Tascam 244 compared to reel

Findlay

Member
I guess this has may have been covered before but I couldn't find anything when I searched. It may be another rambling post but here goes.....

I spent a few days last week fooling around with old 244 machines. Again I'm amazed at the quality of the recordings - especially on the machine I re-biased for Type I tape. Free of the odd dbx artefact and dropout I used to get with type II it seems faultless - no noise (apart from slight pre-amp noise in mic recordings), no discernible w&f or distortion, great warmth. I just wondered if anyone had made a comparison of recordings made on a well-aligned 244 with a reel-to-reel multitrack - either 1/4. 1/2, 1 or 2 inch using the same source and blind listening?
 
I have not done such a test, but this post speaks to something I've noticed too. I've worked with several 4-tracks over the years, and I've always though the quality was great. Most recently, it was a Tascam 246, but before that, I got good results with a 414 mk ii and a 424 mk iii as well.

I've always wondered, quite frankly, how so many people could make 4-tracks sound so bad! I mean ... filled with hiss and tinny and/or really muffled. I'm guessing it's just people that don't know what they're doing? The sad thing is that those machines have gotten a terrible reputation because of it.

Of course, maybe you have better ears than I do, because I always used the dbx on my units (mainly because it said to in the manual), and I never noticed any artifacts or dropouts.

But here's a recent recording I made with the 246. It's not finished yet -- it's just lacking vocals -- but this is already with two external bounces (to and from the computer). So this is a two-track submix now that's on tracks 1 and 2, and the vocals will go on tracks 1 and 2.

To me, this sounds as "clean" as any digital recording I hear on this place (or cleaner, to be honest), yet it still sounds warm and pleasant (to me, anyway).

I think these machines are awesome if you know what you're doing.
 

Attachments

  • World Getting Faster - pre-vocals.mp3
    6.3 MB · Views: 184
Amazing 244, tho it is,...

A reel to reel, such as the Tascam 34, will sound bigger and brighter than the 244, based on physics alone.

The 15 ips tape speed will have loads more high end (high frequency response), vs. 3-3/4 ips.

The 1/4" 4-track format will have more headroom, vs. a 1/8" 4-track. Double the track width; there is a corresponding dB boost of S/N.

There may be mitigating factors in the signal chain, plus some people will always get the most out of any format, but you can't change the physics of the matter, re: the differences between cassette and reel tape recorders.

With that being said, the 244 is a great unit that makes excellent recordings.
 
Thanks for this, it all makes such great sense. It is just that there is no noise from the 244 with type 1. Zero, zilch. Headroom with dbx is phenomenal and the freq response goes way past 19kHz. I don't think I would be able to tell the difference with a studio machine. Maybe my ears are the limitation these days!
 
Thanks for the track Famous Beagle. It sounds terrific. But you only get the true beauty of the sound in its original analogue state I think. It still blows me away when I play recordings back I made 36 years ago.
 
I've owned a TSR-8 and a 244. There really isn't a lot of difference. The TSR-8 sounded slightly better, but honestly, the 244 is only a notch below.
I've messed around on 3 or 4 other 4-track models from Tascam to Yahamas and to me the 244 sounds by far the best. I'll have to listen to Beagle's 246 when I'm near my headphones later.
 
I always got great results with my 246.
The only downside was having to bounce my 4 tracks to normal speed cassette and back in the 246.
Nowadays, being able to bounce to computer offers loads of new options.
:D
 
I have not done such a test, but this post speaks to something I've noticed too. I've worked with several 4-tracks over the years, and I've always though the quality was great. Most recently, it was a Tascam 246, but before that, I got good results with a 414 mk ii and a 424 mk iii as well.

I've always wondered, quite frankly, how so many people could make 4-tracks sound so bad! I mean ... filled with hiss and tinny and/or really muffled. I'm guessing it's just people that don't know what they're doing? The sad thing is that those machines have gotten a terrible reputation because of it.

Of course, maybe you have better ears than I do, because I always used the dbx on my units (mainly because it said to in the manual), and I never noticed any artifacts or dropouts.

