Bobby Darko
New member
688
yo Dave, put the 688 pic up there as well, I'f we're talking 8 track cassette. Wonderful machine!
yo Dave, put the 688 pic up there as well, I'f we're talking 8 track cassette. Wonderful machine!
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
...
All that's pictured & battery-op for true "field recording" capability! (or use standard AC adapter).
The Porta Two really is a classic!up-fiddler said:I know this thread has gone on forever but I still own and occasionally use the Porta Two I bought back in 1989 or 90. I'm anal about cleaning but other than that I have done nothing to it.I wish all my equipment was as reliable.
All that's pictured & battery-op for true "field recording" capability! (or use standard AC adapter).
Attachments
S
SMOKINDOG
New member
Since we are showing baby pics...https://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b204/smokindog/424.jpg
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
M
MCI2424
New member
I voted for the porta-7 'cause its the grooviest.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
MCI2424 said:
You just can't help but post, can you ?
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
johneeeveee
New member
i had a new old stock condition 244 w/ 100 brand new tdk smx- 20 & 30 tapes on sale for $200 obo on this site for the last week or so, and no one seemed interested at all. i decided to just keep it, but was surprised that there was no interest whatsoever. i still dig them, and love my 388 to death. i know lots of folks who have made quite noteable albums on them. my buddy made a recent record with a 388 and sm57's that got him signed to subpop. i'll always think these machines are cool.
peace - jv
peace - jv
M
mustang
New member
I've had several 488s. I consider them 8 tracks though. I've had a half dozen of these searching for the perfect one. Finally I found an unsold nos one on ebay a few years. My search was over.
I've had the original porta studio and various other incarnations of it including 438. That's the one I think with the midi sequencer built in. My favorite "get your tracks down" and fun to use four track is 414 mk2. I wish I never sold mine off god I paid almost nothing for it, had great sound quality and was so easy to use
I may buy another someday
I've had the original porta studio and various other incarnations of it including 438. That's the one I think with the midi sequencer built in. My favorite "get your tracks down" and fun to use four track is 414 mk2. I wish I never sold mine off god I paid almost nothing for it, had great sound quality and was so easy to use
I may buy another someday
M
MK-Ultra
New member
I've still got an original 424. Had to replace the motor, bands, and have it cleaned after I spilled Pepsi in it, but it is as good as new. 3 months after I paid for the repairs and cleaning, I bought a VS 880EX.
I was far more productive with the fewer choices that the 424 gave me. You can fiddle and tweak the 880EX until you get lost and realize that you've only recorded one song in 3 years. At least, that was my experience, sorta.
How do the 8 tracks get 8 tracks out of a 4 track tape?
I was far more productive with the fewer choices that the 424 gave me. You can fiddle and tweak the 880EX until you get lost and realize that you've only recorded one song in 3 years. At least, that was my experience, sorta.
How do the 8 tracks get 8 tracks out of a 4 track tape?
M
mustang
New member
I hear you on the "more done with less options." It's easier to knock out a demo on a four track than with 8 track/board or recording on the computer. On the 488 they squeeze 8 total tracks on the tape. Mind you this is probably about a quarter of the size of half inch tape. But on 488 the specs are better than equal to most of the first 8 tracks used in the 60s to record some of your favorite classic songs. I think it works to your advantage in some ways as you over saturate the tape and get more compression. So many people mistake "vintage" compression with the old tube units (which indeed is a big part of it.) A component they over look is hard limiting the engineers did in the old days bouncing tape back and forth. I've had both the 488 and 488 mkII. Both are good units. The last version is pretty awesome as you have phantom power supply and a nicer eq section for mix down. The first 488 you can only record two track simultaneously (I think) and on the mkII can do 4 tracks at once.
The part about only doing one song in 3 years with more options hit a nerve. I could knock out one or two songs a week on on 414. Just so easy to get things done because you could only bounce so much with them and then you ran out of tracks
The part about only doing one song in 3 years with more options hit a nerve. I could knock out one or two songs a week on on 414. Just so easy to get things done because you could only bounce so much with them and then you ran out of tracks
johneeeveee
New member
mustang said:
I dig cassette recording as much or possibly more than the next guy... but let's not get carried away. The specs on ANY 4 trk or 8 trk casssette recorder do not remotely compare to the 1 inch 4 trks and boards used in the 60's to record classic records. I just don't want to get into that, "well, the Beatles used a 4 Trk" mentallity (as the Beatles and George Martin used two one inch 2 trk machines early on, I believe).
