Analogue (tascam 488) to digital

Will25

New member
Hi all, I'm in need of some advice...I'm planning to record an album using a tascam 488 mk ii and would like to achieve results similar to this band's work (which is recorded using "an 8 track tape then a computer" - the 8 track tape is a tascam 488 mk ii also) but I'm wondering where the computer would come in...i.e. do they record 8 tracks then transfer them to a computer to edit? I know there's pretty much no way in knowing but what would be a common procedure and what would be the best way to transfer? Is there anything else they're probably using?

"Even the microphone we use for all the vocals and guitars isn't an expensive one. The point is any musician can get hold of this stuff."



My laptop at the moment is pretty old, I'm thinking of getting a macbook to use for editing - a wise move? By the way, I'm also aiming for a lo-fi ish sort of sound...I'm just not getting great results at the moment using Tascam 488 > EMU 0204 > audacity

Many thanks in advance for your help!
 
Its up to you and how you want to manage the workflow, really.

You could track to the 488 and then dump the tracks to the computer. Note that the 488 does not have dedicated tape track outputs...there IS a way to dump 8 tracks simultaneously out of the 488 but it is a little kludgey...it WORKS though. And also note that if you did want to dump all 8 tracks simultaneously (to avoid having to try to line them up in the DAW) your current interface won't do it.

Another option is to track to the 488 and then mix on the 488 and record the 2-track master to the computer...basically using the computer as the mastering recorder.

Yet another option is like the last one only mastering to some other analog medium (like a stereo cassette deck or an open reel halftrack) and then dump the analog master to the computer.

All of these processes are common and your task is to find out which one fits you best. Since you already have everything to accomplish the 2nd option I think it would be best for you try that out and see if it works for you. It will likely promote more of a "lo-fi" sound compared to the 1st option in significant part to the process.

What are the specs of your current laptop? I mean, I remember doing 24-bit/48kHz 8 track projects on a P3-450 laptop with 256mb ram and a 4200rpm hdd. Don't get fooled into thinking you need to change your hardware. Often times its a configuration and os/drive maintenance issue. My current studio PC would be scoff-worthy according to some but it works for me: P4 3.4gHz with 4gb pc5300 ram. I've done some special things with the drive array to manage data bandwidth since that is often the real bottleneck (i.e. Its a sff chassis and there's only one ide buss and one data port, so I've got an ata133 7200rpm drive on the use buss for the system drive and pair of 7200rpm sata2 laptop drives in a little raid enclosure that slides into the 3.5" drive bay and that's on the sata port in a striped array for tracking). Point is its a P4 single core machine but I have no trouble tracking 24 tracks at 24-bit/48kHz with very low latency and I've run tests reproducing 48 tracks at the same resolution while recording a couple tracks and with a couple vi's and about 3 plugins running and its no problem.
 
what would be the best way to transfer?
"

You could track to the 488 and then dump the tracks to the computer. Note that the 488 does not have dedicated tape track outputs...there IS a way to dump 8 tracks simultaneously out of the 488 but it is a little kludgey...it WORKS though. And also note that if you did want to dump all 8 tracks simultaneously (to avoid having to try to line them up in the DAW) your current interface won't do it.
AAAAA-choooo !
 
You could track to the 488 and then dump the tracks to the computer. Note that the 488 does not have dedicated tape track outputs...

How do you do it? A lot of my early stuff was on 488 and I could only figure out how to transfer 6 at a time... If I remember right it was something like....

Tracks 1 and 2 via the inserts, 3 and 4 to mains out and 5 and 6 to monitor out.
 
You can disregard a lot of this if you are dead set on using the 488. I used one for many years. Before that 4 track. I have no problem with the format, and actually liked the restrictions a lot - got more done. With all that said - you don't need to record to casette 8 track to get a lo-fi, no-fi, vintage, etc vibe going. Nor is using a 488 isn't going to guarantee you are going a great lo-fi, no-fi, vintage, etc vibe. You can get some suprisingly good, clean, detailed and semi pro results from that deck. Anyway ...

