TASCAM MAN
New member
who me? You got it all wrong man I was just expressing my feelings here and Bob is the one who got all his feathers ruffled !!!
- Status
who me? You got it all wrong man I was just expressing my feelings here and Bob is the one who got all his feathers ruffled !!!
Telegram Sam
New member
This thread is awesome.
So what was the final verdict; is the OP really comfortable with what he has,
or was it just a clever ruse?
So what was the final verdict; is the OP really comfortable with what he has,
or was it just a clever ruse?
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
who me? You got it all wrong man I was just expressing my feelings here and Bob is the one who got all his feathers ruffled !!!
I've already explained that my choice of words were bad.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
nope ...... once again you completely misinterpret what was said.who me? You got it all wrong man I was just expressing my feelings here and Bob is the one who got all his feathers ruffled !!!
Didn't get ruffled at all with you nor can you point to anything I said that indicates I did.
I simply said I disagreed with you and didn't believe anyone had 'looked down' on you.
And I don't because no one has.
In my opinion you're overly defensive and quick to take insult when none was given.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
As I posted earlier, whatever somebody is happy with is the ideal system for them. No argument. However, let's not confuse overblown sales puffs as impartial reviews or tech specs:
Quite possibly. But let's not get into the "perfection" of the 2488. Go to a pro studio and most of the mics are worth more than $1000 each as are the mic pre channels--and the mixer is probably a quarter of a million or so along with a similar amount in outboard rack gear. However, they won't claim "perfection" even with their multi million dollar investment.
For somebody not willing to learn and adust the technology, the 2488 could be a good solution. However, there are thousands of professional studios and millions of home recordists entirely happy with computer based solutions. Computers give you a LOT more flexibility and, potentially (with the right outboard gear) better quality. However, they also demand a steeper learning curve. The choice is yours.
So, exactly the same sort of features on virtually every computer DAW then.
Read the specs for the centre frequencies and Q on the channel EQ. Totally useless for recording and virtually useless in a live situation (where channel EQ comes into its own) except you couldn't use this as a live sound mixer anyway.
Good enough! Are they switchable pre/post fader? Oh, darn. My hardware mixer has 8 auxes, individually switchable pre/post.
You're repeating yourself Mr. Spec Writer. You've just defined the use of aux sends.
Potentially useful. You can do this on a DAW but this is an area where latency could hit you. Of course, as a self proclaimed perfectionist you'd probably rather mic your Marshall cabinet rather than use fake digital effects. Wouldn't you? After all, YOU said you wanted perfection!
Yup. Useful for mix down (though my DAW has unlimited compression channels) plus routing to allow compression on groups. Compression while recording is a bad idea.
It's called mastering (or at least part of mastering) and any DAW can do it. The latency argument is gone once you've finished tracking.
WTF? Mic inputs on quarter inch? This converts the unit to a non standard toy. What were they thinking? Probably "How can we save money?" or maybe "Dang, we don't have room for XLRs and TRSs on every channel...how can we bodge it?".
Deja vu of WTF? Are they serious? Even Behringer give you 60mm faders. Forty five millimeter is taking the mickey and will make fader adjustments twitchy and hard to use.
Yeah, and my car is high tech enough to have a steering wheel. Of COURSE a digital based recording system needs an LCD screen or similar. What size? What features?
Prefer real tracks myself!
Gee, I should put one of those on my DAW. Oh, hang on. I have one. Except it can burn DVD data disks as well which makes archiving easier.
But computers are evil!
Please let's not start the argument about 48/88/96kHz working again. And, as for 32 bit floating point internal processing, real men control their levels to prevent clipping!
Amazon is "here"? But I thought this was an independent review, not a puff piece by a company selling the 2488?
If it works for you then that's great. However, enough of the thinly veiled implication that those who are willing to acquire the technical knowledge are somehow less creative than you.
Great. However, again, please don't imply that there's something magic about this. I could name a ton of interfaces capable of giving "superbly clean" recordings. However, besides being "clean", how does it SOUND? I thought you were the perfectionist. Oh, and you haven't answered my question about miking a proper amp and cabinet being more perfectionist than a simulator.
All the channels ANYONE could need? Guess I'm a nobody then 'cause I often use 16-24 tracks. Oh, and my solution of a hardware digital mixer into a DAW gives me no latency as well. Actually, that's not true. I have about 2ms latency--and if you don't have at least as much, I'll eat my hat. You can't go through an A to D and a mixing channel without a LITTLE bit of latency unless you're ignoring Scotty and changing the laws of physics.
Does the CD give you a hug and cuddle then call you daddy? Funnily enough, my CDs just sit on the tray until I pick them up. As for "no limitiations, no compromise" I can see a ton of limitations and compromises that make the 2488 unsuitable for my work flow.
