tascam 2488mkII or Zoom hd16cd???

  • Thread starter Thread starter 89gtsleeper
  • Start date Start date
8

89gtsleeper

New member
tascam 2488mkII or Zoom hd16cd???
I am really at a big stand still on this one...

Basically they both have:

80 gig hd
cd burner built-in
basic 3 band eq
44.1 sample rate
some built in effects
programmable drum machines

the pros and cons:

tascam - 24 track
zoom - 16 track

zoom - 8 inputs xlr or 1/4"
tascam - 8 inputs total, but only 4 xlr, 4 1/4" only

tascam - 24 bit
zoom - 16 bit

zoom - comes with cubase, and has integration with said software
zoom - 200 bucks less (which I am REALLY tight on money right now!!!)

so really, I don't think I'll ever need more than 16 tracks, and I like the cubase added in, the only real downside to the zoom that I can see is the 16 bit limit, but I'll be mixing to 16 bit cd anyway, so I don't see why it matters for now... the other thing is the tascam is 900 bucks, whereas I can get the zoom for 700 bucks.... I was set on the tascam until I stumbled across the zoom... any suggestions???
 
Go with ZOOM / TASCAM SUCKS!

The band I am in now is getting ready to record, and I will be getting the zoom, I don't see what the Tascam can offer except 1) A higher price tag 2)Confusing operating system 3) Lack of interface compatibility with other equipment ie-OS 4)A$$holes at their service department.

My 1st venture into home recording was with a Tascam 788 which was the most "stoned out machine" I' ve ever tried to operate:confused: The designers at Tascam must have been on some great acid when they went to designing this confusing piece of $#it!:p anyway I did manage FINALLY get some decent recordings with it, latter on it decided not to interface with an external burner that it worked with previously(burner is not built in to a 788). I called their Tech support who was a real jerk over the phone:mad:. He promptly told me; "That's what I get for trying to use THEIR machine with a CD burner from ANOTHER MFR". I promptly told him; " No, me buying the non-Tascam burner was not my mistake, my mistake was BUYING ANYTHING MADE BY TASCAM IN THE FIRST PLACE! I then hung up on the jerk.

So,,,save yourself $200, and get yourself a better recording studio in the process, plus a machine that is compatible with other systems, and as a BIG BONUS, you don' t have to deal with those scumbags at TASCAM!
 
AND the Zoom can double as a DAW controller. I have heard less than stellar reviews about the Zoom's sonics, but it fills a niche at a price point that hasn't been beaten yet. Tascam owner's generally rave about the quality of the product, but most will admit, the learning curve is pretty steep.

Sorry, didn't realize how old this thread was.
 
Well guys I will have to disagree with you. I am and owner of the 2488 MK11 and compared to the former 2488 there has been a large improvement. I was a former owner of a Zoom 1688 and sound wise there is no comparison. Simply put, the Zoom is a toy. The quality of the recorder's sound is average. The Tascam has it's flaws but it can still record at 24bit and yes there are menu's to navigate through but there are menus on the Zoom unit too.

It seems that everyone wants everything so simple. We think we should take it out of the box and wham, perfect recording... My 1688 hard drive crashed on me with in the first 6 months. I took it to a friend of mine and he replaced the hard drive and then a few months later it died completly. The only good unit I had was a 1266 and I sold it to a friend of mine. It was a good recorder!! I have also had two multi effects processors from zoom and one had a button break within a few days of buying it so I sent it back to AMS and they sent me another one, within a year the wah pedal was making a nasty noise.

Korg and Yamaha both make great recorders too. I had the Korg 1200 MK11 and recently the sound card went out of it, that is why I bought the Tascam. A friend of mine owns a recording studio and uses a Yamaha recorder and believe me it blows all of them away.

I think we could all agree on one thing, each person has their own opinion on equipment. At least with most companies you can try things for a few days and if your not happy you can take it back.
 
:DViva the Yam AW1600. Great sound quality. And, it can burn 700 bytes of songs in 10 minutes and be ready to burn the disc again if you want more copies.

Its HD will hold 100 mixed songs; then you have to delete or download the material.

And, I agree, Tascam has gone downhill. I had a Yamaha techie on the phone and he spent an hour with me guiding me through some moves.

Also, there is a dedicated site with GREAT help from a bunch of people, as well as posted video instructions and many other assets: DijonStock Yamaha is the site. You can learn more there in a few visits than reading 22 manuals.

The 1600 manual is "better" than earlier Yam manuals but the box can do so many things. The more savvy you are about its functions via experience, the more fun you will have.