If you pick up a decent three head professional 2 track cassette deck you can set it up as an insert on your daw. Most daws will allow you to measure the round-trip latency through the analog deck and actually do latency compensation for you.

Then you can basically do all your recording in the daw, and mentally limit yourself to 8 tracks. Do all your edits, use plugs, whatever - then when you are ready - render each track through the analog deck insert to a new track. Then mix. You can do it for some, all or none of the tracks - totally up to you. Then you can turn around and mix down to the two track deck when you are done.
 
Thanks for the help guys. At the moment I've been mixing down to my computer with okish results...I always find it different monitoring through the usb preamp though and the results are always different (as in, not so good) as it sounds when played through the 488 :S

What would the benefits of using a computer be? I'm fairly new to home recording but I'm guessing quality can always be improved. Would the band I mentioned have achieved that sound through good recording technique or good editing? It sounds much better than a 488, I think I'm not really using mine to its full potential.

Am I right in thinking I'd need an 8 channel mixer/usb to get 8 tracks simultaneously on the computer...?

My laptop is ok, but then I'm only using audacity at the moment so I guess I'm going to be slightly limited as it's a basic program. I hear Reaper is better? Seems more difficult to use though...will have to get practising!

Thanks again!
 
You don't need a mixer to get the tracks into the PC, just an interface with more channels.

What are the specs of your computer?

I expect Audacity and Reaper to have similar demand on the hardware.
 
The advantage of digital audio in general is that it can (usually) be copied losslessly. (And if it doesn't you can use an MD5 hash or something to make sure the copy is correct and do it again if it dropped a bit or something). With analogue copies you get more noise with each generation and the signal itself may change over time.

With computer editing the advantage is that you can slide audio around the timeline. That gives you much easier editing (and an 'undo' button). It also means that you can easily fix crap playing by altering the pitch and timing. And of course you have the plugins which claim to replicate classic equipment at an affordable price, and in some cases can come pretty close.

For me the drawback is that it cheapens the whole experience. I'm already doing my songs 1980s style with the music programmed and played back by synthesizers under computer control - doing the recording on a computer too would make the entire thing nearly effortless, and not in a good way. People are more proud of things which take effort to do, and I don't feel I've achieved something with a recording unless I have a tape in my hand.

The other thing is that computer editing and plugins generally need Windows to run with all the hassle that entails, but that's probably just me.
 
Would this be what I would need to get all 8 tracks out at once? Alesis I/O26 I can get one of a friend for £180ish. Also I could use this instead of my current USB interface right?

I'm hoping not to use the computer unless absolutely necessary...I think the band I mentioned would do the same - just using it for mastering, or the occasional overdub but I'm not sure.

My laptop is an HP g61, so pretty standard really, 4gb ram, 320 gb hdd - is reaper the better program?

Thanks again for your help
 
Would this be what I would need to get all 8 tracks out at once? Alesis I/O26 I can get one of a friend for £180ish. Also I could use this instead of my current USB interface right?

I'm hoping not to use the computer unless absolutely necessary...I think the band I mentioned would do the same - just using it for mastering, or the occasional overdub but I'm not sure.

My laptop is an HP g61, so pretty standard really, 4gb ram, 320 gb hdd - is reaper the better program?

Thanks again for your help

Yeah - that IF looks good and has enough inputs. Price seems decent. Built in FW on laptops can be a crap shoot. Best backup plan is if the laptop has a slot for a PC/CARD so you can pick up a TI chipset based FW card - or whatever the manufacturer states as supported...
 
Its up to you and how you want to manage the workflow, really.

You could track to the 488 and then dump the tracks to the computer. Note that the 488 does not have dedicated tape track outputs...there IS a way to dump 8 tracks simultaneously out of the 488 but it is a little kludgey...it WORKS though. And also note that if you did want to dump all 8 tracks simultaneously (to avoid having to try to line them up in the DAW) your current interface won't do it.

Another option is to track to the 488 and then mix on the 488 and record the 2-track master to the computer...basically using the computer as the mastering recorder.

Yet another option is like the last one only mastering to some other analog medium (like a stereo cassette deck or an open reel halftrack) and then dump the analog master to the computer.

