The Glorious Tascam 424mkIII

  • Thread starter Thread starter analog aaron
  • Start date Start date
From what I've gathered from some other owners, the MkII was a little sturdier than the MkIII. Something about the playback controls and the main controller board. I'll have to see if I can dig up some more info on it. I've got the MkII and I love it. Then again, it doesn't see heavy use.;)
 
From what I've gathered from some other owners, the MkII was a little sturdier than the MkIII.

Yup, I've heard the same thing and from my own personal, albeit brief experience, the MKII does seem better in that respect. I did own a 424MKIII so I did have a sense of real comparison. It'd be cool if I could get my hands on the manual to see the specs of that earlier machine. Say, do you have and can you possibly scan the specs section from the MKII manual and either post it or send it to me?
 
Or, maybe the 424mkIII's the best selling and most popular Portastudio ever because

I've recorded with one!:eek:;)

(Oh, wait...):eek::eek:;)
 

Attachments

  • 1-Tascam 424mkIII.webp
    1-Tascam 424mkIII.webp
    28.2 KB · Views: 112
  • 1-Tascam 424mkIIIa.webp
    1-Tascam 424mkIIIa.webp
    30.1 KB · Views: 104
Last edited:
I was able to afford to shell out a couple hundred for one of these things back in the day (when I was a poor college student to boot).

Criticize the build quality of the 424 mkIII all you want, but you could also argue that Tascam was smart because they realized who their market really was and what they really wanted: AFFORDABILITY

Yeah these things are cheap, almost like toys. But I have done a lot of recording with mine in that last 12 years or so, and it has held up remarkably well, although I have been careful with it. I probably wouldn't be posting on this board if the cheapest cassette 4 tracks you could find in the mid-90s were in the $1000+ range.
 
To be honest, I bought my MkII from a guy (locally) for $160 and it is in mint shape. I was actually going to buy a 414 MkII since I have seen those before. I saw the posting on CL for the 424 and figured what the hell. I meet the guy at his house and he brings me this monster box and I'm like WTF?? I open it up and there is a huge (for my expectations....LOL) Tascam in there. I figured it was even better so I checked out the functions and everything seemed to be okay. He even threw in a few XL-II (unopened) cassettes. I've been reading and tinkering with it ever since. Now if I only knew how to play a damn instrument...............:(
 
Last edited:
I'll agree that

the 424mkII is a fine design. I kind of like it more than the mkIII, because of it's top mounted connectors and internal power supply. I've recorded at least an album's worth of stuff on the 424mkII, and I'd swear by it as being worthy.:eek:;)
 

Attachments

  • 1-Tascam 424mkII.webp
    1-Tascam 424mkII.webp
    22.6 KB · Views: 71
  • 1-Tascam 424mkIIb.webp
    1-Tascam 424mkIIb.webp
    25.1 KB · Views: 72
Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" on a TASCAM 144. The 244 had a dbx noise reduction built in, enhanced EQ AND could record 4 simultaneous tracks (rather than overdub?). I can't see much difference other than the "packaging" in the 424
 
What is the focus of your question?

Nebraska was lackluster in fidelity, but it fit the production aims and got the TEAC 144 a lot of notice... being brand new at the time.

The TASCAM 244 was quite enhanced over the 144, and could record 4 tracks simultaneously. The 144 could not. However, the 244 could not record "3" tracks simultaneously. It was 1, 2 or 4, your choice. The 244 has much better EQ than the 144. The 244 has dbx NR, which is superior to Dolby B. The 244 has lots of patch points on the back, much more than the 144, and the 244 has a stereo Cue (monitor) section.

The 424 series is really quite different in architecture and features than the 144 or 244, I wouldn't call it just different "packaging", but in a basic sense it's the same:
4-track recording onto cassette via a built-in mixer as an all-in-one self-contained package. Hence, the name... Portastudio.
 
@A Reel Person ... Uh, I think I said that. Did I forget something?
 
I think my point is that calling the 424 (series) like the 144 or 244 in different packaging is a bit of an over-simplification, but the fundamentals of the analog Portastudio line are all the same, however you slice it. The technical features of each model can be quite different, and span a wide range.
 
Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" on a TASCAM 144. The 244 had a dbx noise reduction built in, enhanced EQ AND could record 4 simultaneous tracks (rather than overdub?). I can't see much difference other than the "packaging" in the 424

The 244 and 424 series are wildly different machines. The mixing section on the 424 series is significantly enhanced, particularly on the mkII onward…I like the 3-band mid-sweep EQ on the mkII and mkIII and the fact the hi and lo bands are shelving vs the 2-band swept peaking filters on the 244…but I think the 244 EQ actually *sounds* better. Of course the 424 series has more input channels, and the monitor section and track assign/arming controls are more intuitive; more typical. So the 424 series’ mixers, again particularly so from the mkII onward, feel more powerful than the 244. And the 424 series has later generation head construction with better HF performance over the 244. And the XLR inputs on the mkII and mkIII 424 machines are nice. You also have the more sophisticated transport features on the 424 series (the basic autolocator and rehearse faculties, etc.) which can, depending on your workflow and process, be very useful. But the 244 signal path *sounds* better…there is pretty much nothing in common between the 244 and 424 series’ signal paths…and Teac clearly selected cutting edge opamps of the day for the 244…it’s clear there was intent in the design to promote good sound…and it is *such* a more robust design…individual vertical channel PCBs, larger metal-shaft individually nutted pots, relatively huge switches…much longer lasting and resilient…better for signal flow too. The switches and pots on the 424 generation are much more prone to failure…cheap. The 424 generation is clearly value-engineered. The 244 has a smaller footprint but weighs twice as much…so much more metal. This makes it stronger but with all the larger components and individual PCBs it is also much easier to service and repair when needed. I also like the fact all of the main input channels in the 244 have insert points, and while the 424 series’ mixing section is, overall, more feature-rich than the 244, the 244 has some less obvious features that make the 244 mixer more useful than apparent at first-blush…yes you see only one AUX buss, but it’s stereo…so it can be used as a single stereo buss or two mono busses, and the buss is selectable per channel as pre or post-fade, or switched off (muted). And while one of the 424 series two mono AUX busses has to double as the TAPE CUE mixer, the 244 has a completely separate stereo TAPE CUE mixer. I like the 244 better than the 424 series. I want to be clear I don’t dislike the 424 at all…I had a mkII for many, many years. It’s a great machine and I enjoyed using it. There are just many things I like better about the 244. But the best 4-track “portastudio” in my book, the one that has the mixer features that compete with and in many ways exceed the 424 series, has the next generation head technology with the best HF performance over every other 4-track cassette machine, has the absolutely next-level of robustness in its design…maybe a few levels…over the 244, and has Neotek pedigree in its signal path, is the Audio Technica AT-RMX64. It’s the king as far as I’m concerned in build, features and sound. I’ve used and worked on about a half dozen cassette 4-track machines, and studied many more. Nothing else comes close.
 
I think my point is that calling the 424 (series) like the 144 or 244 in different packaging is a bit of an over-simplification,
I agree. Going into the detail that @sweetbeats has, is better left to those who know much better than I.
And I mean that with utmost respect.
I may relegate my Revox to another role, and pick up something simple (Audio Technica AT-RMX64?)
BTW @sweetbeats, thank you!
 
Viewing the prices of the 244, 424 Mk III, and AT RMX64, I'll keep my Revox :unsure: :unsure:8-)
 
I agree. Going into the detail that @sweetbeats has, is better left to those who know much better than I.
And I mean that with utmost respect.
I may relegate my Revox to another role, and pick up something simple (Audio Technica AT-RMX64?)
BTW @sweetbeats, thank you!
I can’t help myself. It’s a problem.

Yeah the issues with the AT-RMX64 are scant user community and technical support. It’s getting harder and harder to find qualified people to work on any analog tape machine, and I feel like there are more and more people selling machines as “serviced”, but they don’t know what they are doing. And the AT-RMX64 is among those machines that are extra hard to find qualified support because the service manual and schematics are unobtanium.

