TASCAM 34b 1/4" @ 15ipc = 24bit??

F

filmdude11

New member
Howdy,
I'm new to analog recording, and I'm interested in the TASCAM 34b. I'm just curious as to what bit and sampling rate these 4 track 1/4" recorders record at. Is it 24 bit, 96K? or 16 bit, 48K? Am I way off? Or thinking the wrong thing? I'm just curious.

And also, I don't know if anyone else saw it, but the other day there was a TASCAM 44 on eBay this was the only one I saw on eBay at that time that had XLR ins and outs. I was bummed because it sold for only $380 and I decided to pass on it because I thought I needed to do a little more research.

So, since the 44's are so rare (from what I've read) and I'm not likely to find one anytime soon, I'm thinking about the 34b. Which doesn't have XLR ins or outs, but just RCA's and 1/4". Am I wrong or are XLR inputs and outputs better than RCA? If I do get that 34b I'm going to get that 8 channel mixer with RCA inputs (I forgot the name of it).

I hope all that made sense. Basically, what bitrate are 1/4" recorders, and is RCA better than XLR?

Thanks alot guys!!
Corey
 
First welcome to the analog site corey.

second The Recorders you are looking at do not have anything at all that relates to 24 bit 16 bit recording. That type of recorder that deals with those rates are digital recorder,s and are in a whole differant world. Here we deal with Analog recorders that use Magnetic tape as the medium to record to and do not get into digital at all.

Im going to jump ahead here and tell you that the 34b is a real nice recorder and no you dont need the xlr,s on the recorder.

But before any of us go any futher about recording or recorders it would help alot if you told us what you want to do with the recorder. Do you want to record music, a band, or just your self, or what?

Then we can make some suggestions on a good route for you to go.

Gary
 
I worded that badly, I meant, is there a bit rate that's equivalent to the quality of a 1/4" r2r recorder. I was just curious. I also want to know so that I can decide on what to mix down to. I have a Br-834 that I use for recording rough versions of my songs, I could use that for mixdown. Or, I'm thinking about a laptop with a 24/96 card, and I just bought Adobe Audition, so I could do that too. Would I be gaining anything by using a computer for mixdown verses if I were to just use my Boss 864? It's 16bit 44.1. Or I could get a 24bit minidisc recorder. I just need to know if theres that much info to capture that it would sound better if I used a higher quality recorder

I want to use the r2r just to record my songs. It's mostly guitar and my voice. I do sometimes use bass, and some other sound effects too if the song needs it. Oh yeah, and I like to use weird things for percussion (coffeecans, boxes, etc)

Thanks
Corey
 
Some digital enthusiasts will attest to the quality of 24/192 being equivalent to professional analog recorders because of the thicker sound that this encoding standard uses to capture similar dynamics and frequency response compared to an open reel recorder running at 15ips with standard track widths.

The reality is that both formats can sound excellent as long as you know what your doing as an engineer and musician and are using supporting ancillary equipment such as good mixers, microphones, compressors and proper acoustics.

Playing skill and mixing/recording technique and talent can make up for the short comings of poor equipment and lack of those qualities will make high end gear sound like crap.

You will find most of the participants in this forum to be analog enthusiast because we love the sound quality and simplicity of tracking without latency issues and mixing with a mouse through endless menus and sub menus.

If your experience and comfort level is in the digital realm, I am not quite sure how a 4 track reel to reel is going to be of interest to you when there are software based recorders out there with 128 stereo tracks?

The traditional, professional method of recording these days in large budget facilities is to do initial tracking on an analog multi-track machine then transfer that into a digital environment for editing and then back through an analog console for mix-down to a 24/192 format or a 1/2 track stereo analog format which can then be professionally mastered for commercial release and distribution.

In a non-professional situation, whatever gets the job done is the right answer.

Either way, I wish you good luck and happy recording which ever route you decide to take.

Cheers! :)
 
filmdude11 said:
I worded that badly
Click to expand...
Really? You were serious? I thought you were joking!

I meant, is there a bit rate that's equivalent to the quality of a 1/4" r2r recorder.
Click to expand...
That's like asking if there is a bit rate equivalent to the quality of a guitar. :)

Analog gear has frequency response issues and noise. Digital gear has anti-aliasing filters and quantisation issues. They are not really comparable.
 
I should point out that "bitrate" only applies to compressed audio/video formats........ the term you're looking for is bitdepth or wordsize.......
 
Ok, I have another question. Are you guys using analog because you cant afford digital? Or because you prefer it?

Thanks
Corey
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I should point out that "bitrate" only applies to compressed audio/video formats........ the term you're looking for is bitdepth or wordsize.......
Click to expand...

And a bit depth s/n similar to a 34b would be around 14 or so? (Although hiss at -80 would be a lot nicer than the same in digi-noise.)
 
I just want to have something to compare it to before I jump in and get something. I know I would like working with analog more than digital, but I'm not going to ignore quality.

Maybe I just need to hear something recorded with the 34b.

I think 1/4" cassette tape sounds horrible. So I'm concerned about this recorder sounding similar.