Look, I'm not trying to be nasty. From what I've read, the 2488 neo would be a great machine for lots of HR members. However, posting a link to an editorial puff piece pretending to be a review to imply that YOUR way is the best way to work is just as insulting to the rest of us as other members looking down their noses at all-in-ones or analogue workers. All of the above statements are merely MY opinions. That doesn't make them any more right than anyone else's ideas. They just reflect what works for me and me alone. If a solution works for you, that's great--but ramming it down the throats of others is a different story. And using an editorial puff piece in the guise of an independent review kinda crosses a line in my view.
Quite possibly. But let's not get into the "perfection" of the 2488. Go to a pro studio and most of the mics are worth more than $1000 each as are the mic pre channels--and the mixer is probably a quarter of a million or so along with a similar amount in outboard rack gear. However, they won't claim "perfection" even with their multi million dollar investment.
For somebody not willing to learn and adust the technology, the 2488 could be a good solution. However, there are thousands of professional studios and millions of home recordists entirely happy with computer based solutions. Computers give you a LOT more flexibility and, potentially (with the right outboard gear) better quality. However, they also demand a steeper learning curve. The choice is yours.
So, exactly the same sort of features on virtually every computer DAW then.
Read the specs for the centre frequencies and Q on the channel EQ. Totally useless for recording and virtually useless in a live situation (where channel EQ comes into its own) except you couldn't use this as a live sound mixer anyway.
Good enough! Are they switchable pre/post fader? Oh, darn. My hardware mixer has 8 auxes, individually switchable pre/post.
You're repeating yourself Mr. Spec Writer. You've just defined the use of aux sends.
Potentially useful. You can do this on a DAW but this is an area where latency could hit you. Of course, as a self proclaimed perfectionist you'd probably rather mic your Marshall cabinet rather than use fake digital effects. Wouldn't you? After all, YOU said you wanted perfection!
Yup. Useful for mix down (though my DAW has unlimited compression channels) plus routing to allow compression on groups. Compression while recording is a bad idea.
It's called mastering (or at least part of mastering) and any DAW can do it. The latency argument is gone once you've finished tracking.
WTF? Mic inputs on quarter inch? This converts the unit to a non standard toy. What were they thinking? Probably "How can we save money?" or maybe "Dang, we don't have room for XLRs and TRSs on every channel...how can we bodge it?".
Deja vu of WTF? Are they serious? Even Behringer give you 60mm faders. Forty five millimeter is taking the mickey and will make fader adjustments twitchy and hard to use.
Yeah, and my car is high tech enough to have a steering wheel. Of COURSE a digital based recording system needs an LCD screen or similar. What size? What features?
Prefer real tracks myself!
Gee, I should put one of those on my DAW. Oh, hang on. I have one. Except it can burn DVD data disks as well which makes archiving easier.
But computers are evil!
Please let's not start the argument about 48/88/96kHz working again. And, as for 32 bit floating point internal processing, real men control their levels to prevent clipping!
Amazon is "here"? But I thought this was an independent review, not a puff piece by a company selling the 2488?
If it works for you then that's great. However, enough of the thinly veiled implication that those who are willing to acquire the technical knowledge are somehow less creative than you.
Great. However, again, please don't imply that there's something magic about this. I could name a ton of interfaces capable of giving "superbly clean" recordings. However, besides being "clean", how does it SOUND? I thought you were the perfectionist. Oh, and you haven't answered my question about miking a proper amp and cabinet being more perfectionist than a simulator.
All the channels ANYONE could need? Guess I'm a nobody then 'cause I often use 16-24 tracks. Oh, and my solution of a hardware digital mixer into a DAW gives me no latency as well. Actually, that's not true. I have about 2ms latency--and if you don't have at least as much, I'll eat my hat. You can't go through an A to D and a mixing channel without a LITTLE bit of latency unless you're ignoring Scotty and changing the laws of physics.
Does the CD give you a hug and cuddle then call you daddy? Funnily enough, my CDs just sit on the tray until I pick them up. As for "no limitiations, no compromise" I can see a ton of limitations and compromises that make the 2488 unsuitable for my work flow.
Look, I'm not trying to be nasty. From what I've read, the 2488 neo would be a great machine for lots of HR members. However, posting a link to an editorial puff piece pretending to be a review to imply that YOUR way is the best way to work is just as insulting to the rest of us as other members looking down their noses at all-in-ones or analogue workers. All of the above statements are merely MY opinions. That doesn't make them any more right than anyone else's ideas. They just reflect what works for me and me alone. If a solution works for you, that's great--but ramming it down the throats of others is a different story. And using an editorial puff piece in the guise of an independent review kinda crosses a line in my view.
Last edited:
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Sigh.....
It really just comes down to what works for any individual. You may have less of something by using a different recording device, or more of something else with another, depending upon what it is you need. Nobody judges that around here. Only those who have personal attitudes, towards one or the other, choose to make it a battle of sort.
