Korg CR4
- Thread starter slash89
- Start date
Thx
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Yes, I'm familar with it.
No way is the CR4 worth $299. The real value for $299 in analog is the new Tascam 424mkIII.
The Tascam 424mkIII is a real Portastudio, with a full functioned mixer that records up to 4 tracks simultaneously.
The Korg CR4 is like a Tascam MF-P01 (lowest-end end Portastudio), joined with a Korg AX-10 Toneworks (effects unit), all integrated with a boombox. the Korg CR4's kind of a joke to real recordists, or anyone who's familiar with higher-end recording devices, like the 424mkIII and other vintage Tascam Portastudios.
Funny, I'd have thought I could rule the world with something like the CR4, when I was 17, but there is a Tascam for every day of the week that would easily blow away the Korg CR4, on features and funtion.
Overall, the CR4 does not have a very good recorder section, and it's nearly nonexistent in the mixer section. It has some unknown/proprietary noise reduction that's of dubious merit, that's not even a brand name like Dolby or dbx. The CR4's pretty light on every feature that's really important to good recording production,... but for the sake of having built in speakers! It's kind of cool for having a unique set of features on one unit, but it won't be the serious production tool you get with the Tascam 424mkIII, for basically even-dollar.
On first glance, the Korg CR4's recorder section is virtually identical to the Tascam MF-P01, and that's about as low as low-end porta-format recorders go.
Anyway, I'd rather trust a name like Tascam, with 25 years of cassette Portastudio experience and innovation, than trust the first-off effort of another vendor with no track record in analog recording.
My advice: Skip the Korg CR4. Get the 424mkIII & supply your own guitar efx and boom box for monitor. You're way ahead of the game with the Tascam vs the Korg.
/DA
No way is the CR4 worth $299. The real value for $299 in analog is the new Tascam 424mkIII.
The Tascam 424mkIII is a real Portastudio, with a full functioned mixer that records up to 4 tracks simultaneously.
The Korg CR4 is like a Tascam MF-P01 (lowest-end end Portastudio), joined with a Korg AX-10 Toneworks (effects unit), all integrated with a boombox. the Korg CR4's kind of a joke to real recordists, or anyone who's familiar with higher-end recording devices, like the 424mkIII and other vintage Tascam Portastudios.
Funny, I'd have thought I could rule the world with something like the CR4, when I was 17, but there is a Tascam for every day of the week that would easily blow away the Korg CR4, on features and funtion.
Overall, the CR4 does not have a very good recorder section, and it's nearly nonexistent in the mixer section. It has some unknown/proprietary noise reduction that's of dubious merit, that's not even a brand name like Dolby or dbx. The CR4's pretty light on every feature that's really important to good recording production,... but for the sake of having built in speakers! It's kind of cool for having a unique set of features on one unit, but it won't be the serious production tool you get with the Tascam 424mkIII, for basically even-dollar.
On first glance, the Korg CR4's recorder section is virtually identical to the Tascam MF-P01, and that's about as low as low-end porta-format recorders go.
Anyway, I'd rather trust a name like Tascam, with 25 years of cassette Portastudio experience and innovation, than trust the first-off effort of another vendor with no track record in analog recording.
My advice: Skip the Korg CR4. Get the 424mkIII & supply your own guitar efx and boom box for monitor. You're way ahead of the game with the Tascam vs the Korg.
/DA
Last edited:
Ok, just checking. Making sure the 424 is my best buy. Reel Person, what's your opinion of the sound quality that comes out of cassettes when compared to digital? Is digital not as noisy, but cassettes more warm? A point digital people have brought up in other forums is that the sound quality of cassettes is always going to be worse than digital because of 4 tracks being recorded on to one little cassette. But I hear digital recordings are real "plasticy." Im still not 100% sure which way I should go (dig. or cass.) Sorry for all the ?'s, Im just trying to make sure I get the best buy. 
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
The sound of digital and cassette are very different.
There is a "roundness" from analog, and a "flatness" from digital, in it's purest sense, but of course the front end mix has a lot to do with the sound. "Signal chain" if you prefer.
A lot of digi-heads are getting analog "warmth" by using analog gear in their signal chain, and/or using plugins that simulate analog.
There is more than one way to skin the recording cat. The Korg CR4 is certainly not it, though, and in the cassette class of devices the 424mkIII is best value in brand new equipment.
The analog - digital discussions will outlive me and my Portastudios, but cassette sound quality is not bad, by any stretch, if you start with high quality tape, a high quality recorder, and use the medium to it's optimum, which takes a little practice.
I've done A/B comparisons of recordings done on an all analog system and digital, within the confines of my own studio, and the analog just sounds better, right out of the box. There's an unholy amount of fiddling and affecting of the sound necessary to get digital to sound as warm and fat as analog. Sorry for the cliches, of course.
I hear one dude after another touting digital, who then goes on to say how great his front end is, which is usually some mid- or top-grade analog preamps, & such. Anyway, a simple in-person A/B comparison pretty much kills any debate, IMO.
A lot of what you hear about the atrocities of cassette sound is from people who've never tried it, and who are just repeating what they've heard. That, or their experience on cassette porta's was with a low-end device, like a Fostex X-something-or-other or Porta-02, and not with the best high end Tascam Portastudios, which are capable of getting fine results, in general.
I won't lie or mislead you on this point: a lot of what your recordings will end up sounding like is due to your technique, not solely based on gear choices,... within reason. Given, is that you'd expect an MF-P01 not to sound as good as a 424mkIII, & a cassette Portastudio not to sound as good as a 1/2" reel tape,... and so-on, up & down the recording food-chain.