Corey
 
Cassette is the lowest quality you can go. Well next to hamerfall
Digital that is. What are you comparing to cassette that sounds better?
 
filmdude11 said:
Ok, I have another question. Are you guys using analog because you cant afford digital? Or because you prefer it?

Thanks
Corey
Click to expand...
After spending close to $40,000.00 on my analog studio, I can barely afford Kraft Diner.:mad:

And the sound is real nice too.:p
 
Umm,... cassette tape is 1/8" running at 3-3/4ips on a Portastudio 4-tracker,...

so, the 34B doubles the track width, and raises the speed to 7.5 or 15ips, which boosts the quality considerably.

For that ultra silent recording background, less noise, you should also consider the Tascam DX-4d, dbx NR unit, for the 34B.
 
filmdude11 said:
Howdy,
I'm new to analog recording, and I'm interested in the TASCAM 34b. I'm just curious as to what bit and sampling rate these 4 track 1/4" recorders record at. Is it 24 bit, 96K? or 16 bit, 48K? Am I way off? Or thinking the wrong thing? I'm just curious.

And also, I don't know if anyone else saw it, but the other day there was a TASCAM 44 on eBay this was the only one I saw on eBay at that time that had XLR ins and outs. I was bummed because it sold for only $380 and I decided to pass on it because I thought I needed to do a little more research.

So, since the 44's are so rare (from what I've read) and I'm not likely to find one anytime soon, I'm thinking about the 34b. Which doesn't have XLR ins or outs, but just RCA's and 1/4". Am I wrong or are XLR inputs and outputs better than RCA? If I do get that 34b I'm going to get that 8 channel mixer with RCA inputs (I forgot the name of it).
I hope all that made sense. Basically, what bitrate are 1/4" recorders, and is RCA better than XLR?

Thanks alot guys!!
Corey
Click to expand...



The Tascam 34B is a 4bit 20-20Khz unit. This was the way we used to talk before the new ones and zeros guys moved into our world.

An RCA is no better than an XLR. They both are used for different purposes.

I hope all that made sense. Basically, what bitrate are 1/4" recorders, and is RCA better than XLR?

Thanks alot guys!!
Corey [/B][/QUOTE]
 
filmdude11 said:
Ok, I have another question. Are you guys using analog because you cant afford digital? Or because you prefer it?

Thanks
Corey
Click to expand...

I prefer digital for a million reasons. I love analog but have not used it lately. My 16-track sits in wait until analog makes a big comeback.
 
filmdude11 said:
I just want to have something to compare it to before I jump in and get something. I know I would like working with analog more than digital, but I'm not going to ignore quality.

Maybe I just need to hear something recorded with the 34b.

I think 1/4" cassette tape sounds horrible. So I'm concerned about this recorder sounding similar.


Corey
Click to expand...

If you got a well maintained 34B or any other reel machine, without any problems and good condition heads, then your 34B, in your example, will sound MUCH better than the best of cassette. Period. Even at its lowest speed (7 1/2") the 34B will outshine digital in many instances. It has all the clarity of digital plus sound characteristics not found in the digital domain, such as tape saturation and a more "natural" and "pleasing" sound. Not by any stretch of the imagination will the 34B or any good reel to reel machine sound similar to a cassette format. Remember that the Beatles recorded on a 4 track reel to reel (have you checked out their latest cd "Let it be .. naked" ?) and that 15", as found on the 34B, is industry standard. All the best and classic albums were recorded on tape, whether it be 1/4", 1/2" or whatever. Also, please note that cassette is 1/8" and not 1/4" as you say. The 34B records to 1/4" tape (2x wider than cassette), has 2x wider tracks (than cassette) and runs at 7 1/2" and 15" per sec. Cassette, obviously, runs much slower and thus has lower fidelity. Even the portastudios run at 3 3/4" / sec which is still low fidelity. Faster speeds do A LOT to improve sound quality.

Again, working with analog is so much easier and fun than digital, but you know that already, and the sound on a 34B is very much superior to any cassette and is better, imho, than digital. Plus you actually get something "physical" happening with your sounds as they are recorded to your 34B and not a bunch of 0's and 1's and something they call "virtual tracks" .. Oh, and don't get me started on the menu systems! Blah!!!

Daniel
 
I know I know this has been beat to death but why is it that Recording got alot harder for everyone, (And if you do not admit that it did you are lying) when every thing went digital.
Computer recording became and still is a big pain in the rear. stand alone units have a big learning curve. everyone is looking for a preamp or a program that will give them some analog warmth.
How many times do you read on any messege board ( why does my audio click? why cant I hear this or that? Why did my computer just quit and i lost 2 hours worth of work? How do I set my program up so I dont have latency? Why did I spend 400
bucks on a program that wont work?

I learned the hard way, ANy thing that I have to dick around with for a week in order to record is not worth having.
 
Also, the first people who said "digital is better" are (1) the manufacturers who would save, and make, bundles of $$ off of making these (cheap) digi boxes and tried to convice us, the consumers, with their splashy marketing campaigns and (2) the morons (including myself) who believed them. It's was a choice made purely on making more money, and not on making "better" gear.

I consider myself a thinking person who is willing to objectively look at things as they are and I say now that no one will EVER convince me that "digital is better". Been there, done that. ;)

Peace,

Daniel :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top