Porta's are very cool and fun, and have a sound all their own, but anyone who has done serious analog recording on big tape knows that it's like night and day. This in no way belittles the results you can get on 4 (or 8)Trk cassette machines, and I wish there was enough interest in them to continue making quality decks. It's a shame, but I guess digital has taken over the home studio majority.
peace - jv
M
mustang
New member
If you actually took the time to read what I wrote before going on some tangent about Beatle shit that has nothing to do with what with my post you would realize the following.
I did answer the question originally asked how 8 tracks of information is placed on cassette tape. When I said "equal or better" specs I meant I meant signal to noise ratio, etc. Go take a 60's solid state reel to reel 8 track and a 1990s 488 mkII with DBX and see which is quieter? You seem to have a wide refrane of arcane knowledge. Go do a table for me and prove me wrong.
I also did not say that because the beatles recorded "sgt. pepper" on a four track (two Studer units I believe) that you can do the same thing on a Tascam four track cassette recorder that costs $200. Theoretically I suppose you could in practice that's another story. That's like saying a Ford Escort and a Porsche are equal because they are both cars. Technically they are but there is quite a difference in qaulity. Everyone knows that something recorded on 1 inch tape will always sound superior to something recorded on cassette tape.
No one was saying that though. No one was talking about mixing boards or abbey road studios here. No one was saying a porta studio was as good as 4 track open reel. No one but you.
Maybe you should start a new thread if you want to talk about the Beatles. I thought this one was just on favorite 4 track cassettes?
I did answer the question originally asked how 8 tracks of information is placed on cassette tape. When I said "equal or better" specs I meant I meant signal to noise ratio, etc. Go take a 60's solid state reel to reel 8 track and a 1990s 488 mkII with DBX and see which is quieter? You seem to have a wide refrane of arcane knowledge. Go do a table for me and prove me wrong.
I also did not say that because the beatles recorded "sgt. pepper" on a four track (two Studer units I believe) that you can do the same thing on a Tascam four track cassette recorder that costs $200. Theoretically I suppose you could in practice that's another story. That's like saying a Ford Escort and a Porsche are equal because they are both cars. Technically they are but there is quite a difference in qaulity. Everyone knows that something recorded on 1 inch tape will always sound superior to something recorded on cassette tape.
No one was saying that though. No one was talking about mixing boards or abbey road studios here. No one was saying a porta studio was as good as 4 track open reel. No one but you.
Maybe you should start a new thread if you want to talk about the Beatles. I thought this one was just on favorite 4 track cassettes?
Last edited:
johneeeveee
New member
wow, mustang... i was merely discussing in a civil way, and by no means went on a "tangent". the beatles remark was not aimed at you, but just to make a point about 4 trk recording. it is also something i have read people write from time to time on this board and didn't want to perpetuate that sort of misnomer.
i don't wish to argue, but in my experience with 60's and 70's tape machines, there is simply no comparison between cassette tape and 1, 1/2, or even 1/4 inch 4 tracks. i've never found a use for dbx, as slamming signal to bigger tape makes it unnecessary in my book. in fact, i don't think the fidelity on a 488 is quite as good as that of a quality of a 4trk cassette machine (which would make sense considering the track to tape width ratio). you can look at signal to noise specs all day long, but i think your ears will tell you differently. look at the specs on a cheap condensor mic compared to a u87, and you may not see much difference at all, but then listen to them... well you get the idea.
we all have opinoins, and i meant no disrespect... we seem to simply disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that. i apologize if i got off topic, but i don't see much discussion of these great little machines anymore.
for the record, my favorite is the tascam 246, which i don't own anymore, but i have a really nice 244 and enough high end cassette tapes to record for the next several years. i hope they never go away... that would make me sad. long live the portastudio.
peace - jv
i don't wish to argue, but in my experience with 60's and 70's tape machines, there is simply no comparison between cassette tape and 1, 1/2, or even 1/4 inch 4 tracks. i've never found a use for dbx, as slamming signal to bigger tape makes it unnecessary in my book. in fact, i don't think the fidelity on a 488 is quite as good as that of a quality of a 4trk cassette machine (which would make sense considering the track to tape width ratio). you can look at signal to noise specs all day long, but i think your ears will tell you differently. look at the specs on a cheap condensor mic compared to a u87, and you may not see much difference at all, but then listen to them... well you get the idea.
we all have opinoins, and i meant no disrespect... we seem to simply disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that. i apologize if i got off topic, but i don't see much discussion of these great little machines anymore.
for the record, my favorite is the tascam 246, which i don't own anymore, but i have a really nice 244 and enough high end cassette tapes to record for the next several years. i hope they never go away... that would make me sad. long live the portastudio.
peace - jv
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
As jv said plus .....
