Questions/Tascam 424 mk II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stasz
  • Start date Start date
S

stasz

New member
Hey guys, another recording n00b here. I'm a drummer and play a little bit of guitar, and I just started reading up online and I think I'm gonna try some amateur recording, but wanted to get some more info here before I start. So...

-I think I want to go analog to start. I've been looking into buying a tascam 424 mk ii or mk iii. I have a macbook pro but I get the impression that even with modern recording/mixing software, it seems like digital has more hurdles to jump (read: things to buy) than analog, at least at the simplest level. Would it be wrong to say that it's easier to get an analog recorder and simply plug in and record, rather than going digital and having to worry about wiring and impedance issues?

-Let's say I buy a 424 mk ii. I understand that it has 4 balanced XLR inputs, but I'm still a little confused about phantom power for condenser mics. If I were to get one or two Shure SM57's and hook them up to the recorder, will it power the mics? Or do I need a separate preamp? Does this vary for different mics?

-I read about "bouncing" tracks online-- that's where you mix down multiple tracks to one track so you can add more on the other tracks, right? Can I do this on the 424 mk ii? I don't need to know how to go about this whole process (it'd all be over my head anyway) but just trying to figure out my options.

-One last thing: I know that it may be harder to get a good drum sound with just 4 tracks as opposed to 8 or more, but I'm looking to go the cheap and simple route for now unless you guys recommend otherwise.

Sorry for all the questions. Don't be afraid to let me know if I'm going about this all completely wrong :)...Thanks!
 
-I think I want to go analog to start. I've been looking into buying a tascam 424 mk ii or mk iii. I have a macbook pro but I get the impression that even with modern recording/mixing software, it seems like digital has more hurdles to jump (read: things to buy) than analog, at least at the simplest level. Would it be wrong to say that it's easier to get an analog recorder and simply plug in and record, rather than going digital and having to worry about wiring and impedance issues?

Analog is simpler, and far less versatile. You still have to deal with wiring and impedance issues with analog.

-Let's say I buy a 424 mk ii. I understand that it has 4 balanced XLR inputs, but I'm still a little confused about phantom power for condenser mics. If I were to get one or two Shure SM57's and hook them up to the recorder, will it power the mics? Or do I need a separate preamp? Does this vary for different mics?

A Shure SM57 is a dynamic mic that doesn't need phantom power. Phantom is for condensers and certain other things. You don't need a separate preamp with the 424. Practically all mics will work with it if it has 48 volt phantom. If it has lower voltage phantom some may not work.

-I read about "bouncing" tracks online-- that's where you mix down multiple tracks to one track so you can add more on the other tracks, right? Can I do this on the 424 mk ii? I don't need to know how to go about this whole process (it'd all be over my head anyway) but just trying to figure out my options.

Yes you can do this. It's not ideal, but it's a good learning experience, and you'll have a greater appreciation for computerized recording after you've done it a few times.

-One last thing: I know that it may be harder to get a good drum sound with just 4 tracks as opposed to 8 or more, but I'm looking to go the cheap and simple route for now unless you guys recommend otherwise.

Not necessarily. If the drums are of good quality, tuned properly, played well and you have the right mics in the right places it can be very good. Google "Glyn Johns drum mic technique". If your drums, tuning and playing suck having lots of mics may not save them.
 
Forget 4-track cassette recorders. Spend a few dollars more and get a digital stand-alone recorder. Really.
 
Forget 4-track cassette recorders. Spend a few dollars more and get a digital stand-alone recorder. Really.

this^
you can get a simple 8 channel interface for your computer starting around $300. If you want a stand alone solution, look at digital options. i wouldn't even consider a cassette tape based studio- they sound bad and they're very difficult to use compared to more modern tech.
 
this^
you can get a simple 8 channel interface for your computer starting around $300. If you want a stand alone solution, look at digital options. i wouldn't even consider a cassette tape based studio- they sound bad and they're very difficult to use compared to more modern tech.

The main reason why I was thinking analog over digital is because, like you said, I definitely want a stand-alone solution if possible. If I want to get a digital interface, will I be able to get something that I can (pretty much) plug mics into on one end and my laptop into on the other end? If not, what other cords/converters/interfaces would I need to buy?

Also, I'm using a 2.4 GHz Macbook Pro 7.1 with 4 GB memory, just bought it at the beginning of the summer. If I decide to get a digital interface, is there anything I would need to upgrade on my computer? Sound card etc.? For anything digital I was just planning on using GarageBand. Sorry again for all the questions, thanks
 
The main reason why I was thinking analog over digital is because, like you said, I definitely want a stand-alone solution if possible. If I want to get a digital interface, will I be able to get something that I can (pretty much) plug mics into on one end and my laptop into on the other end?

Yes, pretty much just that. A laptop+interface directly replaces a standalone recorder, does way more and sounds better than cassette-based solutions.

If not, what other cords/converters/interfaces would I need to buy?

