424 vs. 488

[little z]

Ok, just want to know if any of you out there know if there is sound quality loss on the 488 as oppossed to the 424..... I have been told that squeezing 8 tracks of audio onto a cassette would make the sound suffer, and it doesn't really happen when only using 4 tracks....... Any and all help will be greatly appreciated, thank you all!!!!! Steve

 

[A Reel Person]

Oh yeah,

"Track per track", there's less headroom on the 488, as compared to the 424. The audible difference will be there, track per track, however subtle it may be.

The upside is, that the 488 does have twice as many tracks as the 424, and depending on your recording techniques and program material, "overall" [cumulative] headroom should be relatively equivalent, between the 424 and 488.

It all depends how much you value the integrity or strength of each track, versus the value of the number of tracks. There's definitely a tradeoff on that.

If you want individually stronger sounding tracks, stick with the 424.

If you want twice as many tracks, and don't mind sacrificing a little of the relative strength of each individual track, going for more production value thru more tracks, then go for the 488.

I think people with 488's or 238's generally like them, and I've seen comments about how good the sound is, despite the narrow track width.

Again, I think, "overall" sound quality should be relatively equivalent, between the 424 and th 488, with the 424 having slightly stronger sounding individual tracks, and the 488 just having more, slightly weaker sounding tracks.

Take one of each, they're small.

Make sure you stick with the mkII model, minimum.

 

[A Reel Person]

PS: Here's another idea.

I really think you'd be best off, by getting the 424mkII or III for 4 track, and then getting a 388 for 8 track, [minimum, up to and including possibly either a 38/M30 combo or TSR-8 and M30].

By going from the 424 to the 488, you may be losing fidelity, or just breaking even, depending on how you look at it, but by going from a 424 to a 388, you're not losing anything, you're gaining quite a bit, in production value. Going to a 38 [dbx optional] or TSR-8 [dbx built in], brings production value up even more! A LOT more!

You get a lot more bang for your buck, for 8 tracks, on a 388, 38 or TSR-8, definitely enough to blow the 488 or 238 away, many times over. That's a fact, Jack.

 

[little z]

I think I have it!!!!!!!!!

Being that I try to keep it simple and make every little thing count, sticking with the 424 mkIII would probably be the best way to go for me. I like the idea of quality over quantity, and 4 tracks make it more of a challenge to really make the music happen with some strength and creativity, as oppossed to having 8 tracks and trying to make up for a weak sounding song with more weak sounding tracks, not due to the sound of the machine, but to the lack of push to make a song put its' point across in four tracks and possibly no bounces...... I guess the less is more approach is where I'm heading, but I just like to know that if there is any quality to be lost, I'd rather take the loss in number of tracks rather than in overall individual track strength!!!
Thanks a million,
Steve

 

[A Reel Person]

Z,

Yeah, I agree with you. The 424mkIII is a good choice, for many reasons.

4 track production is a fun format, that forces you to be 'thrifty' on tracks and resourceful on overall production, and also forces you to keep it simple, while still striving to pack the tracks, and squeeze every last drop of production value, out of only 4 tracks.

It's a little limiting, sometimes, but it's more challenging of a production, to try to get the most out of 4 tracks, as opposed to 8.

The 4 track Portastudio is still one of my favorite formats.

 

[overseas]

When recording, you could always try routing a mono signal from your guitar or whatever to two tracks on the 488mkII, which would be roughly the equivalent of a single track on the 424mkIII. I've done that, and it sounds pretty darn good.

 

[A Reel Person]

Nice, interesting suggestion. Sounds reasonable.

Thanx.