Tascam 244, 424, or 488?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom_B
  • Start date Start date
T

Tom_B

New member
I have been using my old tascam 488 for many years now. I've been thinking about getting a four track, and I'd like to stick with tascam. I was wondering if there's any sonic differences between the older models (I was thinking about a 244) and the newer ones (I was thinking about the 424 mk I, II, or III)? I know there's a a lot of differences in features (phantom power, effects busing, etc.), but I'm mostly interested in the sound quality/dynamic range/graininess/etc. All the things I'm not super happy with on my 488... Thanks!
 
My 2p...

First of all, none of Tascam's 4-track cassette-based recorder/reproducers have phantom power, whether they are a stand-alone deck (i.e. 234, 134) or a Portastudio all-in-one unit (i.e. 144, 244, 246, 414, 424, 464, 644...all the "Porta" models, etc.)

If you go with an older one (like for instance the 244) you'll get a more robust chassis and (arguably) electronics, and a greater potential for some TLC. If you go with a newer one (i.e. 424, and I'd recommend the mkII or mkIII) you'll get some very usable bells and whistles (2 locate points, auto-punch, rehearse, etc.) and the logic transport to go along with it...they are also setup nicely to function in a MIDI sync environment with an external sync box if you are into that sort of thing (exceptiion being the 644 which needs nothing external...its got it all).

As for the sound?? Hmmm...I'll let others chime in on that. I've got experience with the 488 and the 424...I'm soon going to be in possession of a 234, but I really can't offer a subjective opinion about the sound quality between early and late generation units. I've heard really great stuff off of both, so YMMV for sure. Neither is going to be the magic bullet. Its going to be (here comes the broken record) dependent on the performance and what's in front of the recorder/reproducer.

I'm not sure about the "graininess" that you mention. In the early 90's I was in a band and we did an entire project on a 488...never had any issues with what I would call graininess...we had problems with flutter but it was a problem with that particular deck (which we were renting). We swapped it out and the issue was better. I believe the preamps are the same between the 488 and the 424, as well as much of the mixer section electronics, so if the dissatisfaction you are having is stemming from that you're not going to escape it with a 424, but...what mics are you using? What are you recording? Are you using external processors?

The 4-track units, with double the tape real estate, have the potential to capture dynamics and bottom end signals better. I say "potential" because, again, it all depends on what is going into the unit and who's twisting knobs and punching buttons. My experience with the 488 has never left me...I was surprised at the warm natural sound for such a narrow track width (I also have some limited experience with the 238 which, after being away from analog for years and years and working only with digital I was *floored* at the warmth...I didn't know what to do with it all...sounds melodramatic I'm sure, but that truly was my reaction)...the 8-track units...really a marvel and far beyond what Philips ever dreamed would be done with their little cassette. :D You'll get more of the same with the 4-track units.

If I were you, I'd see if the graininess is possibly related to the signal path aside from the 488 at present and keep the 488. The mixing section is better than the 424 in terms of flexibility, you've got inserts and phantom power on inputs 1 & 2, not mention the flexibility of more tracks...unless you don't need 8 tracks and you are wanting to simplify...you'll get a lot of support for that here. :)

Does that help at all?
 
That does help, thanks. I guess I did suspect that there wouldn't be much difference.

Well, 'graininess' is my own imprecise term. I think what I'm talking about is the mid-range... Or the lack of lows and highs (or punchy lows and clear highs). I don't know, everything I do on the 488 sounds grainy to me. That includes stuff I did when I first got it in the late 90s and the demo of my band I'm doing right now.

Of course you're right about what's going into it and the person turning the knobs being most important. And I have gotten a lot better at getting 'cleaner' mixes. But, still, I was hoping the extra tape real estate on the 4-track would help. I've also been wondering if I'm hearing the preamp or the channel strip/eq, etc. There's no way to really bypass those things on the machine. I thought the old machines might have better pres or something.

