N
napoli187
New member
okay people, opinion time. which would you suggest getting? i'm leaning towards the 488mkII because of its 8 track capability. also, whats the difference between the 488 and the 488mkII? thanks
T
The Ghost of FM
Banned
To answer your question about which to choose, you only need answer one question and that is; Is quantity more important to you then quality? Eight thin tracks verses four fatter tracks.
If you're recording simple demos of you and a guitar with a backing vocal and a simple click track, a four tracker will do very nicely without the need to bounce.
If you're wanting to do a more involved track with stereo drums, bass, a couple of guitar parts, (rhythm and lead), a keyboard part, a main vocal and a harmony backing track, an eight track would be the way to go.
Cheers!
If you're recording simple demos of you and a guitar with a backing vocal and a simple click track, a four tracker will do very nicely without the need to bounce.
If you're wanting to do a more involved track with stereo drums, bass, a couple of guitar parts, (rhythm and lead), a keyboard part, a main vocal and a harmony backing track, an eight track would be the way to go.
Cheers!
T
The Green Hornet
New member
Ciao Napoli:
The Ghost has given you the "skinny" about the units. The 488MKII was the second edition of the 488 -- I had both of those units; I still have the MKII in storage as I have long since gone to digital.
I've taken some cassettes made from the 488II and remastered them on my SIAB and got some great results. Of course the "little" bit of pre-run hiss gets louder in 16 bit. But, once the tune starts, no problema and the hiss can be taken out with the right gear.
But, but, but, for a little more $$$ you can get a SIAB box which will let you record 16 plus tracks and burn your own CD or CDRW and import wave tracks and much more.
But, you will like the 488. I assume you're getting a used one? I don't think Tascam makes them anymore. But, have fun.
Green Hornet
The Ghost has given you the "skinny" about the units. The 488MKII was the second edition of the 488 -- I had both of those units; I still have the MKII in storage as I have long since gone to digital.
I've taken some cassettes made from the 488II and remastered them on my SIAB and got some great results. Of course the "little" bit of pre-run hiss gets louder in 16 bit. But, once the tune starts, no problema and the hiss can be taken out with the right gear.
But, but, but, for a little more $$$ you can get a SIAB box which will let you record 16 plus tracks and burn your own CD or CDRW and import wave tracks and much more.
But, you will like the 488. I assume you're getting a used one? I don't think Tascam makes them anymore. But, have fun.
Green Hornet
B
Benreturns
New member
I have a 488mkII and i love it. The tape quality is fine providing you use decent tapes and track properly. I havent a bad word to say about it. Its the highest rung on the cassette recording ladder to me.
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
The 424mkII and 488mkII are both fine, in my book.
I have both, but I have more direct experience on the 424mkII, by far, more than on the 488mkII. The 424mkII and 488mkII were of the same product family, and share common design factors.
The 424mkII delivers a nice, robust sound, that's for sure, with moderately nice mixing and routing section, on 4-tracks.
The 488mkII gives you 8 tracks on cassette, with more highly functional & complex mixer than the 424mkII, and respectable sound quality, which is a big selling point. The 488mkII was the last cassette 8-track Portastudio that Tascam ever produced.
The Tascam 688 is even more high-techy and feature-loaded than the 488mkII, and the Tascam 238 is the 8-in/8-out cassette 8-track, rackmount, that requires an external mixer.
I have both, but I have more direct experience on the 424mkII, by far, more than on the 488mkII. The 424mkII and 488mkII were of the same product family, and share common design factors.
The 424mkII delivers a nice, robust sound, that's for sure, with moderately nice mixing and routing section, on 4-tracks.
The 488mkII gives you 8 tracks on cassette, with more highly functional & complex mixer than the 424mkII, and respectable sound quality, which is a big selling point. The 488mkII was the last cassette 8-track Portastudio that Tascam ever produced.
The Tascam 688 is even more high-techy and feature-loaded than the 488mkII, and the Tascam 238 is the 8-in/8-out cassette 8-track, rackmount, that requires an external mixer.
Last edited:
DigitalSmigital
A slice of analog pie?
The Ghost of FM said:Eight thin tracks verses four fatter tracks.
Cheers!
So, the bottom line. Signal quality of the bounced four track is lesser than the eight track's signal? Or is it just more difficult to get the "perfect" finished mix after bouncing?
I should like to hear a comparison of A Reel Person's efforts on his 488 and 424! Could we truly tell the difference in signal quality?
Keep in mind I am biased (no pun intended) towards the 4 track...