Whatever "mustang" was trying to get across came out rather poorly imho and could have been easily construed by most anyone as the opposite of what he now says he meant. Also, mustang, there's not need to lash out at jv as he has been rather civil to you. No one is trying to pick a fight with you so lets cut our losses and move on, ok ?
Btw, jv, you wouldn't want to part with your NOS 244, would you ? There's always a place in my humble home for one more.
Whatever "mustang" was trying to get across came out rather poorly imho and could have been easily construed by most anyone as the opposite of what he now says he meant. Also, mustang, there's not need to lash out at jv as he has been rather civil to you. No one is trying to pick a fight with you so lets cut our losses and move on, ok ?
Btw, jv, you wouldn't want to part with your NOS 244, would you ? There's always a place in my humble home for one more.
M
mustang
New member
We don't disagree because he is having an argument with himself.
I like tascam cassette porta studios and series for what they are and I currently own a 488 mkII. I am not saying they are comparable to a professional studio. The thread here is just asking people what there favorite 4 track cassette machine is. I allready said, a tascam 488 mkII. There easy to use, sound great and I am comfortable with them. I am not an advocate for tape or digital recording either way. I am just about people doing what ever makes them happy.
Thanks for your input on things Cjacek. Your welcome to your opinion but it doesn't make it correct.
I like tascam cassette porta studios and series for what they are and I currently own a 488 mkII. I am not saying they are comparable to a professional studio. The thread here is just asking people what there favorite 4 track cassette machine is. I allready said, a tascam 488 mkII. There easy to use, sound great and I am comfortable with them. I am not an advocate for tape or digital recording either way. I am just about people doing what ever makes them happy.
Thanks for your input on things Cjacek. Your welcome to your opinion but it doesn't make it correct.
Last edited:
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
mustang said:
Here's what I have a problem with:
Initially you said:
"But on 488 the specs are better than equal to most of the first 8 tracks used in the 60s to record some of your favorite classic songs. I think it works to your advantage in some ways as you over saturate the tape and get more compression."
Then, in another post:
"When I said "equal or better" specs I meant I meant signal to noise ratio, etc. Go take a 60's solid state reel to reel 8 track and a 1990s 488 mkII with DBX and see which is quieter?"
...and then further down:
"Everyone knows that something recorded on 1 inch tape will always sound superior to something recorded on cassette tape."
.... and you're saying that jv has "arcane knowledge" ?!
I don't know you but based solely on your posts herein it seems you have no clue.
It's hard to follow what you're saying and jv (and I) tried to point this out. You then lash out with insults (at jv).
johneeeveee
New member
wow again... i really never meant to start any kind of argument. I just thought that mustang stating "But on 488 the specs are better than equal to most of the first 8 tracks used in the 60s to record some of your favorite classic songs", was a bit misguided and might give someone the wrong idea. it seemed to imply that similar fidelity could be achieved on a cassette based machine. that's all, and i AGAIN apologize if that made you defensive, but i believe what i said to be true.
anyway, yes, let's move on in a friendly manner please. i do enjoy discussion, and everyone doesn't have to always agree on things, but c'mon... let's lighten up a bit and treat each other with respect... cool?
thanks - jv
ps - cjacek... let me think about the 244. i was all set to sell it a week ago and no one wanted it. i had time to think about it and thought i might keep it. seems like you've done a lot of recording with these machines and i would like to see it get used by someone who would appreciate it. let me sleep on it and see what else i'm selling goes and i'll get back to you... ok? thanks.
anyway, yes, let's move on in a friendly manner please. i do enjoy discussion, and everyone doesn't have to always agree on things, but c'mon... let's lighten up a bit and treat each other with respect... cool?
thanks - jv
ps - cjacek... let me think about the 244. i was all set to sell it a week ago and no one wanted it. i had time to think about it and thought i might keep it. seems like you've done a lot of recording with these machines and i would like to see it get used by someone who would appreciate it. let me sleep on it and see what else i'm selling goes and i'll get back to you... ok? thanks.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
johneeeveee said:
Ok, cool but I'd need to get a bit more info on the unit in question before making a 100% commitment.