As far as what I'm using... well, very simple stuff. 57s for guitars, bass, and kick drum and some mxls on vox and drum overheads. Recently I've started recording the vox to tape with compression (one of those old presonus blue max deals). I feel like that's opened up a bit of head room. Sounds better then trying to compress after the fact. I try to keep my mixes simple and fix things before they get to tape. But I always find myself trying to boost on the eq to make things crisper. Highs on the drums, upper mids on the guitars, and lows on the bass. And those mixes generally sound better then the flat or cut eq mixes I do (for comparison).

I mean, I like the warmth and character of the machine (it adds its own thing to what you record), and am very happy to not have to deal with trying to 'fix' digital recordings, but I'm looking for a little more fidelity. You know, if I ever see a reasonably priced 388 in decent condition around here I'll probably just pick it up.
 
Couple thoughts...

  1. Those MXL mics may actually sound "grainy" (my own imprecise term). How are you positioning them?
  2. The pre's in the older stuff may sound "better" but that is totally subjective and to taste. Like I said, I've heard great stuff on both old and new, so to my ears anyway it can be done on either.
  3. When was the last time you demagged your 488 with a real demagnetizer?
  4. I assume you clean your tape path regularly with an acceptable cleaning agent as well?
  5. You are bypassing the preamp if you use the LINE input and utilize an external preamp...likewise the eq is essentially bypassed if you center the gains.
  6. What tape are you using?

Here is a sample song from that early 90's project we did on the 488...my better tape deck was on loan when I transferred this to digital, and there was something funny in the signal path as well so this does sound "grainy" to me, and the conversion to mp3 doesn't help either. :mad: So try to ignore that...I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the spectral balance compared to what you are dissatisfied with.
 
Thanks for posting the song. It sounds good! Unfortunately I don't have anything good to listen to it on with me right now. I'll give it a better listen later, but I can tell you now that it does sound a lot clearer. Of course, it's a lot less dense then the stuff I'm usually working with... I'll post something I've done when I get home. How did you record the drums? It sounds like you close miked everything. Then mixed to two tracks?

So:

1. Yes, the MXLs aren't the best. If anything, though, they seem to hype the highs and upper mids... not a thing I really worry about with the 488. For drums I've recently been doing a modified John Bonham (two large diaphragm condensers--one in front to the left of the kit, one behind and to the right of the kit; and one 57 up close on the kick). For vox I use a pop filter and record the vox up close. Though, over the years, I've done all sorts of things. Most of them sounded bad.

2. Point taken. I was led to believe, by reading forums like this one, that tascam started cutting corners after the 246... thus reducing the quality of the cassette units they sold. But I usually take forum opinions with a grain of salt. Thus my original post.

3. I've never demagged the heads. I didn't think you had to on cassette recorders? What do you use to demag with?

4. I do clean the heads with isopropyl alcohol... I've never been able to find the offical tascam/teac stuff. I haven't cleaned the rubber bits because I'm not sure what to use. Any ideas where to get the real stuff (or what to use on the rubber parts)??

5. I don't think there's a dedicated line input. You can turn the gain on the preamp all the way down. They've marked that as 'line input', but then it's still going through the preamp and the channel strip, right? Of course there may be some functionality I'm totally missing on the 488...

6. I prefer the Maxell 60 minute type IIs. Though the last session I was forced to use the 90 minute Maxell because I couldn't find the 60 locally (I think it's been discontinued). I've since bought a large quantity of the 60s online. Have you found something better?

Thanks!
 
The drums were indeed close mic'ed...AKG D112 inside the kick (22 inch kick with eggcrate foam wrapped inside), SM57's on snare and toms mounted above, SM94 on hi-hat I think and I don't recall what was overhead...those were mixed to 3 tracks through some EV 16 x 2 live board (1 track for kick and 2 for a stereo mix of everything else).

1. ever try mic'ing vox using the LDC about 12 inches back? Depends on the vocalist, mic and recording environment.

2. Yeah...I wouldn't call it cutting corners, but there was an era at Teac where their Tascam products had an uncommon level of build quality, and then after some years there were cost saving measures that were incorporated...the kinds of things I'm talking about though would be in terms of the chassis and electronics architecture, so we're not talking about sound quality stuff really, and those cost savings were put back into feature enhancements...they found ways to reduce the manufacturing overhead to keep a product at a certain price point while being able to include market leading features. Metering is way better on the old units...nothing like real analog VU's vs. flourescent meters... :rolleyes:

3. Ho-boy-howdy...I knew it...that right there will significantly effect the high-end response of your deck...EVERY recorder/reproducer that utilizes magnetic heads needs to be demagged regularly. Ultimately if the heads/tape path are magnetized enough it can start erasing your material.

