New to analog recording, help?

[FatNWeak]

Hey all, this will probably seem really stupid, but I'm completely lost!
I recently purchased a Tascam 144 Portastudio. Being a 17 year old kid, all I've ever used to record is cheap audio interfaces and mics, plugged into my laptop running Logic Pro X, and then listening through headphones.
Now with the Portastudio I'm not too sure how it all works. Obviously I'll need to plug a mic into it (Shure SM57), and then I'm assuming I'll need some form of studio monitors?
Basically what I'm asking, is what materials do I need to be able to use this thing? I'm completely new to analog.
How do I start recording on it?

Thanks!

 

[miroslav]

....all I've ever used to record is cheap audio interfaces and mics, plugged into my laptop running Logic Pro X, and then listening through headphones.

Not to burst your bubble....but what kind of quality are you expecting from a 40-year old cassette multi-track...?

How do I start recording on it?

http://www.tascamvintage.com/portastudio 144 user.pdf

 

[FatNWeak]

Not to burst your bubble....but what kind of quality are you expecting from a 40-year old cassette multi-track...?

Oh, I'm well aware of how poor the quality will be. I am by no means trying to make professional records on this thing.
The only reason I mentioned how I record now was to give an idea as to how limited my knowledge is of analog.

Thanks for the link. Looks like it should be very helpful!

 

[The Ghost of FM]

If you liked whatever speaker regime you currently have on your computer for mixing digitally, you could still make use of that by plugging the stereo line outs of the Portastudio into the line input on your computer. You might just need a patch cord that has two RCA phono jacks on one end and a 1/8" TRS stereo jack on the other end, depending on what the computer's sound card uses as an input jack.

Cheers!

 

[j.harv]

Not to burst your bubble....but what kind of quality are you expecting from a 40-year old cassette multi-track

Bruce Springsteen .....Nebraska.
Not a bad sounding album.Even though it was mastered,it all started on the 4 track.

 

[famous beagle]

Bruce Springsteen .....Nebraska.
Not a bad sounding album.Even though it was mastered,it all started on the 4 track.

I have that album and enjoy it, but I must say the sound quality isn't that great, IMHO. I think it's more that the songs are good, and the performances are engaging.

However, I don't think it represents the full capability of the 144---especially considering that Bruce had just recently gotten it and wasn't really all that experienced on it. And it was supposed to be a demo only---not a full-blown album. They only decided to release the cassette version after failing to reproduce the right "vibe" with a pro studio. (I'm sure most of you know the story.) Anyway, I think if you have a great deal of experience, use nice mics/pres/etc., and good engineering technique, you can get significantly nicer quality than on that of Nebraska (assuming, of course, that you'd get it professionally mastered and possibly mixed as well).

Of course, a good laptop rig doesn't automatically equate good quality either. I think Bon Iver's For Emma, Forever Ago is a great example. It's got engaging songs and performances, but the sound quality is actually pretty "poor" in terms of clarity and all --- again, IMO. Listen to "Re: Stacks," for example. It's a great tune, but the guitars sound muddy and very "homebrew" to me. In fact, I'd have no problem believing someone if they told me it was recorded on a cassette 4-track. Obviously, he didn't have a full-blown Pro Tools rig with super nice converters and all. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it was probably a Mac with a fairly pedestrian interface at best. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with a "homebrew" sound, and I enjoy that album a lot. But I just bring this up because it ended up being a very successful album, and many people with expensive gear love to tell those who don't have it that it's pointless trying to get a good sound out of prosumer stuff. You really need this and this and this and this.

Anyway, my point is that people always love to say things like "Even the crappiest digital setup will sound infinitely better than cassette." I don't think that's true at all. Even Abbey Road studios (or substitute your favorite pro studio) will sound like crap by someone trapped in there by themselves for a week with no experience at all.

Granted, all recording equipment has its limitations, but with every recording, one of two things happen:

1) The songs and performances transcend the recording quality altogether (and/or live up to it), or
2) The songs and performances fall short and fail to make an impression, regardless of the recording quality or potential of the gear.

IMHO, the second scenario happens far more than the first with regards to independent/home recording. And just so someone doesn't think I'm trying to sound highbrow or anything, I definitely include myself in the second category!

 

[miroslav]

Bruce Springsteen .....Nebraska.

I have that album and enjoy it, but I must say the sound quality isn't that great, IMHO.

Right.

Really....my point wasn't that you can't record OK stuff on a 144.
It was just that the OP mentioned his current rig, which probably can get equal or better quality than a 144 cassette portastudio.

I know there's something "compact" and easy about using portastudio devices.....you just make do with what you have and it's all in one unit...but ----IMHO (and it is just my opinion)----any kind of interest in improving production and options, is not going to be with something like that. There are better analog tape and digital options.

To me....portastudio devices are great as a compositional tool...for flushing out production ideas and working out parts.
I think that's really how Nebraska started out, and there was probably some decision to not mess with that home-demo raw vibe when it came time to put out the album.....but I'm sure there was post-tracking work done on it in a pro studio and the mastering, to try and bring it up in quality.

If I was going to use a 4-track a little more seriously....I would prefer a good 1/4" open reel, or maybe even a 1/2"....but the type of stuff I do, it's unrealistic these days. I mean, if it was real "raw" acoustic guitar/vocals/piano kind of stuff, then OK, but not for more involved productions.
Just the drums, guitar and bass...and there's 4 tracks, and then you're stuck with bouncing down to make room for more tracks, which IMO is pointless when there are 8/16/24 track decks.
So the style of music and productions you want to achieve dictates which format would work best for you....choosing anything less, is more about "making do", which is OK if you like having hurdles to jump over, but I always prefer to let the production dictate the best path if possible.