Nothing that you wouldn't also have to get with an analog recorder. You'll need monitors and cables to hook them up with if you want your mixes to be decent. You'll definitely need headphones regardless of which platform you get. Oh, and a decent room with appropriate treatment will help a lot.
 
Yes, pretty much just that. A laptop+interface directly replaces a standalone recorder, does way more and sounds better than cassette-based solutions.

Nothing that you wouldn't also have to get with an analog recorder. You'll need monitors and cables to hook them up with if you want your mixes to be decent. You'll definitely need headphones regardless of which platform you get. Oh, and a decent room with appropriate treatment will help a lot.

That definitely sounds like a good idea then...I liked the 424 MK II when I found it because it's cheap yet has 4 XLR inputs so I could use 4 mics for recording drums. Would you be able to recommend a decent digital interface with 4 XLR inputs? Will it be possible to get one for $500-1,000? Thanks, I don't know why I had this preconception that I should do analog instead of digital, since there are obviously many benefits to digital.

Also, I know I'll need cables etc. but I'm just looking for a good interface for my purposes first, then I'm going to worry about mics, cables and any other equipment. I guess I do need to make sure that the interface will be compatible with the type of mics I would want to use but I'm not going to buy the mics until later. I was planning on using the percussion studio at my school, which is carpeted with some soundproofing material on the walls.
 
Hey guys, another recording n00b here. I'm a drummer and play a little bit of guitar, and I just started reading up online and I think I'm gonna try some amateur recording, but wanted to get some more info here before I start. So...

-I think I want to go analog to start. I've been looking into buying a tascam 424 mk ii or mk iii.
That was my first setup as well. But only because the 424 was free.

I'd save the dough on the 424 and buy a mixer for the preamps or just buy 4 channels worth of preamp.
 
Thanks, I don't know why I had this preconception that I should do analog instead of digital, since there are obviously many benefits to digital.

There are many benefits to analog as well.
In my opinion,...The 424 mkII is a great place for you to start.
Also,...There are plenty of great recordings made with tape.
Not saying digital is bad in any way,...Just think the 424 is
an excellent place to "start" recording. It also makes it more enjoyable
messin' with the whole ritual of using tape, and tape based recorders.
 
There are many benefits to analog as well.
In my opinion,...The 424 mkII is a great place for you to start.
Also,...There are plenty of great recordings made with tape.
Not saying digital is bad in any way,...Just think the 424 is
an excellent place to "start" recording. It also makes it more enjoyable
messin' with the whole ritual of using tape, and tape based recorders.

i agree. nothing wrong with a 424, or 4 track limitations. you could also cable the 424 to your soundcard for some 2 input digital if needed.
 
OK, taking into account everyone's replies: Another big reason why I wanted to start with the 424 is simply because I may be able to get a hold of one for $150. I figure that considering the small investment, I might as well jump in and try my hand at analog, and then maybe once I get the hang of the basics I could save up for a digital interface. Obviously I need to buy mics, cables, etc. but since I can get the 4-track for pretty cheap I should have enough money for the other equipment.

I'd save the dough on the 424 and buy a mixer for the preamps or just buy 4 channels worth of preamp.

@drstawl: I don't quite understand what you meant. If I get the 424, I won't need any external preamps, will I? Because the XLR inputs on the 424 don't require external phantom power, do they?
 
@drstawl: I don't quite understand what you meant. If I get the 424, I won't need any external preamps, will I? Because the XLR inputs on the 424 don't require external phantom power, do they?
It's your mics that might require phantom power, not the 424.

For $150 it's a great deal, even though the mic pres are disappointing at best.

But it's great fun tweaking the best sound you can out of it.
 
It's your mics that might require phantom power, not the 424.

For $150 it's a great deal, even though the mic pres are disappointing at best.

But it's great fun tweaking the best sound you can out of it.

OK, I see. So even though there are preamps in the XLR inputs on the 424, they'll be less than stellar? How much would I have to spend on external phantom power for the mics?

Also, does this look like it could be useful? And is it a good price? http://annarbor.craigslist.org/msg/2022501304.html ? I'm considering eventually getting an outboard effects unit for reverb etc. so should I just wait and get something different?

Sorry again for all the questions, and thanks!
 
OK, I see. So even though there are preamps in the XLR inputs on the 424, they'll be less than stellar? How much would I have to spend on external phantom power for the mics?

Also, does this look like it could be useful? And is it a good price? http://annarbor.craigslist.org/msg/2022501304.html ? I'm considering eventually getting an outboard effects unit for reverb etc. so should I just wait and get something different?