But here's a recent recording I made with the 246. It's not finished yet -- it's just lacking vocals -- but this is already with two external bounces (to and from the computer). So this is a two-track submix now that's on tracks 1 and 2, and the vocals will go on tracks 1 and 2.

To me, this sounds as "clean" as any digital recording I hear on this place (or cleaner, to be honest), yet it still sounds warm and pleasant (to me, anyway).

I think these machines are awesome if you know what you're doing.

Excellent! :) Very warm and round sounding with good clarity. I also very much liked the piece, would love to hear the finished version.

I had Tom Petty "Echoes' in the deck at the time and compared to that it's missing a bit of crispness and high end clarity.

But hey, we're comparing a Petty Album done with probably a million bucks worth of gear, in great rooms, to a 4 track cassette!

That's tough competition for anyone! Lol :D

You did a great job, and I like the tune!
It's an excellent example of what can be done with only a 4 track.

My hat's off to you.
:D
 
Excellent! :) Very warm and round sounding with good clarity. I also very much liked the piece, would love to hear the finished version.

I had Tom Petty "Echoes' in the deck at the time and compared to that it's missing a bit of crispness and high end clarity.

But hey, we're comparing a Petty Album done with probably a million bucks worth of gear, in great rooms, to a 4 track cassette!

That's tough competition for anyone! Lol :D

You did a great job, and I like the tune!
It's an excellent example of what can be done with only a 4 track.

My hat's off to you.
:D

Thanks much! I will definitely post the tune when it's finished.
 
I have not done such a test, but this post speaks to something I've noticed too. I've worked with several 4-tracks over the years, and I've always though the quality was great. Most recently, it was a Tascam 246, but before that, I got good results with a 414 mk ii and a 424 mk iii as well.

I've always wondered, quite frankly, how so many people could make 4-tracks sound so bad! I mean ... filled with hiss and tinny and/or really muffled. I'm guessing it's just people that don't know what they're doing? The sad thing is that those machines have gotten a terrible reputation because of it.

Of course, maybe you have better ears than I do, because I always used the dbx on my units (mainly because it said to in the manual), and I never noticed any artifacts or dropouts.

But here's a recent recording I made with the 246. It's not finished yet -- it's just lacking vocals -- but this is already with two external bounces (to and from the computer). So this is a two-track submix now that's on tracks 1 and 2, and the vocals will go on tracks 1 and 2.

To me, this sounds as "clean" as any digital recording I hear on this place (or cleaner, to be honest), yet it still sounds warm and pleasant (to me, anyway).

I think these machines are awesome if you know what you're doing.

Beagle that track sounds so damn good man, I listened twice, once through the speaker on my phone (I know, awful, but it is what so many people now consume music on) and then on headphones, and was blown away by the depth and detail the track has.

The acoustics are just beautiful, so airy but also very sturdy if you know what I mean, not just a sheen of pick noise on strings. Detractors of PortaStudio's claim they have a "sound" (boxy, mid-rangey, "small" are some of the cracks I've heard first hand) but your track sounds incredible, with nice round bass and a real "glue" holding it together...not to mention the songs arrangement is so well done.

Over the years visiting the forum I always enjoy reading your posts and hearing what you've been be up to Beagle, you have really written & recorded a great rhythm track there, I'm looking forward to hearing the final mix brother...
Be cool.
 
Yeah nice recording Beagle. Clear and has that analog "warmth" you just can't simulate in a DAW.
 
Beagle that track sounds so damn good man, I listened twice, once through the speaker on my phone (I know, awful, but it is what so many people now consume music on) and then on headphones, and was blown away by the depth and detail the track has.

The acoustics are just beautiful, so airy but also very sturdy if you know what I mean, not just a sheen of pick noise on strings. Detractors of PortaStudio's claim they have a "sound" (boxy, mid-rangey, "small" are some of the cracks I've heard first hand) but your track sounds incredible, with nice round bass and a real "glue" holding it together...not to mention the songs arrangement is so well done.

Over the years visiting the forum I always enjoy reading your posts and hearing what you've been be up to Beagle, you have really written & recorded a great rhythm track there, I'm looking forward to hearing the final mix brother...
Be cool.