I had a client bring in a 244 recently that was “serviced”…transport rubber was supposedly replaced…they did replace the belts and reel table drive tires with proper parts, but didn’t do any of the proper disassembly, cleaning, lubricating and necessary transport adjustments after replacing the rubber parts. They also used one of those horrible replacement pinch roller donuts…the cheap-o option. As a result the headblock assembly was not adjusted…did not have the correct travel cycle, and the pinch roller rotated eccentrically, which caused a significant wow issue. The new drive tires were only partially effective because the tables and drive mechanism were not cleaned of the old gooey rubber. So FFWD and REW didn’t work correctly. Also, as a result of the removal and reinstallation of the transport, the pitch control assembly was reinstalled incorrectly and the pitch control knob would barely turn. Last but not least the -12V audio power rail was faulty, but whoever did the work decided to ignore the loud hum in the outputs, and multiple non-functional busses/outputs. And that was “serviced.”

Back to the AT-RMX64…I want clarify I typically have disdain for equipment that is either wholly unreliable, is not something I can easily service (like stuff that utilizes anything more than a minimal amount of surface-mount tech for instance…I don’t like working on the surface-mount stuff…I can do it, but my aging eyes are making it harder and harder), or for which there is extremely dismal community support or absence of available tech docs. The AT-RMX64 fits solidly into that last category…and I went to great lengths to try and locate tech docs for it…even have an inside contact at AT-USA and they couldn’t find anything. And AT-JAPAN may or may not have access to something, but their corporate liability policy prevents them from dealing with consumers. I was even willing to sign a hold-harmless agreement that would exonerate their liability in any case AND gag me from sharing anything they shared with me with anybody else. I even sent them an example. This was ultimately a successful tactic in similar circumstances trying to get ahold of tech docs for the TDK Lambda power modules that are used in the power supplies for my Studer console. But no luck with Audio Technica. So…why am I all gushy about the AT-RMX64? Because the AT-RMX64 is a rare instance for me where the kit is *so* cool I knuckled down and reverse-engineered the thing in order to repair what mine needed, and also to be able to fully calibrate it. So that puts me in a position to be able to service it and have some decent working knowledge of how power and signal and logic flows and what and where circuit blocks reside. This helps me feel less intimidated about the notion that, eventually, something obscure will fail, but I likely will be able to repair it. And, yes…people are asking silly money for some of this stuff these days. The point I want to make to you in all this is if there is something with which you are familiar, and it’s functional, it’s wise to consider the value of those factors…keep them in the forefront. I support you sticking with your Revox. I don’t know what model machine you have, but as I’m sure you know Revox is the consumer division for Studer, and the stuff is well-built. And of course typically revered. So…thumbs up from me on your decision.
 
I can’t help myself. It’s a problem.
I had a conversation with my Director of Engineering one afternoon, and he relayed to me a fable about "The Dog In The Manger".
In short, a dog commandeered a manger to sleep. It was very large and very comfortable. Thought there were other animals that would have benefitted from sleeping in the manger, the dog refused to share. The dog spent the night in the manger, but didn't get any sleep. The next night, the dog shared the manger with other animals that needed a nice place to sleep, and the dog slept the best sleep ever.
The moral is that, if you have something to share, don't keep it to yourself. All that you share may not be for everyone, but everyone may benefit from some of your wisdom.
 
I had a conversation with my Director of Engineering one afternoon, and he relayed to me a fable about "The Dog In The Manger".
In short, a dog commandeered a manger to sleep. It was very large and very comfortable. Thought there were other animals that would have benefitted from sleeping in the manger, the dog refused to share. The dog spent the night in the manger, but didn't get any sleep. The next night, the dog shared the manger with other animals that needed a nice place to sleep, and the dog slept the best sleep ever.
The moral is that, if you have something to share, don't keep it to yourself. All that you share may not be for everyone, but everyone may benefit from some of your wisdom.
Interesting parable.

I’m not sure I understand its application to me. Are you alluding that I don’t share? Honest question…just want to understand your point.
 
Are you alluding that I don’t share?
No, not at all. It is, indeed the exact opposite. Your posts are filled with a multitude of information, and I enjoy them.
My post was not meant as a criticism, it was meant as a compliment.
 
No, not at all. It is, indeed the exact opposite. Your posts are filled with a multitude of information, and I enjoy them.
My post was not meant as a criticism, it was meant as a compliment.
Thanks. I wasn’t sure. I do try to share and help. Thanks for the clarification and the compliment. I appreciate it.
 
According to this reputable seller on Ebay (scroll down the page to read his description/opinion):

 
Back
Top