Look for a Teac E-1 or E-3, or there are a couple models that Radio Shack used to make, OR the ultimate, the Han-D-Mag...maybe overkill for a cassette-based unit, but it will get the job done guaranteed. You CAN use one of the cheapy ones sold on eBay, but I bought one trying to cut corners myself...totally inadequate for an open-reel deck, probably okay for cassette but not ideal IMHO. You need t demag your tape path.

4. Iso alcohol is fine, but get at least 91%. 99% anhydrous is best. Denatured alcohol is another good alternative...even preferred by some. You can use a lint free cloth dampened with warm water for the rubber, or glass cleaner is another good alternative too.

5. The LINE input does not go through the mic pre, but yes it does go through the rest of the strip, but if you leave the eq gains at 0 the eq is essentially bypassed.

6. It really is adviseable to stay away from the 90 minute tapes. XL-II's seem to remain a favorite, TDK SM series tapes are a very good current alternative available from lots of internet resources...I like 'em...about $25 for a brick of 10 SM-60's from Musician's Friend.
 
Hey Sweetbeats, cool sounds! How much can you tell me about the bass? I really like that bass sound.

Type of bass?
How was it recorded?

Heheh! The guitar player obviously listened to Holdsworth, huh? I heard a lick from "Devil Take the Hindmost" in there! :)

sweetbeats said:
Couple thoughts...

  1. Those MXL mics may actually sound "grainy" (my own imprecise term). How are you positioning them?
  2. The pre's in the older stuff may sound "better" but that is totally subjective and to taste. Like I said, I've heard great stuff on both old and new, so to my ears anyway it can be done on either.
  3. When was the last time you demagged your 488 with a real demagnetizer?
  4. I assume you clean your tape path regularly with an acceptable cleaning agent as well?
  5. You are bypassing the preamp if you use the LINE input and utilize an external preamp...likewise the eq is essentially bypassed if you center the gains.
  6. What tape are you using?

Here is a sample song from that early 90's project we did on the 488...my better tape deck was on loan when I transferred this to digital, and there was something funny in the signal path as well so this does sound "grainy" to me, and the conversion to mp3 doesn't help either. :mad: So try to ignore that...I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the spectral balance compared to what you are dissatisfied with.
Click to expand...
 
Hey cool! Thanks Famous Beagle! :)

IIRC we did that album while our bassist was using a fretless G&L L-2000 bass tuned B-E-A-D. Best bass I have ever heard or played...HEAVY too. :rolleyes:

We tracked it direct through his G&K RB400 head. Nice combo. Live he put the G&K head in front of an Ampeg 2 x 15 folded horn "fridge". The head had no problems driving the fridge to unnecessary levels.

And our guitarist...yep...Holdsworth...nice catch! ;) He was also listening to a lot of Frisell at the time...lotsa Knitting Factory stuff.
 
Wow - Holdsworth - nice to be amongst musical types who have actually heard of artists not on the Billboard charts :P

Very nice track - did you happen to save a copy in a lossless format as well?


AK
 
I had decided to buy a 488 because it seem similar to a 388 and I could "test the waters" in terms of liking or disliking analog recording. After hearing that recording I'm super excited about getting one. I just hope I'm able get as good of results . . . thanks for the post!!!
 
I will say that the 488 is super easy to use and relatively flexible... if you're used to using 4-track cassette units. My friend (who used to be an avid 4-tracker before moving onto protools) was impressed with the quality of recordings you could get with it.

I was wrestling my way through some mixes of my band... but now I have to take the next week or so off because of work and other stuff. I'll post something as soon as I have something worth posting! I'm curious to know what you all think of the quality I'm getting out of the 488... and, of course, any other suggestions for improvements. Oh, and I need to get my hands on a demagnetizer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top