Thanks so much John. That's very nice of you to say.

I too have heard all those disparaging remarks about Portastudios. And like I said, I'm always left wondering what people are doing to their recordings to make them sound like that. Are they really worn heads that have never been cleaned? Are they using really poor levels so that the hiss is amplified? I don't know, but I've never been able to make a Portastudio sound that bad!

Well ... that's probably not true. The recordings I made on my Fostex X-26 (first machine I ever had) when I was 14 probably sounded that bad! :)

---------- Update ----------

Yeah nice recording Beagle. Clear and has that analog "warmth" you just can't simulate in a DAW.

Thanks Nola!
 
Thanks so much John. That's very nice of you to say.

I too have heard all those disparaging remarks about Portastudios. And like I said, I'm always left wondering what people are doing to their recordings to make them sound like that. Are they really worn heads that have never been cleaned? Are they using really poor levels so that the hiss is amplified? I don't know, but I've never been able to make a Portastudio sound that bad!

Well ... that's probably not true. The recordings I made on my Fostex X-26 (first machine I ever had) when I was 14 probably sounded that bad! :)

Beag I think you hit it on the head about the lack of maintenance to PortaStudio's. I'm remembering a few different times where a few guys called me anal for cleaning the heads, pinch roller & demagnetizing if needed. But their Porta 02's or Fostex machines would sound awful because they DIDN'T take care of their machine.

Additional to good maintenance using good quality tape with hot levels is key. Reusing Learn ABC's with the
Muppets or Best of Zamfir tapes will NOT give you good sounds. High bias Type II Maxell or TDK tapes in the shortest times your song/recording can be made in. Since 4 track PortaStudio's record over the entire width of the cassette (no side B) and run at 3¾" ips a 60 minute tape will yield 15 min recording time. The tape is thicker in smaller tapes so I would usually get 60's or Maxell Studio Tape cassettes made for pro use in like 15, 20, 30 min sizes.

If you work at it a bit, PortaStudio's/small width reel to reel machines can produce excellent results.
 
Yes I agree about the maintenance! I stopped using C60s though quite early on because I was getting more dropouts - maybe it was a problem with the TDK SAX I was using at the time. I know I keep going on about it but type I in these machines after re-bias sounds terrific and seems to give far fewer dropouts. A thread where we post 244 recordings sounds great Nola!
 
I have not done such a test, but this post speaks to something I've noticed too. I've worked with several 4-tracks over the years, and I've always though the quality was great. Most recently, it was a Tascam 246, but before that, I got good results with a 414 mk ii and a 424 mk iii as well.

I've always wondered, quite frankly, how so many people could make 4-tracks sound so bad! I mean ... filled with hiss and tinny and/or really muffled. I'm guessing it's just people that don't know what they're doing? The sad thing is that those machines have gotten a terrible reputation because of it.

Of course, maybe you have better ears than I do, because I always used the dbx on my units (mainly because it said to in the manual), and I never noticed any artifacts or dropouts.

But here's a recent recording I made with the 246. It's not finished yet -- it's just lacking vocals -- but this is already with two external bounces (to and from the computer). So this is a two-track submix now that's on tracks 1 and 2, and the vocals will go on tracks 1 and 2.

To me, this sounds as "clean" as any digital recording I hear on this place (or cleaner, to be honest), yet it still sounds warm and pleasant (to me, anyway).

I think these machines are awesome if you know what you're doing.

Chad I kept getting these earworms yesterday and I'd say "What is that?" and it quickly occurred to me I was thinking about your "World Getting Faster" rhythm track! Seriously it's so good, I've listened repeatedly slack jawed.... I'm never a dick to cats online who are brave enough to post their work but I'll just usually say nothing than be critical. I try to put over those who really hit me and offer what I can but damn man, it's been years since I've heard something that I like that much...on so many levels, the production, arrangement, etc.

Could you run down the recording process with the Tascam 246?
The drums sound live or really awesome samples, lol but the Rhodes, bass, guitars, etc.I'm really curious if you have the time. From your post you said you did two external bounces, something I always did too with my Tascam 424 recordings; 4 tracks full, stereo submixed to DAT, then back on a fresh tape, etc. Because you went out to DAW did you do editing, mixing with plugins, etc?