All of these processes are common and your task is to find out which one fits you best. Since you already have everything to accomplish the 2nd option I think it would be best for you try that out and see if it works for you. It will likely promote more of a "lo-fi" sound compared to the 1st option in significant part to the process.

What are the specs of your current laptop? I mean, I remember doing 24-bit/48kHz 8 track projects on a P3-450 laptop with 256mb ram and a 4200rpm hdd. Don't get fooled into thinking you need to change your hardware. Often times its a configuration and os/drive maintenance issue. My current studio PC would be scoff-worthy according to some but it works for me: P4 3.4gHz with 4gb pc5300 ram. I've done some special things with the drive array to manage data bandwidth since that is often the real bottleneck (i.e. Its a sff chassis and there's only one ide buss and one data port, so I've got an ata133 7200rpm drive on the use buss for the system drive and pair of 7200rpm sata2 laptop drives in a little raid enclosure that slides into the 3.5" drive bay and that's on the sata port in a striped array for tracking). Point is its a P4 single core machine but I have no trouble tracking 24 tracks at 24-bit/48kHz with very low latency and I've run tests reproducing 48 tracks at the same resolution while recording a couple tracks and with a couple vi's and about 3 plugins running and its no problem.

I know there was an article on dumping all 8 tracks at once years ago. can anyone either point me to it or reprint it? I remember it was "messy" but it worked. I have a KORG D3200 and finally am getting around to transferring the tracks. I had the article saved on a now dead Dell computer.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thnks
moo
 
Got it thanks!
I just tried it and it works great! Some of the tracks are pretty hot comingout of th 488 and you can't control them, so I had to pad all the inputs on the d3200 so they wouldn't clip.I now have 8 digital tracks and with the effects on the 3200 they are sounding better than ever.
I was going to sell the 488 a while a go, but I am glad i didn't.
Thanks again
moo
 
Is there much needed doing to the tracks? I remember grimtraveller mentioning that track 8 needed some work...
 
All the tracks transferred perfectly. The only issues I found was the EQ on some tracks needed tweaking.
Remember I have a 488MKII. I am thinking it is a different beast than the 488?
Also there are no effects being transferred.I had an Alesis Microverb and a Micro compressor as outboard effects when I used the 488.
Just for interest I recorded 2 country CDs with the 488 MKII and Mastered them with Sound Forge. These were good enough to sell off stage at jamborees etc.
I think I waited almost 8 years to enter the digital domain. I was waiting for the right machine and the right time.
By the time I pulled the trigger Korg had stopped making the D3200s.
I got mine on ebay.
No matter what anyone says from 8 tracks to 32 tracks is awesome. I can record 12 tracks at once. There is just no way to compare.
Ii learned everything I know on the 488 and got a lot of help on the first version of this forum.
Keep at it and thanks for the info.
Later
moo
 
Is there much needed doing to the tracks?
That's dependent on what's on the tracks. Anything coming off the effects sends may or may not. Anything coming from the headphones may or may not. The stuff off the sync on track 8 is the most likely to.
What I've been doing once the tracks are in my DAW is to erase anything on any track where there is no sound to totally eliminate any risk of bleed, just clean ups. The effects sends tracks have all kinds of sound on them when there's no music. But where there is music, the signal to noise ratio ensures no problems.
Also, processing the tracks is a personal thing. You may judge that they need it or not.
 
488 tracks to digital

If you have an 8-tracks interface, you can export 8 tracks from tascam 488 mk1 to computer. Example:
1 (max L), 2 (max R), 3 (max L), 4 (max R) with the four RCA out (1/2, 3/4)
5 (vol effect 1), 6 (vol effect 2) with the two effect sends
7 (vol CUE) with the stereo out for headphones (used like mono)
8 with the RCA OUT of SYNCH, it's not made for, but the signal works, but without the dbx! (but you can use the digital track after to resynch manualy on your PC or MAC with a new Tascam play, with track 8 on another out)
Maybe there is another method, but this one works! I edited some songs with
 
Back
Top