Blue Bear Sound
New member
At that scale of gear, I don't think the difference will be hugely significant.DigitalSmigital said:
Kinda like asking will one will be better, a Pontiac Sunfire or Chevy Cavalier!
DigitalSmigital
A slice of analog pie?
Blue Bear Sound said:
Hmmm, you hurt my feelings (sob!) with that response. If I could justify a Ferrari purchase I'd do it. I guess you are hoping I'll wander into your dealership? But an answer does exist, I'd hoped.
Besides, we're taliking demo-quality gear. I'm not selling tapes at the venue door made on a Porta. Is there no difference in signal from a bounced four track compared to an eight track cassette? Or is it just more difficult to get the perfect mix?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Blue Bear Sound
New member
My comment wasn't meant to hurt anyone's feelings at all...
I was simply pointing out that the fidelity limitations inherent in the multitrack cassette format are very similar, whether it's a 4 or 8-track unit.
I was simply pointing out that the fidelity limitations inherent in the multitrack cassette format are very similar, whether it's a 4 or 8-track unit.
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
You're bound to have more signal degradation on a bounced 4-track composition,...
vs. a straight 8-tracks, right out of the box.
The bouncing factor will always be a limiting factor, on a 4-track cassette, or otherwise. If you feel you'd be relying on a 4-track bounce technique very often, then you might as well step up to 8 tracks.
The straight 4-track cassette tracks [no bouncing] would probably yield roughly the same OVERALL fidelity as the straight 8-track cassette tracks. They are both still cassettes, with total tape width of 1/8". When you get into "per track" fidelity, then there may be a difference, but IMO, at that point you're splitting hairs. You'll definitely have more basic tracks, and more overall flexibility on an 8-track, vs. 4-track.
I have lots of stuff off the 424mkII, but nothing to showcase off the 488mkII. There is, however, several cuts off the Tascam 388, 244 and 38, too, if you have the time. Thanx.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/davemania/singles
vs. a straight 8-tracks, right out of the box.
The bouncing factor will always be a limiting factor, on a 4-track cassette, or otherwise. If you feel you'd be relying on a 4-track bounce technique very often, then you might as well step up to 8 tracks.
The straight 4-track cassette tracks [no bouncing] would probably yield roughly the same OVERALL fidelity as the straight 8-track cassette tracks. They are both still cassettes, with total tape width of 1/8". When you get into "per track" fidelity, then there may be a difference, but IMO, at that point you're splitting hairs. You'll definitely have more basic tracks, and more overall flexibility on an 8-track, vs. 4-track.
I have lots of stuff off the 424mkII, but nothing to showcase off the 488mkII. There is, however, several cuts off the Tascam 388, 244 and 38, too, if you have the time. Thanx.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/davemania/singles
DefenderOfRock
New member
Sweet Beatles covers Reel. The sound quality is pretty impressive, considering that they were done on units like 424s and FD-4s. I am curious? What other gear (ie submixers, preamps, etc outboard processors) did you use? (if you dont mind me asking) 
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
There's nothing much in the way of outboard gear on any of those recordings.
Just me, my guitar, bass, piano, drums,... the "usual" instruments,... plus a little hand percussion.
Mic: SM57, usually one, but sometimes more, like on drums.
No efx, outboard gear, or any other fancy stuff. Just straight into the board, with a little EQ. I'll try to muster up the best overall performance, with moderate attention to detail. Nothing too heavy duty.
I'll usually record electric guitar & electric bass DI, with a single mic about 9" off the body of the guitar, angled off the bridge [area], and mixed with the DI sound for "ambience". That's a regular technique for me, in most cases. EQ used on the input phase, & recorded down to "tape", mixed by "ear".
Things I record are done just for fun, and I hope they're fun to listen to, on the turnaround. In the scheme of production and effects, I'm more of a "roots-purist". That pretty much sums it up.
Thanx for listening! Come again!
Just me, my guitar, bass, piano, drums,... the "usual" instruments,... plus a little hand percussion.
Mic: SM57, usually one, but sometimes more, like on drums.
No efx, outboard gear, or any other fancy stuff. Just straight into the board, with a little EQ. I'll try to muster up the best overall performance, with moderate attention to detail. Nothing too heavy duty.
I'll usually record electric guitar & electric bass DI, with a single mic about 9" off the body of the guitar, angled off the bridge [area], and mixed with the DI sound for "ambience". That's a regular technique for me, in most cases. EQ used on the input phase, & recorded down to "tape", mixed by "ear".
Things I record are done just for fun, and I hope they're fun to listen to, on the turnaround. In the scheme of production and effects, I'm more of a "roots-purist". That pretty much sums it up.
Thanx for listening! Come again!