Tascam MX2424-SERIAL NUMBERS

DeeCeeMonterey

New member
Hi all, and hey Alan, the guy who helped me out quite a bit last visit.

Anybody know how the serial numbers on the Tascam MX2424 Recorders translate?

My guess is that they are fairly logical, lower numbers = earlier production date, but that's often not the case
with equipment.

I have a few... They are:
001805
002703
004931

I am also curious about one analogue card on one of them:
Model IF AN24 (the only model for that unit)
Serial number 1310
(That card is in the recorder, with S/N 001805,
pretty sure they shipped together)

I was told that the earlier MX2424 units are more desirable. Is this because the analogue cards were better, or does
anyone know? Thanks, Dan
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, Where did I just answer this? oh here https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...ternatives-alesis-hd24-mackie-sdr24-328972/2/


Anyway here it is again LOL

Don't know about the serial numbers, but I would think that the low numbers are first made.

I have not heard anything about the analog cards being different and I have two and they seem the same, however the early machines did not have as good a power supply as the later machines unless that was retrofitted under warranty. There were power supply problems in the early days. Also all the early machines only had 128mb of ram fitted from the factory where the later had 256mb required to run the later operating system. Tascam did however supply the ram upgrade for free so most would have been up dated.

The only change to the analog card that I know of was when they released the card for the X-48, they had to rework the layout to fit 2 in the machine, I would reckon that the cards electrically are the same.

Alan.
 
Thanks Alan! I really appreciate the input ..pun intended.
So, here's a bit more, if you're interestd to lend your opinion; I'm assembling the best parts from three machines, to build an MX2424 that is all around wonderful.

I took an analogue card from one MX machine, placed it into my very low-use, exc cond MX machine.
Picked up a Lightpipe card, new in box, sealed, $74, so I'm doing good as far as Analogue and Dig ins/outs, and everything is up and running nicely.

The target machine (the unit I will keep) is an early Version 1.10 but I have 3.05 (and a 3.10) TL Media card upgrade, loaded from the the 'donor' units.

For my current recording project, (soon to begin) I am syncing the MX2424 via MIDI to a Fostex D824 (a 24 bit capable 8tk unit) This way, I can haul the Fostex around w/ a small A&H mixer, and a set of AKG h.phones, in order to "bring the basic tracks to the artists" for over-dubbing, and for mixing at home later after flying the new tracks in to the MX via Lightpipe, syncing via MIDI.

The MIDI (mtc/mmc) is working, however; the Fostex IS equipped w/word clock in/out.

Should I go with word? The way I understand it, word clock is more appropriate for sample rate/digital word syncing, not so much meant for machine sync. Am I on the right track?..Should I just stay w/ the MIDI, or give word clock a try in this case?

And do u think I should install the 3.05 version? I can use one of the two 256 memory sticks as well, for which I could swap out the existing 128 stick.. But I do not plan on employing Viewnet software anytime soon, if ever, so the extra memory and newer version may not be necessary, unless of course it's nicer for the MIDI functions.

I've always followed the reliable way of thinking; 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' But I thought I'd see what you thought. Thanks so much, oh, and I really like your studio website. Thanks again, Dan, Monterey CA
 
If you are syncing via midi, I don't think you need the word clock synced (I stand to be corrected). However if you get any digital glitches showing up maybe connect it up to see if the problem goes away. I understand that word clock is required when you record through one digital device into another digital device, when I started using the MX I was still running tape as well, I used to sync the MX to the tape machine via smpte, the MX used its own internal word clock as the tape machine can't generate one of course. There was not digital glitch problems, syncing the mx and the fostex via midi is the same principle.

I would install the latest version of the MX operating system. I would also install the 254 mb of ram, stops out of ram messages turning up in the middle of a long recording.

I have never used view-net however I use mx-view all the time and recommend using it. Again latest version.

I don't quite understand why you are using the fostex, why not just use the mx as they were designed to be racked up for live shows and mobile recording. You could get 2 machines running and sync 2 mx's very easily as they sync via a TL bus completely sample locked, best sync you can get. MX-View can even display both machines 48 tracks, you can sync up to 12 mx's via the TL bus.

Thanks for the nice comments about the studio.

Alan.
 
Hi Alan, and thanks, that input is very helpful. Since I am going Lightpipe, and that's digital audio, I will throw the wordclock in the hat and see how it goes, with some test recording. (I was thinking it was "either or", well, it actually MAY be either or in this situation...but I'll use both word and midi in a few test runs and see what happens)
Yes, you have a great point about syncing the two MX's however.. My reasoning was that the Fostex is smaller, lighter and I won't be too concerned if I bang it around...and it does have outstanding converters (maybe better than the MX) Also, I don't keep the Fostex racked, rather it sits atop the rack, easily accessed. Eventually I will likely rack one more MX.

I'll upgrade the one daily use machine, as u mention, to 3.05 or 3.10, and 256mhz, makes sense, thanks for that insight Thanks so much, really appreciate that you're willing to take time on this stuff. ..oh, maybe i meant mx view, whichever the the computer program is, i may not employ it. I like working w/just hardware, and I will not likely need the more advanced editing, ect.

(SO pleased that the Tascam has varispeed and also that it allows me to route inputs 1-8 to all three track blocks)
Mackie left that out on their HDR2496 and they ALSO left out the basic pitch control. .. I bought one, assuming those functions would be onboard. I let go of the Mackie for those two reasons, and also for the fact that the fans are somewhat noisy and the buttons sound loud and "clumsy" , I thought. Then the Tascams started coming down in price a bit, so I grabbed a couple.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top