It would pay you to take a look at the Yam, as well as the other boxes. It runs just about 1K at the moment unless you can find a deal.

Cheers,
Green Hornet:cool:
 
My guitarist has a Zoom 1608 HD recorder and I have to say that the recording quality isn"t very good ,The pre"s are noisy and the effects are pretty crappy....The recordings sound like you are recording with a Gheto blaster and the Digital Vu meters aren"t even close to accurate....

Even my Delta 1010LT and Delta 44 sound 10x better than the zoom....

:D
 
At the Zoom price point nothing compares. For $700 you have it all. DAW and DAW controller as well as stand alone recording with 8 balanced inputs.

It will do what you ask it to. Make a CD of your songs. NONE of the units named are better then going into a full blown Pro Tools Studio so why spend more than you have to. I assure you the differences will not be heard at the end among all the "Studio in a Box" Solutions. Especially since much of what is recorded will end up as VBR Mp3s anyway.

Save your money and get the Zoom. Use the $300 for a nice mike or towards a pair of BX8s or Mackie Monitors.
 
the tascam vers I had some bugs, and defects, but it does have audio processing and some other features, but the DAW of the zoom sounds appealing,

at this range I'd even look at spending a little extra $ and see what you come up with

I was hesitant, and got a korg d3200- which is stellar:rolleyes:
 
These days you can get a 2488MKII for *under* 700 dollars new and in the box off eBay. I don't care what anyone says -- to me that is quite a deal for a 24 track 24-bit recorder.

I've owned a couple of 788's, and while I agree the previous poster about the operating system (some serious drugs must have been used while writting that little beastie), I have to say that the 2488MKII seems to have been simplified, and sonically it seems *much* better than the 788's to my ears.

-bruce
 
Boose44 I totally agree with you. The Tascam 2488MKII is a great recorder for the money. When they first came out there was alot of complaints on the quality, but hey as a musician I have seen alot of stuff come out on the market that had alot of problems and all were name brand manufacturers. The 2488MKII, for the price, is a bargain. Yes Korg and Yamaha make some awesome recorders but their price is steeper too. Tascam/Teac has been around for along time. I've had Zoom recorders in the past but I really like my Tascam. It is user friendly and sounds excellent!!

Danny
 
Well guys I will have to disagree with you. I am and owner of the 2488 MK11 and compared to the former 2488 there has been a large improvement. I was a former owner of a Zoom 1688 and sound wise there is no comparison. Simply put, the Zoom is a toy. The quality of the recorder's sound is average. The Tascam has it's flaws but it can still record at 24bit and yes there are menu's to navigate through but there are menus on the Zoom unit too.

It seems that everyone wants everything so simple. We think we should take it out of the box and wham, perfect recording... My 1688 hard drive crashed on me with in the first 6 months. I took it to a friend of mine and he replaced the hard drive and then a few months later it died completly. The only good unit I had was a 1266 and I sold it to a friend of mine. It was a good recorder!! I have also had two multi effects processors from zoom and one had a button break within a few days of buying it so I sent it back to AMS and they sent me another one, within a year the wah pedal was making a nasty noise.

Korg and Yamaha both make great recorders too. I had the Korg 1200 MK11 and recently the sound card went out of it, that is why I bought the Tascam. A friend of mine owns a recording studio and uses a Yamaha recorder and believe me it blows all of them away.

I think we could all agree on one thing, each person has their own opinion on equipment. At least with most companies you can try things for a few days and if your not happy you can take it back.

Point 1;
The Quality of the Zoom machine is Average compared it Tascam?
ALL these machines record in digital, so the recording QUALITY is not going to be different, you must rely on PROCESSING to get YOUR sound, I don't, for me if it dosen't sound good BEFORE the mic, then it's not ready (or worthy) to be recorded in the 1st place.

Point 2;
It seems everyone wants thing so simple.
And the reason this is a bad thing is?
Lemme SPLAIN somthing here. I AM A MUSICIAN. I an NOT a Techno geek, nor DO I want to ever want to be. There is ALOT of things that I DO AS A MUSICIAN that I want caught in the recording. Learning how to operate a badly designed piece of gear is not important to me, I'll go for the piece that was designed intellegently over one designed by a moron. "Simple to operate" for the user translates to; "GREAT DESIGNING SKILLS" by the MFR.

I am a musician 1ST, and YES do DO expect the WORLD TO REVOLVE around me when it's MY MONEY being used for equipment that I WILL BE OPERATING.
 