Thanks man, just really impressive stuff brother.
 
Chad I kept getting these earworms yesterday and I'd say "What is that?" and it quickly occurred to me I was thinking about your "World Getting Faster" rhythm track! Seriously it's so good, I've listened repeatedly slack jawed.... I'm never a dick to cats online who are brave enough to post their work but I'll just usually say nothing than be critical. I try to put over those who really hit me and offer what I can but damn man, it's been years since I've heard something that I like that much...on so many levels, the production, arrangement, etc.

Could you run down the recording process with the Tascam 246?
The drums sound live or really awesome samples, lol but the Rhodes, bass, guitars, etc.I'm really curious if you have the time. From your post you said you did two external bounces, something I always did too with my Tascam 424 recordings; 4 tracks full, stereo submixed to DAT, then back on a fresh tape, etc. Because you went out to DAW did you do editing, mixing with plugins, etc?

Thanks man, just really impressive stuff brother.

Thanks so much John! Sure, I'm happy to list the process.

Tracks 1 and 2: EZ Drummer left and right
Track 3: Bass (basically a partscaster P-bass) recorded direct with AmpliTube 3 using an Ampeg B15 model
Track 4: Rhodes - a VST called Lounge Lizard by AAS

First submix (to Reaper):
EQ'ed all tracks on the 246
Compressed the drums with a Joe Meek C2 via the 246 inserts
Added a bit of verb via send to the drums and Rhodes (a tiny bit on the bass) with a TC Electronic M350

Nothing done in Reaper
While bouncing back to tracks 1 and 2 on the 246, I recorded an acoustic (Seagull S6) live with an Oktava MC012 running into an SCA Neve clone preamp and through a Summit Audio TLA-50 (tube compressor). Added a good bit of verb on the way via send with the TC Electronic M350. I had to get this part in one take, obviously, but it was pretty easy because I was just strumming chords. It did take a few times though, because the chords at the very end move pretty fast.

So then on tracks 1 and 2 (new portion of tape), we have Drums, bass, Rhodes, and acoustic
Track 3: Electric guitar - This was a Fender Strat through my Tweed Champ clone (that I built from a Weber kit). Pretty sure I miked it with a 57 and ran through the same signal chain as the Seagull.
Track 4: 12-string acoustic - This was a Seagull 12 recorded the same way as the S6 was

Second submix to Reaper:
EQ'ed tracks on 246
Added additional EQ to 12-string via insert with an Ashley SC-63 parametric
Added spring reverb to the Strat via insert with a Biamp MR140
Added verb to the 12-string via send again with the TC Electronic
Added delay to the Strat (in the ending section) via second send with a Roland SDE-2000

Nothing done in Reaper
Then I bounced all that back to tracks 1 and 2 again to a new portion of tape on the 246.

And that's what you're hearing.

A few other notes:
I used a very thin pick (.6mm I think) on the acoustics to go for that "feathered" sound.

I added some vibrato to many of the Strat chords with the bar.

I'm pretty sure I played the bass with a pick, though I rarely do that. I think it just sounded better for this one.

I had to punch in that part before the first chorus where I'm banging the open low E over and over. That was actually just a case of laziness. I wanted the amp to break up a little bit more, but I didn't want to mess with turning it up anymore because it was in the closet and there was a bunch of cables I'd have to step over. (After all, I was already sitting down comfortably with headphones on.) So the easiest solution was to just pick it really hard. The problem was that, when I did that, the E string would go noticeably sharp. So I had to detune the low E enough so that I could really whack it and it would end up pretty much in tune. Then I retuned it to pitch for the rest of the song. :)

The only editing I did in Reaper was to clean up all the noise before the start of the song.
 
Thanks so much John! Sure, I'm happy to list the process.

