Foster 280 vs. Tascam 414?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skylarlear
  • Start date Start date
S

Skylarlear

New member
Hi I'm curious if anyone has any experience using a Fostex 280. Trying to decide whether I should buy that or a Tascam 414. Found both om eBay but both seem to have their own advantages.

I've used a Tascam 414 and a 644 before and they worked great. I like the 8 channel mixer of the Fostex 280. I have heard that Fostex tends to have a lower quality build. I have a Fostex R8 which has constant issues with its belts, so I'm hesitant.

Any ideas or suggestions?

Please don't tell me to find a Dp-01 or to use a computer because it sounds better. I know I like using cassette recorders.

Thanks !
Skylar
 
That's a tough one. I certainly wouldn't buy either without some kind of money back guarantee, as I've had several bad experiences with cassette 4-tracks lately. (As long as they're listed as "used," then you're guaranteed by ebay to get a working unit, and the seller will have to refund your money and pay return shipping, even if the listing says buyer pays return shipping, because the item will be considered "not as described".)

The 280 certainly has more features. My first four track back in the day (late 80s) was a Fostex X-26 -- a pretty bare bones model, but I never had any problems with it for the 5 years I used it heavily. Of course, it's almost thirty years later now.

I think sonically they would be fairly comparable.

If it were me, I'd try the 280 first. Be sure to really put it through its paces right away so you can return it if it's not working fully. Good luck, YMMV.
 
I have a Fostex 280, bought it in 1995. It was my first foray into multi-track recording. I recorded a lot of songs on it back then. I have boxes and boxes of old cassettes. I no longer use it, but it still worked the last time I checked. One or two of the push toggle buttons may have come off over the years.

A couple of things I would say. First, any 20 year old cassette player you buy could need parts. The first thing I would worry about would be the drive belt, which is made of rubber that decays with age causing it to slip or break. Make sure you can source a replacement. Depending on how it was used, you might want to consider the condition of the head too. The other issue is tape. That unit needs those higher quality, hi bias tapes (forgotten what they're called--it's been that long), not your standard utility cassettes. I'm sure they can be found somewhere, but you might want to look around. Cassettes disappeared from retail stores a long time ago.

Okay, wait for it: Use your computer! It does sound better, but more to the point the number of tracks and ease of editing puts you light years ahead of anything you'll do on cassette. Why make life harder with obsolete technology?

Here's what I used to have to do to fit everything I needed (MIDI drums, keyboards, bass, one or two guitars, one vocal track) into a four track recording: Drums and keyboards all pre-recorded in MIDI. Then play them into two tracks while doing a live overdub of bass. Mistake? Start over. That put all the rhythm instruments on two tracks panned left and right, with two tracks free: One for guitar and the other for lead vocal. No second guitar, no harmony vocals. For those, I'd need to bounce--and cassette really doesn't take bounces too well. It was a pain in the ass. I don't miss it one bit.
 
Robus said:
Okay, wait for it: Use your computer! It does sound better, but more to the point the number of tracks and ease of editing puts you light years ahead of anything you'll do on cassette. Why make life harder with obsolete technology?
Click to expand...

I appreciate the fact that you gave the OP lots of helpful tips about cassette recorders --- parts need to be available, etc. That was all very good info. But he made it specifically clear that he didn't want to use a computer, so why bring this up again? Some people just don't like to do it. I'm one of them. I have to do it for work, but when I record things of my own for fun, I don't touch a computer (unless I can't get a real drummer, in which case I have to use EZdrummer) because I don't like the process. And if I don't like the process, I don't want to record.

Some people prefer reading hardcopy books, even though they could carry around a library of books on an e-reader. Some people prefer to drive classic cars even though they have to be maintained, get poorer gas mileage, and lack many of the amenities of newer vehicles. But it makes them happy.

Why do people continue to push the digital agenda on others who clearly don't want it .... for whatever reason? They just don't. Unless their chosen process is injuring others or severely raping the environment, etc., it should be ok to just say "Thanks, but I'd rather not do that."

Again, at least you were helpful in your reply and didn't say something like ..."Why would you want to record on a piece of shit technology that sounds like a cockroach's fart?" or some shit. But still ... why can't we just let people be?

Not to mention the fact that, if you want to talk about facts and specs, you might want to look into the research being done on option anxiety. It's interesting stuff. Many people (myself included) feel paralyzed by limitless options and prefer to work within a set of parameters because it forces us to make a decision and keep moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Robus said:
No second guitar, no harmony vocals. For those, I'd need to bounce--and cassette really doesn't take bounces too well. It was a pain in the ass. I don't miss it one bit.
Click to expand...