24bit recording & sample converters

Ok.. I was biting my tongue... But have to now say, there are some very mis-informed people handing out useless advice. 24 bit recording is NOT a slight difference when recording.. It IS a HUGE difference! For example a Pro-Tools HD Rig uses a 48 bit internal buss for mixing purposes, because even 24 bit recording buss will just overload when mixing 8 or more source tracks. 16 bit 44,100 is the absolute BOTTOM END of audio. Harsh sounding , noisy & only 96db of headroom(24bit has 144db)!! But, an even bigger deal are the converters used to change the analogue sound being recorded.. Or more accurately the word clock inside the converters.. Neither Tascam Nor Zoom are considered to be high quality A/D converters. Prism make the best, Mackie, Apogee are not bad.. Pro-Tools HD192 are not bad... Motu are useable..Ish.. The point is, whether or not you are a techno geek or a musician.. You want to record the best sound you can get.. Digital is not the same just because it is digital.. There are some very big differences from system to system. The Zoom is a nice toy for musicians that just wanna "play" at recording.. Tascam is slightly better quality, but only just. So if you want to make recordings & just have fun get the cheaper Zoom option. But if you take yourself seriously & want good sound quality... Then don't touch either & invest your cash in a Pro-Tools LE system using an M-Box2 PRO.
 
Sorry, I know it's not one of your target choices, but I'll throw another vote out there for the Yamaha 1600. What a great box for those of us who prefer stand-alones. I've been happily using the older, similar version (aw16G) for seven years without a hiccup, and the 1600 adds some nice features to the package. As Danny mentioned, you can't expect to unpack a machine like that and record a CD the first week, but with some patience and practice, the learning curve's not steep at all--even for a low-tech geek musician like me.
 
I almost bought the Tascam but chose the Korg for its preamps. It was a tough decision though.
I've heard a recording made by the Zoom (by a pro) and it's very thin.
Don't get me wrong. I love the look and feel of it. It's a great machine and very tempting at the price but... it's a top of the line hobbyist's tool.
The Tascam 2488 would be the the least expensive of the complete studio models and a real step up from the Zoom.
As for 16 versus 24 bit... It makes a big difference. I can certainly hear it in my own stuff but if you're using 8 tracks it would really depend on the individual project as to whether you'd use the 24 bit.
Safest bet? The Tascam.
 
I have the 2488neo...I kinda wish they still made the akai dps24 because the dps16 I used for alot of years Im comfortable with...but the Tascam is a real step up from the Zoom.
 
I'm diggin the zoom for the $$$ I spent

I like the zoom. It's a great bang for your buck, and it's the most user friendly piece of recording equipment that I've used. Had it for a few days now and am already cranking stuff out that sounds great. Using good mics and everything is going real well.
 
zoom fan

I've owned the Zoom MRS 1044, then the 1266, and now the 1608 and I have never looked elsewhere. Why? Because - correct me if I'm wrong - the Tascam and others do NOT have a built in drum machine. I'm not talking about a drum or loop sequencer. I'm talking about a full fledged drum machine with velocity sensitive pads and (more importantly for me) the ability to customize your own drum kit. And not just with the built in sounds. The 1608 which I currently use also includes a sampler. That means you can totally customize your drum kit!

One more feature that I don't believe the competition has in addition to a drum machine: 8 separate compressor/eq busses. This means you can compress and eq 8 individual inputs or tracks, each with its own compression/eq setting. (as opposed to applying the same compression across all tracks, or having to compress and bounce each track). Man, once you get used to having multiple compressors going at the same time, you'll wonder how you got along without them!

One more gotta have (for me): if there are a hundred crappy effects on this unit, there are also a dozen beauties. There are a couple of guitar patches that are absolutely stunning.

Alright, now that I've finished ranting and raving on the Zoom, I have nothing against the Tascam because I don't own one and I am not familiar. On the difference between 16 and 24 bit, perhaps that would convert me, if it weren't for the drum machine (with programmable drum pads), sampler, and 8 individual compressors being thrown into one unit. For a minimalist like me, that's irresistible.

Obviously my vote: Zoom Zoom Zoom!
 
I just switched from a Tascam 2488mkII to a Zoom HD16CD a couple weeks ago. This continuing discussion is probably now moot since both units are discontinued. (I bought my HD16CD from zZounds at $509 - including shipping - just before they stopped carrying it. Sweetwater sold out their remaining stock about three weeks earlier.) On the other hand, perhaps this discussion will be of some value to folks perusing the used market.

