Is this the right choice? tascam 788 over korg d12?

  • Thread starter Thread starter C-1st
  • Start date Start date
C

C-1st

New member
It is my understanding that the Korg d12 will only record 4 tracks simultaneously. Tascam 8 simult. at 24bits.

Korg will only record a total of 6 tracks at 24 bits.

So I don't see any advantage to the Korg except for effects and drum tracks which I already have on others systems.
 
I think you should look over the specs again (I think the 788 records only 2 trks simultaneously, etc. etc. etc.).

I'm guessing the D12 is superior to the 788 in features, while you should be able to get excellent sound from both.
 
If you're not totally blinded by the 24 bit hype (BTW, how come 788's specs promise a dynamic range of >82dB while 24bit should be in theory capable of 144dB?? Think about that.) I suggest that you also take a look at the Fostex VF-16. It can record up to 8 tracks simultaneously and thru the Adat I/O you can simultaneously move 8 channels of audio in and out of the machine to and from a computer or whatever. The Tascam doesn't have any kind of digital input so inputing digital signal is a real pain in the ass.
 
"BTW, how come 788's specs promise a dynamic range of >82dB while 24bit should be in theory capable of 144dB?? Think about that."

Since when does a sample rate correlate directly to dynamic range? It's like saying a 200 horsepower car that goes 120mph would 240mph if it had 400 hp.
 
philboyd studge said:
"BTW, how come 788's specs promise a dynamic range of >82dB while 24bit should be in theory capable of 144dB?? Think about that."

Since when does a sample rate correlate directly to dynamic range? It's like saying a 200 horsepower car that goes 120mph would 240mph if it had 400 hp.
Click to expand...

Huh? What does that mean?
 
It means dynamic range doesn't have a whole lot to do with the sample bit rate.

It also means that at 82db the 788 could be quieter, then again most hard disk recorders run these kind of specs. It's acceptable. Most also compress the signal in order to save disk space, the 788 does not.

You'll also notice the noise from the hard drive as it accesses information. They all do it. It's a good idea to get a bigger aftermarket hard drive (60 to 80gb) with quieter bearings down the line.

24 bit is not hype. When waveform editing, it allows many passes with effects, eq, and normalization that would cause a noticeable decline in sonic quality at 16bit.
 
Yes it does, its below the stereo outs and sends the same thing you'd hear from them.
 
AFAIK the bit depth has everything to do with the dynamic range. You use more bits to gain larger dynamic range to work with and if you can get 82dB out of 24 bits you're effectively throwing away the 10 least significant bits. Much of the 24 bit stuff in digital multitrackers is marketing hype and you gain no real advantage for the extra money. Both the Fostex and the Tascam do internal processing using 32 bits and the 16 bit and 24 bit only means how many bits is used per sample to save the data onto the HD. If the dynamic range of the mixer section or some other factor restricts the number of meaningful bits you might just as well replace those least significant bits with zeros or use less bits all together and save space while doing it. OTOH with only 8 tracks available on Tascam you'd need to bounch tracks more often in which case saving submixes with 24bits instead of 16 might make a little difference. Then again with Fostex you'll have enough of tracks to avoid degrading bounching.
 
How much degradation are you going to get in transfering tracks from 788 to Cakewalk for mixdown on a CPU.

I always heard that with digital recording degradation from bouncing was undetectable. Can the degradation be heard by the human ear or is it something that can only be measured by diagnostic equipment?
 
If you transfer tracks digitally as wav files using external zip drive or HD there's no degradation but if you do the transfer thru S/PDIF 2 tracks at the time then it involves digital mixing on 788 wich might degrade it a teeny weeny bit. But I'm sure the degree of degradation is too unnoticiable for human ear to worry about.

What I really want get thru to people is, IMHO there's so many other things that compromise the overall quality of home recording with a HD recorder that the debate over 16bit vs. 24 bit is purely academic. No matter what the marketing departments of equipment manufacturers try to tell you for me and I believe for the vast majority of people recording at home the CD quality 16bit/44.1kHZ is more than good enough.
 
Korg D12 seems to have lots of effects and features that I don't really need while Tascam 788 seems to be a good solid system with better support on the message boards and from the corporate site.

Am I right?
 
Looks like you know pretty well what you expect from the recorder but would you like to tell us what instruments are you going to record and what other equipment you are going to use it with. If you're going to be recording for example live drums then then 4 mic pres on 788 might become a seriously limiting factor. I said this over and over again on this board ut if you're planning on doing final mixing on computer the Fostex is miles a head of the competition.

It's really amazing that the other manufacturers and most of the people using these machines don't realize the tremendous potential that linking the recorder to computer thru Adat interface offers. It's not just that you can move 8 tracks at the time between computer and the recorder but that you can do it in realtime also and in both directions simultaneously and use the recorder as a recording mixer when tracking directly to cubase or some other sequencer software running on computer. If you buy the 788 you pretty much get what you see but I know it by experience that if you get equipment that fullfills your needs at the moment you'll pretty soon grow out of it when you start to get creative.
 
C-1st said:
Korg D12 seems to have lots of effects and features that I don't really need while Tascam 788 seems to be a good solid system with better support on the message boards and from the corporate site.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

You are. The machine's good. The forum is very good. 16 tracks would be better, particularly for recording live drums, but I couldn't afford any of the current 16 trackers, £500 being my absolute max. Can't even afford the CD-ROM drive. I'm trying to put one together on the cheap buying from Ebay - something I learnt about from the 788 forum.
 
I play guitar and drums. My wife and daughter play keys.

I usually just use a digital drum loop and sweeten the mix with live cymbals.

I have a 12 channel mixer with mic pre amps and another four channel mixer. I am used to recording on a 4 track, so I know how to bounce. And it is my understanding there is little or no degradation in bouncing on a digital machine.

I may want to record live now & then but I think that the 788 will handle it. If I need more tracks I can link two 788's. Has anybody done this?

I will be doing songwriter demos.
 
You can bounce with no degradation plus there's all those virtual tracks you can call up into your mix.

As with any hard disk recorder, external pres and compression is highly reccomended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top