Also to this point, I found that one external bounce to a DAT machine (or a computer nowadays ... I never had the opportunity to try a nice 2-track R2R) results in a negligible loss in quality on many cassette 4-tracks, including a Tascam 414, 424, and 246. Now if you're bouncing to a consumer-grade cassette deck, that's a different story. But if you use 2x speed recording, chrome tape, etc., and a nice deck, one bounce should be fine. And like I said, one external bounce to a digital source was not problematic for me in the least.
 
Just offering a bit of advice from somebody who spent a lot of time trying to get decent recordings on a 4-track cassette portastudio. Don't get me wrong; I have fond memories of those days. But it was a constant struggle and the results were never as good as I wanted. Maybe the OP knows the drawbacks and chooses to go there anyway; maybe not. Anyway he's free to ignore the part of my post that is off-base and heed the part that is helpful, if any.
 
famous beagle said:
Also to this point, I found that one external bounce to a DAT machine (or a computer nowadays ... I never had the opportunity to try a nice 2-track R2R) results in a negligible loss in quality on many cassette 4-tracks, including a Tascam 414, 424, and 246. Now if you're bouncing to a consumer-grade cassette deck, that's a different story. But if you use 2x speed recording, chrome tape, etc., and a nice deck, one bounce should be fine. And like I said, one external bounce to a digital source was not problematic for me in the least.
Click to expand...

I didn't have a good external deck to do a quality bounce back then, and this was before digital came of age. So for me, bounces were always lossy. I had to really, really want that second guitar or those backing vocals to make it worthwhile. And using a high-quality tape deck or digital recorder to do external bounces from a cassette portastudio...hmm, maybe a little incongruous? The other thing is, no matter how good your external gear, once you bounce you lose a lot of options at final mixdown. The kind of obsessive if not excessive fiddling with EQ, panning, compression, FX that we love on this forum goes right out the window. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily. I've heard your music. You obviously get good results in analog.
 
In my experience the high point of a cassette four track was the Tascam 246.
For 8 track, the tascam 238 rackmount.

I've owned and used both. Both are very robust machines and built to last as well as performing well. To this day , I'm amazed at the sound quality I've gotten on such a narrow tape width.

Ive not been a fan of the fostex stuff. It always seemed like cheap plastic to me.

The tascam stuff always seemed like "real" gear to me.

Any unit you get is going to be old and has or will have issues with the rubber parts. Wiith the tascam, at least you can get the parts. Fostex, I don't know.

Like Beagle, I've always instead of internally bouncing, transfered to a dat then brought the two tracks back into the machine.

Less noise, and you still have the original 4 cassette tracks.
 
Robus said:
A couple of things I would say. First, any 20 year old cassette player you buy could need parts. The first thing I would worry about would be the drive belt, which is made of rubber that decays with age causing it to slip or break. Make sure you can source a replacement. Depending on how it was used, you might want to consider the condition of the head too. The other issue is tape. That unit needs those higher quality, hi bias tapes (forgotten what they're called--it's been that long), not your standard utility cassettes. I'm sure they can be found somewhere, but you might want to look around. Cassettes disappeared from retail stores a long time ago.

Okay, wait for it: Use your computer! It does sound better, but more to the point the number of tracks and ease of editing puts you light years ahead of anything you'll do on cassette. Why make life harder with obsolete technology?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice about parts and all that. For some reason computers don't work well with me. I can make stuff sound really good on 4 tracks and I really enjoy the workflow. I have a pretty heavy duty Mac with Raven, Abelton, and Logic / Logic X on it. For some reason the 4 tracks help me form overproducing my tracks and I enjoy the tape distortion. Usually bouncing stuff to either computer or Dp-01fx.
 
RFR said:
Ive not been a fan of the fostex stuff. It always seemed like cheap plastic to me.

The tascam stuff always seemed like "real" gear to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have been hearing that some Fostex stuff can feel a little less sturdy. May go with the Tascam 414 but less mixer channels with eq and aux send...
 
Of those two choices, I'd go with the fostex. (Assuming similar condition)
Like I said earlier, I think the 246 was the high point for tascam 4 tracks.
Later stuff to me is "plasticy"

On the fostex, you're gonna have to research where to get parts. The rubber can fail without warning. Good to have the parts handy as insurance.
 
