compare them with the likes of MOTU who charge more for only 8 channels.

Even the likes of midiman charge about £500 here in the UK for 8 channels, so 2 x those is still £1000.

But if fostex are charging 200 for 8 channel adat convertors are they simply not particularly good convertors or are they just a good price because they dont directly compete directly with the midimans + MOTUs as they cannot be placed directly into a computer.

I think you could propably get one cheaper than £200, I've seen 2nd hand ones floating about for £130.
Also http://www.thomann.de do them for £160 new!
check it out.

Oh one other thing, apparently the bit depth is 20 bit, as appose to 24bit on a16ultra.

also be warned that the fostex takes RCA phono rather than jack plugs. I have one here and while it's tolerable, it's not exactly what I would call hi-fi.

It's not at all bad for the money though.

peace

would 20bit make any difference functionally?

or is just a case of 24bit might sound a bit better.

The bit difference depends on the quality
of the convertors themselves, A crap 24 bit will sound worse than a good 20 bit.
I wouldn't let the spec bother you too much, really you need to listen to it and compare.

While I was browsing sos readers ads I found this btw:
"Fostex VC-8 breakout box for ADAT lightpipe 8 ins and outs, word sync etc includes high quality lead set. 100ono Phone 0141-339-8289 or email gsinclair@btopenworld.com (Glasgow, Scotland) 31/03/02"

ah
well im planning on building a small, but pro quality home studio around a creamware SCOPE card, IO box(s), Mackie Mixer and Mackie Speakers. Ideally using balanced connections.

From your experience would you say the fostex would provide a clean signal or not?

sometimes saving money is not saving.you are going for a high end system? the cw converter is better sounding.you're gonna get what you paid for here.the fostex IS acceptable,tho....

A16 Ultra has a bunch of very nice features and beats many units on the price, check out the 8 channel MOTU interfaces for more money than the A16 Ultra... When comparing, be sure to note:

<li><i>Balanced 1/4" connectors</i>, not RCA.
<li>Wordclock I/O
<li>24bit converters, 96khz capable.
<li>Zlink(firewire) AND ADAT connectors.
<li>S/MUX capable for 96khz over ADAT cables (using twice as many ADAT cables, and with the additional S/MUX option)
<li>Future USB2 option to allow this converter to work without a card in your machine (or USB2 card only if your computer doesnt have one built in - many new motherboards DO)
<li>16 AD converters - AND - 16 DA converters
<li>A really nice "automute" function to avoid loud digital noises
<li>1U rackspace - some other units don't fit neatly in a rack - or take more space (this DOES give less room for on-unit metering, but gives you more channels in less space)
<li>A16 Ultra saves it's state - no clocking setup required after poweron like some units.

Personally I'm going for a 2xA16 Ultra setup to replace my mixer. These converters are <i>nice</i>... anyone compared them with Apogee or other 'highend (more expensive)' converters? What do you think?

On 2002-04-03 07:43, orbita wrote:
ah
well im planning on building a small, but pro quality home studio around a creamware SCOPE card, IO box(s), Mackie Mixer and Mackie Speakers. Ideally using balanced connections.

From your experience would you say the fostex would provide a clean signal or not?

the fostex is definitely not balanced, being RCA. The converters are a touch noisy, but I have seen noisier. I only keep mine as a general purpose i/o box for monitoring various inputs. Since I don't do much recording of live sources, the quality doesn't really bother me (the fostex inputs are usually muted or disconnected in the Pulsar environment until needed).

If I was doing serious tracking, I would get myself a decent converter, such as the A16 or the RME devices (which are extremely nice-sounding by all accounts).

You get what you pay for in this business... there are rarely good shortcuts to be found.

peace

Why stop with converters. Look on my website's studio photos on the bottom of the page...if you can scroll there, you won'd regret the visit. Those Fostex Mixers I bought are all ADAT capable, along with balanced inputs on the automated one. As I recall, these units and a 20 Gig HD Adat-based recorder were all under a grand.

http://yuppiemusic.biz

<FONT SIZE="2" FACE="VERDANA">
It's rigth that the first fostex uses 20 bit converters, but not the new ones uses 24 bit converters(I have one of both). I also have the Creamware A16 (old model) and A16 ultra...

Well, talking about the fostex's... Hmm, you get what you pay for. RCA's, no wordclock, and pretty bad converters.

I really like the sound of both A16 and A16 ultra. The old A16 has a quite anoying loud fan running all the time, but it sounds smooth and nice.

The A16 ultra is a big step up, talking features, but it doesn't sound so much better (in 44.1/16 bit).

If money is an issue, then you could be happy with the fostex, but don't expect pro-quality. (ok - though)

If money is not a problem you should really check out RME ADI-8 PRO or DS. Some peoble like it better than Apogee.
</FONT>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: thalamus on 2002-04-03 13:28 ]</font>

thanks all for your comments

i think ill be going for the A16, it seems like the best long term option

If I uncderstood things right, ADAT can only carry 16bits - no matter wich converters are connected being used. I am definitely looking forward to getting 24bit recording in Logic Gold (other people than me thinks the big wait for gold5 in only to make current users upgrade ) will make life easyer. After that, I will not even think of precompressing my tracks. Oh yes, I use a t.c.electronic triple-c compressor as a/d converter. I don't have much to compare with, but I can not get enough gain out of my DBX minipre to feed my Pulsar1 (without too much noise). The t.c. alows me to boost the last bit without adding too much noise.

Immanuel

You might be confusing the ealier ADAT tape machines which were 16 bit. The optical ADAT spec allows for 24 bit transfer. The limitation coming only from the equipment design. IE. with pulsar you can do 24bit over the optical ADAT ports.

everything from creamware are pricy compare to all others.
but the A16ultra do looks good, and the only i know whith 16in/out also up to 24/96 with creanware zlink, but who knows. diffferent people different taste.

To all creamware fighters #1 to #10 or whatever, resistences are futile and meaningless also wasting time.
_________________
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dxl on 2002-04-03 21:56 ]</font>

nonsense.YOU are receiving the meaning and the time was spent on you,so if it's a waste,you speak poorly of yourself.(i'm #3.1415926................................etc.)

rave on..........

p.s. nice picture.

A few things to mention:

I´m not saying anything is good or bad or something.. I have not auditioned the A16 or the Fostex, so I can´t comment on these..

-The fact that 16 channels of AD and DA are built into a single rack unit doesn´t have to mean something positive. In fact good converters need to have enough room for the analog part, although less means less interfearences... Secondly all modern converter chips do get very hot (180°) and therefore also need room. The powersupply must be superbly constructed and it´s not possible to have small powersupplies for high-end converters. So it´s really advisable to have external powersupplies. But even when the powersupply is external the converter needs to have a very well constructed analog signal path, which also has its weight... That´s the reason why some 2ch AD converters usually weigh about 2-6 pounds... So smaller doesn´t have to mean better. You will never find a really dynamic converter on a soundcard because it´s simply not possible to make them sound dynamic (powersupply which enhances the gain-structure). There always needs to be the right balance between smoothness and dynamic punch that a converter dilivers...


Regards,
Sunshine

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2002-04-04 01:54 ]</font>