424 mkii question

[andyhix]

Hey Dave (just guessing on who will answer this ),

Am I correct that I can't use the fx send (1 or 2) unless the track fader is at least partly on? I have a horribly dynamic vocal track that I would like to run through a compressor, via the fx loop, but to do so, it seems I need to mix in the dry original some. I can use the mixer sends on the back of the unit, but that leaves me with no EQing ability before the send, which is a bit of a bummer. Suggestions?

-Andy.

P.S. I have a half assed workaround using a 2nd mkii to send my tracks to, thus giving me EQ after the compressor, but it's still not my preference.

 

[A Reel Person]

Sure, I'll give this a shot!

I don't use the EFF-SNDs, so I've consulted the 424mkIII manual (online).

According to the manual, the EFF-SND-1 & 2 are POST-fader.

In order to get any usable signal from the EFFECT-Sends, the channel fader must be up. Sorry to confirm your worst fears!

[OT]Which points to the relative superiority of the "vintage" 244 and 246 over the 424. The 244 has an ACCESS-SND>RCV patch point (INLINE) on each channel, and the 246 has the same ability to patch efx inline with INSERTs on each channel. (The 244/246 also have a dedicated Aux-Snd/Rcv section, as well).

Which also brings up something that is fundamental, which I'm sure you already know,... that compression is best implemented INLINE to the signal, as opposed to reverb, which may be applied INLINE or PARALLEL to the original signal.

Unfortunately, EFF-LOOPs by definition are a "parallel" signal to the original L/R-Stereo buss, and with the EFF-SNDs being POST-fader, you're obligated to have the channel fader up, which feeds a dry signal in parallel to the effected signal.

In short, compression on an efx-loop (as in your scenario), is an improper implementation of compression and the effects loop,... (!!!),... in which case, you do the best with what you have to achieve the results you desire!!... (given some obvious limitations).

 

[andyhix]

Which also brings up something that is fundamental, which I'm sure you already know,... that compression is best implemented INLINE to the signal, as opposed to reverb, which may be applied INLINE or PARALLEL to the original signal.

Well, You know that and I know that, but....the only compression (or other fx, for that matter) I have access to is actually a plugin that I'm using on a laptop using Krystal's "live in" feature, which allows a signal to be processed more or less in real time. So in theory I could use it in line, BUT there's some major compatibility issues with my audio interface, which means that there is about a 60% chance that it'll freak out (loud wall of distortion out of the blue) during a three minute song. That's slightly more tolerable during a mixdown than during tracking...slightly. Hence my half assed process.

As I mentioned in the first post, I have a buddy's 424 also, so I can use the mixer outs, through the fx and into a channel on the 2nd machine, so I can use the faders, eq, etc. And that allows me to pan the effected signal, which using only one machine I couldn't do because the mkii doesn't have pan control for tracks 5-8 - another major limitation of it. the mkiii I think does, though. Oh well...it works, sorta. This is just for a little parody fun project, anyway - nothing too important.

 

[A Reel Person]

You do what you can with what you have.

The 424mkII is a nice and capable unit, but it doesn't have every feature for every person's preferences in every situation. Nor does it have what I'd consider the absolute best conglomeration of features from all other Tascam Portastudios combined,... but it is what it is, and it does what it does. Despite it all, the 424mkII's still a fairly nice high-end Portatsudio that does a lot. As with anything, you use what you have & try to get the most out of it, which includes jerry-rigging a few setups, now & then. A lot of the deficiencies of a 4-track Portastudio may be dealt with and somewhat overcome by careful planning and execution of the tracks.

Blah, blah, blah. Guess I'm preaching to the choir, again.

You're on the right track, and the basic answer to your original question is "affirmative".

Cheers!