Xlrs? With phantom power?

I have always used external phantom power with 4 tracks.
 
RFR said:
Xlrs? With phantom power?

I have always used external phantom power with 4 tracks.
Click to expand...

The only cassette 4-track I ever saw with phantom power was the Audio Technica AT-RMX64. There could be others, but that's the only one I've seen. That thing was a beast and a half.
 
Skylarlear said:
Thanks for the advice about parts and all that. For some reason computers don't work well with me. I can make stuff sound really good on 4 tracks and I really enjoy the workflow. I have a pretty heavy duty Mac with Raven, Abelton, and Logic / Logic X on it. For some reason the 4 tracks help me form overproducing my tracks and I enjoy the tape distortion. Usually bouncing stuff to either computer or Dp-01fx.
Click to expand...

stupid me, I meant REAPER not Raven. Its cool because it has a speed control knob sort of like a four track
 
Robus said:
I didn't have a good external deck to do a quality bounce back then, and this was before digital came of age. So for me, bounces were always lossy. I had to really, really want that second guitar or those backing vocals to make it worthwhile. And using a high-quality tape deck or digital recorder to do external bounces from a cassette portastudio...hmm, maybe a little incongruous? The other thing is, no matter how good your external gear, once you bounce you lose a lot of options at final mixdown. The kind of obsessive if not excessive fiddling with EQ, panning, compression, FX that we love on this forum goes right out the window. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily. I've heard your music. You obviously get good results in analog.
Click to expand...

Oh of course .... I don't think anyone can deny that digital has analog beat up, down, over, and sideways when it comes to editing and flexibility. But again, while some (you obviously) love the idea of infinite options, others (like me) don't. Therefore, analog is more attractive to us.

Also, to the point on endless tweaking, etc., I think there's also much data to support that it's not always a good thing. How many stories have you heard about people doing 50 mixes of a song, only to come back and realize that mix #2 was the best? Also, there are big time pro mixers, like CLA, who prefer to work very quickly. Obviously, not everyone has the mix chops of someone like him, but there are others as well that adopt that philosophy. Of course, there are those who do tweak endlessly to achieve the perfect mix as well. It's all different strokes for different folks --- the same way it is with regard to work flow in the analog vs. digital debate.

In fact, workflow and process are the primary reasons I prefer analog. It has actually very little to do with the sound for me. I like the way my analog equipment sounds, but I like the way plenty of things I've recorded digitally sound as well. I don't pretend to be able to "hear" the difference between digital and analog. By that I mean that someone could tell me a song was recorded digitally when it was recorded analog and vice versa, and I would likely believe them either way.

But I certainly prefer the process of working with analog --- holding a cassette or reel, moving actual faders, twisting actual knobs, patching actual cables, cleaning the heads, etc. It's just way more fun for me. Again, different strokes. I'm nostalgic as hell, so I like the technology of my youth. :)

---------- Update ----------

Skylarlear said:
stupid me, I meant REAPER not Raven. Its cool because it has a speed control knob sort of like a four track
Click to expand...

Reaper is what I work with as well when I have to spend time on the dark side. :)
 
I've heard your stuff (Beagle), and it sounds like music to me. Oh, and I like it.
Ive heard plenty of stuff in the clinic and other places that is mixed re mixed etc.

While it may sound clean and all instruments are in balance, most I don't like. Too clinical and it seems like the life is sucked out if it. Also, some boring songs.

I'll see people commenting on the eq of the cymbal crashes, and I think to myself, who cares?? Anal nitpicking over a minor technical detail, while the song sucks.

Analog forces you to work with what yiu have, and in my opinion makes you have to implement a more musical honest work ethic.

It brings one back home to the philosophy of writing and capturing a song to the best of your abilities.

Music is supposed to have some magic to it, some emotional response created is desired in the listener.

In my opinion a lot of home recordists miss that. It's all technical and sterile.

As far as the folks suggesting going digital, you are in the wrong place.
This is the ANALOG forum!

Those of us that frequent this forum do so because we like or prefer it.

So give up on trying to convert someone.

If someone is asking about recording to tape leave them alone. If they are asking about digital, by all means help em out.
But here, dont preach and belittle our medium.

:D
 
Cool guys thanks for the suggestions. I just bought the Fostex 280 off ebay should get to me in a few weeks. Seller seems to have a lot of cassette recorders in really good condition if anyone else in interested.

I'll let you all know how it works out!

bluesens | eBay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top