I had used the 2488mkII for a few years before switching to the HD16CD. I had *always* found the 2488mkII to be difficult to use. Conceptually it's a fairly simple machine, but the workflow is not well-suited to someone who wants to focus their attention primarily upon creating a good *performance*. This, I suspect, is the case with with everyone who does their own recording.

I consistently botched about one of ten takes with the 2488mkII by forgetting to complete some step in going from auditioning the previous take to recording a new take. Mostly I'd forget to change routing, or forget that changing the routing had cancelled all the armed tracks. Sure, I know... Simple things that I *should have* caught, and probably would have had the majority of my attention been on engineering rather than performing. But that's the point: my attention *is* focussed upon performing; I need a DAW that's as obvious as possible.

Whereas the 2488mkII hides important information (specifically, routing selection) on a screen that you must specifically request, the HD16CD makes everything *extremely* obvious. The track light is green for playback, red for recording, off for mute and orange for setting parameters. You really *can't* mess up the routing, since it's implicit in whether the track is set for recording or playback. A quick glance at the HD16CD tells me whether I'm good to go for a take: if I don't see red on each in-use channel plus red on the record-arm button, I forgot something. I don't need to go menu-diving to see hidden state, because there is no hidden state.

The Zoom guitar effects are, to my ear, much better than Tascam's. Not that I use them often, but it's nice to know that I can get away with using the Zoom's built-in effects for a quick demo.

I usually record my trio live to multiple tracks. I've already talked about how the Zoom's workflow reduces errors in that situation. The Zoom's workflow for recording one track at a time is also quite intuitive (and even more streamlined than for 8-track operation), whereas the Tascam's workflow still suffers from the faults I noted above.

I had reservations about the Zoom's 2-line LCD at first. I quickly discovered that it's a lot easier to navigate - and more useful than - Tascam's flashier graphical display.

The Zoom's LED meter bridge is much easier to see than Tascam's on-screen metering display.

Both units have scene support (the ability to capture all mixer settings), but only the Zoom has the ability to associate a scene change with a location marker. IOW, the Zoom supports a rudimentary form of automation, while the Tascam has none. I find that the Zoom's simple automation is much more convenient and easier to use than the "draw the control points" form offered by software-based DAWs. Although I can't automate a gradual parameter change on the Zoom, I haven't found that to be a serious limitation.

Under the covers the Zoom and the Tascam behave very differently. The Zoom records to manipulates WAV files. All of the files begin start at the zero time reference. This makes it easy to export the Zoom's files to another DAW.

The Tascam uses some kind of frame-based recording format. This gives the Tascam a noticeable speed advantage when doing things like jumping to a location marker and trimming a track. On the other hand, exporting a track from the Tascam is a tedious, painfully slow process. It took me about forty minutes to export four twenty-minute tracks when I was moving projects from the Tascam to the Zoom. Most of that time is spent rendering the tracks as WAV files; writing the CD-R only took a couple minutes.

Because the Tascam uses frame-based recording, its editing resolution is limited to the frame time (1/30th, 1/25th or 1/24th of a second, depending upon a parameter set upon project initialization). Frame-based recording makes a lot of sense for recordings that must sync with film or television.

The Zoom uses linear recording and provides an editing resolution of 1/1,000th of a second. You might find this kind of resolution useful to time-align two tracks recorded using mics at different distances from the sound source. It's not something I'd do, but it's there in case you need it.

You'll find most of the same editing operations on the Tascam and the Zoom. However, the Zoom does not have the ability to splice a chunk out of the middle of a track. I suspect that, due to the Zoom's linear recording format, the time to execute such an operation would be prohibitive. You may be able to approximate this operation by copying ranges into a new track, but you'd almost certainly have some kind of glitch due to a waveform discontinuity at the "splice". (The Tascam automatically does a 10ms crossfade to mitigate this problem.)

The Zoom performs a couple of track-editing tricks not available on the Tascam: time-stretching (without pitch change) and reversal. I haven't tried either. My experience with low-budget time stretchers is that they create audible artifacts. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong by the HD16CD, but not at all disappointed if it didn't deliver Lexicon-quality sound for $500.

The Zoom can import a track from a CD, from an IMPORT folder in the file system (writable via USB - see below), or from any other project. The latter option simply isn't available on the Tascam without a lot of tedious and time-consuming intermediate steps. The Zoom, however, is not without fault: it's stereo tracks are actually paired mono tracks which must be imported one at a time.

The Zoom includes a harmonizer and a pitch corrector among its insert effects. I haven't used either effect, so can't comment regarding their quality. Neither effect is available on the Tascam.