There is a "roundness" from analog, and a "flatness" from digital, in it's purest sense, but of course the front end mix has a lot to do with the sound. "Signal chain" if you prefer.
A lot of digi-heads are getting analog "warmth" by using analog gear in their signal chain, and/or using plugins that simulate analog.
There is more than one way to skin the recording cat. The Korg CR4 is certainly not it, though, and in the cassette class of devices the 424mkIII is best value in brand new equipment.
The analog - digital discussions will outlive me and my Portastudios, but cassette sound quality is not bad, by any stretch, if you start with high quality tape, a high quality recorder, and use the medium to it's optimum, which takes a little practice.
I've done A/B comparisons of recordings done on an all analog system and digital, within the confines of my own studio, and the analog just sounds better, right out of the box. There's an unholy amount of fiddling and affecting of the sound necessary to get digital to sound as warm and fat as analog. Sorry for the cliches, of course.
I hear one dude after another touting digital, who then goes on to say how great his front end is, which is usually some mid- or top-grade analog preamps, & such. Anyway, a simple in-person A/B comparison pretty much kills any debate, IMO.
A lot of what you hear about the atrocities of cassette sound is from people who've never tried it, and who are just repeating what they've heard. That, or their experience on cassette porta's was with a low-end device, like a Fostex X-something-or-other or Porta-02, and not with the best high end Tascam Portastudios, which are capable of getting fine results, in general.
I won't lie or mislead you on this point: a lot of what your recordings will end up sounding like is due to your technique, not solely based on gear choices,... within reason. Given, is that you'd expect an MF-P01 not to sound as good as a 424mkIII, & a cassette Portastudio not to sound as good as a 1/2" reel tape,... and so-on, up & down the recording food-chain.
Last edited:
(The CR4 is out the picture, this just happens to be where one of our conversations is taking place)
So..... Ultimately, digital users are trying to get their recorders to sound warm, warm like analog recorders!!??
I think I'm getting the Zoom PS-04 for Christmas. I'm thinking I should take it back, order a 424 MarkIII, and get the Sony cassette deck (TC-WE305), and then spend some time getting used to the 424 to get the good results? Is that basically your advice?
What was the one bad thing about the 424 I saw in some forum? About not having enough in/outputs or something? What will that effect?...thx again man.
So..... Ultimately, digital users are trying to get their recorders to sound warm, warm like analog recorders!!??
I think I'm getting the Zoom PS-04 for Christmas. I'm thinking I should take it back, order a 424 MarkIII, and get the Sony cassette deck (TC-WE305), and then spend some time getting used to the 424 to get the good results? Is that basically your advice? What was the one bad thing about the 424 I saw in some forum? About not having enough in/outputs or something? What will that effect?...thx again man.
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
You'll probably get a different recommendation,...
for however many people you care to ask.
My answer is yes, the better value is in the 424mkIII with accompanying mixdown deck, rather than the Zoom PS-04.
I wouldn't recommend anything in the Zoom PS-04 class of devices. They're too menu driven, too small, too limited inputs, too limited on simul-record (2), too short record time on flash memory cards, too computer dependent- devices.
The 424mkIII is none of that. The 424mkIII's a whole lot more value in recording technology than the Zoom PS-04, in features that the rubber meets the road, for the starter or advanced user.
Don't sweat the discussion about the 424mkIII not having Channel Inserts, because the Zoom PS-04 and most other modern multitrackers don't have them either. That's a feature found more often on more high end mixers. Otherwise, you just live without them. No Inserts is not the end of the world.
Handhelds & micro miniature devices are great for making bootlegs, and that's about it.
Anyway, I don't recommend any of the 4- or 8- track flash memory based multitrackers. They're too limiting, too small, too computer dependent for my liking.
I'll go out offering reassurance that (IMO) the 424mkIII's a heck of a lot more recorder/mixer than anything like the Zoom PS-04. Flash memory based handheld or desktop recorders have their fans and followers, but I'm not one of them.
You might ask again, & find another user who'd give you a totally different opinion, but that's mine, & YMMV.
for however many people you care to ask.
My answer is yes, the better value is in the 424mkIII with accompanying mixdown deck, rather than the Zoom PS-04.
I wouldn't recommend anything in the Zoom PS-04 class of devices. They're too menu driven, too small, too limited inputs, too limited on simul-record (2), too short record time on flash memory cards, too computer dependent- devices.
The 424mkIII is none of that. The 424mkIII's a whole lot more value in recording technology than the Zoom PS-04, in features that the rubber meets the road, for the starter or advanced user.
Don't sweat the discussion about the 424mkIII not having Channel Inserts, because the Zoom PS-04 and most other modern multitrackers don't have them either. That's a feature found more often on more high end mixers. Otherwise, you just live without them. No Inserts is not the end of the world.
Handhelds & micro miniature devices are great for making bootlegs, and that's about it.
Anyway, I don't recommend any of the 4- or 8- track flash memory based multitrackers. They're too limiting, too small, too computer dependent for my liking.
I'll go out offering reassurance that (IMO) the 424mkIII's a heck of a lot more recorder/mixer than anything like the Zoom PS-04. Flash memory based handheld or desktop recorders have their fans and followers, but I'm not one of them.
You might ask again, & find another user who'd give you a totally different opinion, but that's mine, & YMMV.