AFA a pro getting *better* results than you or me using the same equipment, I'm sure that's more to do with their WIDE experience than all of us put together...rather than that consumer equipment suddenly performing beyond its specs, just because a pro is using it. A 4-track cassette portastudio is going to have the exact same sound quality in your hands as in a pro's...all other things being equal...but that's just it, in a pro production, all other things are NOT going to be equal, because a pro knows more about recording production, so maybe they can make that lower grade gear appear to sound better than you or I will, just by how they place mics, or how much this-n-that they use, and it's not that the consumer gear is actually sounding better...but put some pro gear in their hands, and all bets are off...there's no comparison, which is why pros generally use pro gear, not consumer gear.
This is my point. There's no way to make a recorder sound better than it's possible to make it sound. So if a 4-track recorder or consumer reel machine is capable of sounding "great" in the hands of a pro engineer, then it's capable of sounding "great," period.
To turn the italicized part of the quote around, just because someone with poor recording skills and/or poor auxiliary equipment creates a bad-sounding recording on a cassette 4-track, it doesn't mean the recorder is all of the sudden bad-sounding.
Of course pro engineers use pro equipment. Everyone generally wants the best quality tools they can afford in most scenarios. But wouldn't you agree that there's a quality threshold with regard to any set of tools?
In other words, you might not be able to handle a lot of jobs with a $1 screwdriver you bought from the dollar store before it gives out. But, generally speaking, a $10 screwdriver you buy at a home improvement store will likely do the job just fine for a lifetime (assuming you don't abuse it). Now, is the guy next door gonna build a better table than you---all other things equal---because he has a $150 screwdriver? I think most people would say no.
The same could be said for audio gear. A lot of people can hear the difference in sound quality between a $30 Chinese condenser mic and a $3K Neumann (although many laymen may not be able to at first until they know what to listen for), but what about comparing a $3K mic with a $30K mic? Does the $30K mic sound "better" than the $3K one? Or does it just sound different? Would anyone argue that it's not possible to make a pro recording with a $3K Neumann?
What about a $500 mic for studio vocals like an Avantone CV-12? Taylor Swift has recorded with it on several of her albums, so it's clearly capable of producing "professional" results.
What about a $400 dynamic mic for studio vocals like the Shure SM7B (Michael Jackson) or EV RE-20 (Thom Yorke)?
What about a $100 dynamic for studio vocals like a Shure SM57/58 (John Lennon, Billy Idol, Rod Stewart, The Killers, RHCP)?
My whole point I've been laboring to make---poorly it seems---is that,
in my humble opinion --- and
for my ears --- these lowly prosumer/consumer machines are much closer to this quality threshold (if not above if some cases) than most people give them credit for.
Of course a 2" Studer has better specs than a Tascam 4-track, and of course it's capable of higher fidelity. No one is arguing that. And no one is arguing that you don't need a Studer machine because we have Tascam 4-tracks that already sound good enough.
I'm just saying that, IMO, these machines sound pretty dang good to me, whereas many other people make it sound as though if they only had a 4-track to record on, they wouldn't bother recording at all because it would sound like trash.
Many people know that Bruce Springsteen's
Nebraska was recorded on a Tascam 144 with two SM57 mics. And lots of analog folks love to champion that album as "proof" of what cassette 4-tracks can do. That's kind of funny to me because I don't think that album
sounds very good at all. I like the album, because I like the songs and performances, but as far as recording quality, it's filled with issues, IMO. But this makes total sense when you think about it, because, although they did the best they could in the mastering stage with pro equipment:
1) Bruce didn't really know what he was doing when he recorded it. He had just gotten the machine and had very little recording/engineering experience (of his own) when he recorded it.
2) He did not intend for it to be anything other than a demo when he recorded it.
3) He mixed it down onto a
boombox (literally) that had once
fallen into a river and been pulled out. The heads hadn't even been cleaned or anything. Again, it was only meant to be a demo, so he didn't care.
So when people look to
Nebraska for an example of the quality capable on a 4-track cassette, they're looking in the wrong direction. The Tascam 144 machine is
capable --- in the right hands --- of far better sound quality than
Nebraska. Just as a 2" Studer or a Pro Tools rig with $30K converters is capable of absolute shite in the wrong hands. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because people start off on those 4-track machines when they're inexperienced and bad at a lot of other things, and the machines never get the chance to show what they can do.
Here's an analogy: Roger Federer uses a $350 racket (I actually thought it would cost a lot more than that ... although his strings are crazy expensive), but he didn't start off on one. He probably started on a $10 special. As he got better, he upgraded his gear, just like most people do. Now, if you were to give him the $10 special again, would he all of the sudden start playing at the level he did when he originally used that racket? Of course not. I would argue that he would still probably even be able to compete on the pro circuit, though not at quite the same level.
And so my whole point is that I think these lowly machines can do a lot better than people give them credit for. That's all I'm trying to say.
...almost done...and while working, this thought came to mind, so I wanted to post it, but then I'll be gone for awhile, back to my work. 
...enjoy yourself, but to imply that all those guys in Nashville, LA, NY and other major studio hubs are just wasting their time because it really doesn't matter, and won't be noticeable 10-out-of-10 times...well, I think that's a somewhat misguided notion, and often it serves to justify where you have set your own bar.