I like the reverbs slightly better on the Tascam than on the Zoom. However, the Zoom's reverbs are quite usable.

The Zoom offers a very effective three-band compressor. The Tascam doesn't. (The 2488neo include a three-band compressor in its mastering section.)

Both the Zoom and the Tascam allow you to use track location markers to separate one project into multiple tracks when burning a CD-R. I get a lot of use from this feature. Remember, though, that the Zoom supports use of location markers for mixer scene automation. Unfortunately, a mark is mark on the Zoom; there's no way to distinguish between a scene change mark and a CD track mark.

In the case that you are recording multiple songs in a project and using scene automation within one or more of those songs, you're going to have to do some extra preparation before burning a CD-R. What I do is master the project (with automation), copy it to a new project (this preserves all the tracks, scenes, markers, etc. in the copy), switch to the copy, remove all the marks that are just for scene automation, then burn the CD-R from the copy. It's honestly almost easier to do than to write about. If I had one wish for a firmware upgrade (I'm not holding my breath), it'd be for some way to specify that a mark is to be used *only* for scene automation.

The Tascam has a much more capable monitoring section than the Zoom. The Tascam allows you to select which bus is monitored and provides an independent monitor level control and a mute button. The Zoom monitor outputs are permanently associated with the stereo bus and have neither a level control nor a mute button. This is a minor inconvenience during mastering, as you can't reduce the monitor volume unless your monitors have their own level control.

The Tascam provides balanced 1/4" monitor outputs, while the Zoom uses RCA jacks.

The Zoom wins on input configuration with eight combination jacks that will accept either an XLR or 1/4" plug. The first two inputs are switchable as a hi-Z guitar input. All eight inputs have individually-switchable phantom power.

The Tascam has eight inputs, only four of which will accept an XLR plug. The phantom power applies as a group to all four XLR inputs. A separate 1/4" jack on the unit's front - linked to one of the rear-panel inputs - is a hi-Z connection for guitar.

Both units can record up to eight tracks simultaneously. The Zoom can mix sixteen tracks (eight mono and four stereo) while the Tascam can mix twenty-four tracks (twelve mono and six stereo).

The Zoom records only at 16-bit resolution, but processes audio at 24-bit resolution. The Tascam can record either at 16- or 24-bit resolution; its processing resolution is unspecified. Both units sample only at 44.1 KHz.

The Tascam's performance is undoubtedly limited by it's analog section and its converters: despite the available 24-bit resolution, the 2488mkII's noise floor is virtually the same as the HD16CD's.

Both the Zoom and the Tascam provide USB connectivity for transferring files to and from the unit. On the Tascam all files are transferred via a FAT partition and require a time-consuming conversion between the Tascam's internal format and WAV files. The Zoom exposes its file system directly. No conversions are necessary since the unit records directly to WAV files. On the downside, there's always the risk that the Zoom's file system or your recorded tracks can be corrupted through operator error; this can't happen on the Tascam.

The Zoom can convert sample rates while importing WAV files.

I found that the HD16CD doesn't play nicely with Mac OS 10.4.11. I was able to mount the Zoom's file system on the Mac, but attempts to move WAV files from the Mac to the Zoom consistently locked up the Zoom after having transferred about 110 MB. Fortunately, I can still move files to and from the Zoom via CD-R.

Computer compatibility seems to always be an issue for manufacturers of audio gear. Ironically, Mac OS 10.4 and the Zoom HD16CD are both about three years old; you'd think they'd work together. On the other hand, maybe the HD16CD was only tested against Mac OS 10.3. An email inquiry to Samson Technology's support address for Zoom products remains unanswered after several weeks.

In addition to the mountable file system, the Zoom also provides control-surface and MIDI functionality via USB. I have not used either of these features, so can't comment on whether they work.

The Zoom provides a programmable rhythm section and can play SMF files. The Tascam can play SMF files. I can't comment on these features as I haven't used them.

Regarding physical characteristics, neither unit will be mistaken for a piece of professional equipment. The physically-larger Tascam seems more substantial and has slightly longer faders. The Zoom is better suited for constricted workspaces. Both should be treated carefully and operated in a clean environment in order to maximize their working life.

The Zoom uses a small AC power adaptor. The Zoom adaptor will work anywhere in the world when matched with a proper cord. The Tascam has a built-in power supply that works only on the voltage specific to the region in which the unit was sold.
 
Great review and first post, Tie. Such detailed comparisons are always useful.

Welcome to the forum!
 
Back
Top