Tracks 1 and 2: EZ Drummer left and right
Track 3: Bass (basically a partscaster P-bass) recorded direct with AmpliTube 3 using an Ampeg B15 model
Track 4: Rhodes - a VST called Lounge Lizard by AAS

First submix (to Reaper):
EQ'ed all tracks on the 246
Compressed the drums with a Joe Meek C2 via the 246 inserts
Added a bit of verb via send to the drums and Rhodes (a tiny bit on the bass) with a TC Electronic M350

Nothing done in Reaper
While bouncing back to tracks 1 and 2 on the 246, I recorded an acoustic (Seagull S6) live with an Oktava MC012 running into an SCA Neve clone preamp and through a Summit Audio TLA-50 (tube compressor). Added a good bit of verb on the way via send with the TC Electronic M350. I had to get this part in one take, obviously, but it was pretty easy because I was just strumming chords. It did take a few times though, because the chords at the very end move pretty fast.

So then on tracks 1 and 2 (new portion of tape), we have Drums, bass, Rhodes, and acoustic
Track 3: Electric guitar - This was a Fender Strat through my Tweed Champ clone (that I built from a Weber kit). Pretty sure I miked it with a 57 and ran through the same signal chain as the Seagull.
Track 4: 12-string acoustic - This was a Seagull 12 recorded the same way as the S6 was

Second submix to Reaper:
EQ'ed tracks on 246
Added additional EQ to 12-string via insert with an Ashley SC-63 parametric
Added spring reverb to the Strat via insert with a Biamp MR140
Added verb to the 12-string via send again with the TC Electronic
Added delay to the Strat (in the ending section) via second send with a Roland SDE-2000

Nothing done in Reaper
Then I bounced all that back to tracks 1 and 2 again to a new portion of tape on the 246.

And that's what you're hearing.

A few other notes:
I used a very thin pick (.6mm I think) on the acoustics to go for that "feathered" sound.

I added some vibrato to many of the Strat chords with the bar.

I'm pretty sure I played the bass with a pick, though I rarely do that. I think it just sounded better for this one.

I had to punch in that part before the first chorus where I'm banging the open low E over and over. That was actually just a case of laziness. I wanted the amp to break up a little bit more, but I didn't want to mess with turning it up anymore because it was in the closet and there was a bunch of cables I'd have to step over. (After all, I was already sitting down comfortably with headphones on.) So the easiest solution was to just pick it really hard. The problem was that, when I did that, the E string would go noticeably sharp. So I had to detune the low E enough so that I could really whack it and it would end up pretty much in tune. Then I retuned it to pitch for the rest of the song. :)

The only editing I did in Reaper was to clean up all the noise before the start of the song.

THANK YOU!!! I love getting the recording process of songs, we're all here doing this because it fascinates us.

Apologies to Findley for hijacking his thread, lol...but this has to be gold to him as well.

So cool how you really used the 246 as another color on the palette. It really added a great texture to the Rhodes and the low end.

I would've guessed a Strat too for the electric; my #1 is my Strat and you're so right slapping that E string with force can make it go out, I really dig that section and how it juxtaposes into that airy acoustic bit.

Thanks again brother, excellent stuff. If you think of it please PM me if you post the completed mastered song on the forum, I'd love to hear it.

Be cool...
 
Chad I kept getting these earworms yesterday and I'd say "What is that?" and it quickly occurred to me I was thinking about your "World Getting Faster" rhythm track! Seriously it's so good, I've listened repeatedly slack jawed.... I'm never a dick to cats online who are brave enough to post their work but I'll just usually say nothing than be critical. I try to put over those who really hit me and offer what I can but damn man, it's been years since I've heard something that I like that much...on so many levels, the production, arrangement, etc.

Could you run down the recording process with the Tascam 246?
The drums sound live or really awesome samples, lol but the Rhodes, bass, guitars, etc.I'm really curious if you have the time. From your post you said you did two external bounces, something I always did too with my Tascam 424 recordings; 4 tracks full, stereo submixed to DAT, then back on a fresh tape, etc. Because you went out to DAW did you do editing, mixing with plugins, etc?

Thanks man, just really impressive stuff brother.

I'd expect nothing less from the man that wrote the book on home recording. :D literally!
 
It is indeed gold for me too John! It is fantastic to hear what these machines are still capable of - I hope the thread can keep going for a while with folk's thoughts and maybe more examples.
 
Back
Top