4 track vs. 8 track (424/688/488)

  • Thread starter Thread starter clevodrummer
  • Start date Start date
C

clevodrummer

Tascammer
I have a question regarding sound quality between these respective decks.

I have read rave reviews of the 688 and 488 and already know that the 424 is a magnificent machine.

One comment I read about tape deck 8tracks is that 8 tracks on a cassette sounds terrible. I have also read the total opposite.

So my question is, what is the sound quality of a 424 when bouncing tracks as opposed to an 8track like the 488/688 with 8 tracks and nothing bounced.

If you had to make a choice between the three decks which would you choose if you intended on recording more than 4 tracks? Is the sound better with 4 tracks and a few bounced, or 8 tracks layed down on an 8 track?

Thanks,

Clevo
 
I'd venture to say,...

an 8-track master with 8 discrete tracks, such as on the 488/488mkII/688/238, would sound better than 8-pseudo tracks gained through track-bouncing on a 4-track, such as the 424mkIII. Though decent results can be had through moderate use of track bouncing, the machine with 8 discrete tracks would offer more fidelity, as any track bounce would introduce some measure of sonic degradation.

I'd disagree that an 8-track cassette "sounds like crap". It sounds pretty decent, or the format would not have enjoyed a moderate run of popularity 'back in the day', with no less than 3 generations of Portastudios and one Syncaset coming out of it all. :eek: ;)
 
8 tracks sound fucking great! I run a little studio with my 688. You can't record a band that wants to sound like Nickelback, but cassettes have a very nice warm and cosy sound/feel to them and they mix way easier than a computer. Especially nice when you're starting out. I can really recommend the 688 (check my site for some samples -belly button and keep on walking-, although we where going for lo-fi on most of the songs)

If it's in good condition, buy it! (the 238 is great too, and the 244 and 246 rule as well but less versatile as Reel explained)
 
very cool site pics of 688

Dave,

Believe me that "sounds like crap" wasnt from me, it was a quote I read.I printed a copy of your response from the post from I think it was Rocketman or something like that. Awesome info, man....thats the stuff you dont find in manuals. Finally finished my first mix on my 424 of a song called "Bouree" by Jethro Tull. Wow....what a sound....I just used my ears. Im pretty new at this, but it is the bomb!! Im trying to score a 488 or 688. A drum student of mine dropped off a little "Zoom" box with a soundcard, so Im gonna experiment with mixing down to that as well, but from the sound of the cassette, Im like "Why Bother"?

So, now I am finally going to get to the tunes Orange Robot sent, Bowie (Space Oddity) and a cool Doors tune.

I havent bothered with it yet, because I had to really figure out how to mix the drums. The info you gave me about going direct, watchin the cue carefully, and -10db on the mixer REALLY did the trick.


Thanks again , man. Your posts really help people out here, and I definetly appreciate them.

I moved my computer into my studio, so Im getting to work, and I will be back once I meet a few goals.


Peace/

clevo
 
488

I bought a 488 back in 1990, it was my second recording set-up. I was great!! you do your first 6 trks then bounce them dowm to 7&8 for stero then start stacking your other trks on top. It was great for demo work and I did my first indie alblum on it in 1991. I did sell it for some ADAT money, but I do still have the manual if anybody needs it.
 
8 tracks on cassette.

I don't think you'll notice any real sonic degradation, and like everyone else said, saving the bouncing will really help with sound.

Try and track with the high end hyped a bit with EQ, that way you can lower the 'noise floor' when you pull down the high self eq to get a more natural tone. That, or when you bounce, you'll retain more high frequency information.


The only way I can possibly think that 8 track cassette would suffer is that there is less bandwidth per track, but I REALLY doubt you would notice the difference.

I love my tascam 424mkIII, and I think I actually enjoyed recording more when I was using that instead of my convoluted digital setup.
 
'The only way I can possibly think that 8 track cassette would suffer is that there is less bandwidth per track, but I REALLY doubt you would notice the difference.'

You don't..good tip on the eq part though. Especially when you record with DBX on.
 
I gotta admit, after working with this format for awhile, I would take 24-bit digital over cassette. I did some great stuff with a 424 portastudio 10 years ago when that was all I had to work with, and my buddy has a 688 which is pretty cool, but it has limitations. Maybe it sounds better if you have some great outboard gear to use with it, which I don't... I thought the cassette 4 track (with pitch control cranked all the way up!) on high speed sounded best in terms of sonic quality on each track, at least as far as cassette machines go, but I really think you need to go R2R if you want eight tracks.

I dunno why anybody would even bother bouncing or ping-ponging. Dump your stereo mix to your PC and do your overdubs in the digital world. Even your cheap 16-bit Soundblaster card will sound better than ping-ponged 2nd generation cassette tracks.
 
Hi Flyer makes a very good point, there's not really any reason to be bouncing tracks with how cheap and easy it is to send your product to the digital realm where you can use at least 16 tracks no problem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top