Sorry again for all the questions, and thanks!

the preamps aren't stellar but usable, like many of the entry level interfaces and digital recorders of today, but the unit as a whole doesn't sound bad. if you use condenser mics (as opposed to dynamic and ribbon mics), you'll need a phantom power supply, and the cost starts at around $40-50. also, there are some battery powered condenser mics out there, negating the need for phantom power. i'm not trying to convince you either way, but cassette 4 tracks tend to get bashed these days, which is understandable because many of them do sound bad. i don't think the 424 mkII is in that camp, but that's just my opinion formed from my own experience.

external processing (compression and reverb) is another subject - do plenty of searching/reading on it before pulling the trigger on anything.
 
the preamps aren't stellar but usable, like many of the entry level interfaces and digital recorders of today, but the unit as a whole doesn't sound bad. if you use condenser mics (as opposed to dynamic and ribbon mics), you'll need a phantom power supply, and the cost starts at around $40-50. also, there are some battery powered condenser mics out there, negating the need for phantom power. i'm not trying to convince you either way, but cassette 4 tracks tend to get bashed these days, which is understandable because many of them do sound bad. i don't think the 424 mkII is in that camp, but that's just my opinion formed from my own experience.

external processing (compression and reverb) is another subject - do plenty of searching/reading on it before pulling the trigger on anything.

Thanks, I guess I'll be looking into a phantom power supply as well.

Oh, and about the external processing- I just found the official noob thread (the one with the big letters that say "read before posting" :)) so I'm gonna spend some time combing through there before I make any major purchases.
 
Thanks, I guess I'll be looking into a phantom power supply as well.

Oh, and about the external processing- I just found the official noob thread (the one with the big letters that say "read before posting" :)) so I'm gonna spend some time combing through there before I make any major purchases.

So, really how much are you willing to spend?
I'll take the dissenting opinion here and say that a cassette 4 track is outdated, and it'll be something you'll almost immediately want to upgrade. They sound bad and they're difficult to use. Most of the people that talk about how great analog recording is/was, they usually aren't talking about their 4tracks. There are plenty of usable stand alone digital multitrack recorders that will sound much better than cassette tape. For the most flexible solution, get a multi-channel all-in-one interface to go with your computer, then you won't even need any outboard processing. Truly, I'm kind of surprised there are people here suggesting a cassette 4 track in 2010 (flame away :D)
 
I know that it may be harder to get a good drum sound with just 4 tracks as opposed to 8 or more

That's false. You might have more flexibility with more mics when it comes to mixing down. But more mics won't make anything sound better. And it will just make a bad recording sound worse, not to mention phase issues, etc....I only use 4 mics on my drums, and I have 3 more 57's that I can use, but I choose not to.
 
So, really how much are you willing to spend?

I think that's probably the big question for me. I'm happy to go analog in 2010 because it can be done for pretty ridiculously cheap (like $400 for everything I need, I think).

So if I want 4 balanced XLR inputs, should I probably go for something like this? In that case, I'll honestly probably buy an analog recorder right now and save up for the digital interface. Do you have another (possibly cheaper) recommendation? Is it recommended to buy used when it comes to interfaces like this?

I know it seems like I keep going back and forth, but don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with digital. I can see a lot of advantages to being able to record and store music on my computer, but I like analog because it's so cheap (probably because it's outdated)...
 
Last edited:
I want to balance out the posts that say 4-track cassette sounds bad; stay away; etc.

Cassette 4-tracks have a certain sound to them. Some people like it a lot. At 3-7/8 tape speed, the frequency range is not as wide as digital, but it's plenty wide. The gentle roll off of the highs and lows serve to help you mix without having to grab as much EQ, which can be destructive. If you can manage to keep everything on 4 tracks without bouncing, the fidelity can be very good. If you bounce tracks, forget it - the quality goes down hill fast.

With any tape, you have to thread the needle between recording loud enough to keep tape hiss as low as possible without recording too hot and over-saturating the tape. Done right, it can sound very nice - even on cassette.
 
I think that's probably the big question for me. I'm happy to go analog in 2010 because it can be done for pretty ridiculously cheap (like $400 for everything I need, I think).

So if I want 4 balanced XLR inputs, should I probably go for something like this? In that case, I'll honestly probably buy an analog recorder right now and save up for the digital interface. Do you have another (possibly cheaper) recommendation? Is it recommended to buy used when it comes to interfaces like this?

I know it seems like I keep going back and forth, but don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with digital. I can see a lot of advantages to being able to record and store music on my computer, but I like analog because it's so cheap (probably because it's outdated)...

Define "everything". Cables? Mics? Monitors? Or just the recorder?
Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of this... http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/R16/
It works as a stand alone recorder *and* a computer interface. I've heard positives things around here, but I haven't tried it personally. That'll get you 8 mics pres. If you want a purely standalone solution, Tascam, Zoom and a few others make digital units that would be basically the 21st century version of a cassette portastudio. If you want a lo-fi sound (which is fine, and lots of people are into that), then go cassette. Otherwise, I'd be looking digital. Also, I'm not a fan of used gear, but lots of people are fine with it. I just like to have the option of returning something if it doesn't work right or meet my needs.
 
Back
Top