I closed that other thread, as it became a personal bashing forum. Thank you GT for hearing what I said there. I was not trying to start an argument. I was merely stating that one's personal opinion, does not equate to fact.
It ended up as what it was. I have no control over what peoples opinions are. I don't wish to either.
It really just comes down to what works for any individual. You may have less of something by using a different recording device, or more of something else with another, depending upon what it is you need. Nobody judges that around here. Only those who have personal attitudes, towards one or the other, choose to make it a battle of sort.
I closed that other thread, as it became a personal bashing forum. Thank you GT for hearing what I said there. I was not trying to start an argument. I was merely stating that one's personal opinion, does not equate to fact.
It ended up as what it was. I have no control over what peoples opinions are. I don't wish to either.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Sorry, Jimmy. I really DO mean it when I say "if it works for you then it's your ideal system. I dislike snobbishness (is that a word?) going in any direction--DAW users shouldn't look down on analogue or all-in-one users. At the same time though, all-in-one users shouldn't assume they have a solution that works for everyone. If there are 135,000 different HR members, there are probably 135,000 different ideal systems.
However, this thread crossed into something else...something that makes me see red.
When somebody with a connection to a retailer writes something in the guise of an unbiased user review, that's just wrong. Even worse, when things are listed as specs but are, in fact, meaningless drivel, I hate the thought of potential buyers being taken in. When that meaningless drivel includes seriously questionable design decisions (mic inputs on quarter inch jacks and 45mm faders for example), I tend to lose it!
Finally, using the above "review" to prove one system is superior to another goes against the whole idea that everyone's needs are different. The article quoted is an example of the worst in specialist audio journalism and we, as users, simply should not stand for things like that. If you want to write an ad, be clear that it's advertising. Don't pretend to be an unbiased user...and don't make statements you can't back up.
Anyhow, sorry again Jimmy if I've re-stirred the hornets' nest.
However, this thread crossed into something else...something that makes me see red.
When somebody with a connection to a retailer writes something in the guise of an unbiased user review, that's just wrong. Even worse, when things are listed as specs but are, in fact, meaningless drivel, I hate the thought of potential buyers being taken in. When that meaningless drivel includes seriously questionable design decisions (mic inputs on quarter inch jacks and 45mm faders for example), I tend to lose it!
Finally, using the above "review" to prove one system is superior to another goes against the whole idea that everyone's needs are different. The article quoted is an example of the worst in specialist audio journalism and we, as users, simply should not stand for things like that. If you want to write an ad, be clear that it's advertising. Don't pretend to be an unbiased user...and don't make statements you can't back up.
Anyhow, sorry again Jimmy if I've re-stirred the hornets' nest.
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
There should be a 'Much Ado About Nothing' part of this forum. This thread would fit in perfectly.
Each to their own, as long as music is being made, it's all good.
Each to their own, as long as music is being made, it's all good.
R
Roisto
New member
never change working system
Steenamaroo
...
OP needs to chill out.
Last edited:
L
LawMan5643
New member
I totally agree!!
Things have become far too technical in the music game, nowadays anyone can have a studio in their basements, hell even their bedrooms. I embrace technology, however I think that we're becoming too dependent on it to correct our mistakes.
Things have become far too technical in the music game, nowadays anyone can have a studio in their basements, hell even their bedrooms. I embrace technology, however I think that we're becoming too dependent on it to correct our mistakes.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
"as a musician I prize perfection and nothing else" ...... 
TASCAM MAN
New member
TASCAM MAN
New member
This thread is awesome.
So what was the final verdict; is the OP really comfortable with what he has,
or was it just a clever ruse?
Could not be more satisfied with the digital "portastudio" as my main recording system
but I do have a lot to learn, far as "backing up" songs andwav files, etc etc via usb. The 2488 should have continued with a MK4, are just kept manufacturing them....so easy to create great music/recordings with !!!
TASCAM MAN
New member
You could be right about the "quick to take insult" that is a weakness of mine, I admit
but still in all most people on here thinks that computers are the answer for everything and we both know that it isn't true.and yes I do know that the Tascam 2488 in itself isn't the answer for all people. But for people my age,(56) most of the time it can "ease" you into recording digitally ,and a lot less intimidating than going totally DAW. Also in the fraction of the time it takes to learn about computers and what all you need to have to be up and running. Still seems to me and the guys like me that grew up on analog gear, that it (digital multitrack recorder) is just the easier way to go....still there choice but easier and with great quality sound....
buskerboy
New member
I still have my analogue 4 track. There is no reason that you can't use both, anything goes these days.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
You could be right about the "quick to take insult" that is a weakness of mine, I admit
Okay, you've expressed your opinion. Are you done?
TASCAM MAN
New member
No Im not smartass
TASCAM MAN
New member
and besides,that was addressed to Lt. Bob not you and I have the right just like anyone else to express my opinion....
- Status