Virgin To Analog Recording (some1 pop it)

[Mark7]

If you want to hear some stunningly good recordings done on a humble 488 and 244 click here.

 

[A Reel Person]

I'd not go for a 464 with channel 1 blown,...

as on any other day you might get a fully functional 464 for the same price, on Ebay.

 

[marathonman]

as on any other day you might get a fully functional 464 for the same price, on Ebay.

how bout the 388 for 175?

 

[A Reel Person]

That would be a steal!

Provided it was a fully functional unit! Local pickup is best, because at nearly 90 lbs, it's a bear to ship!

 

[Hi_Flyer]

464s were the precursor to the 424s right? sorry $125 doesn't sound like a great deal, you could probably grab a 424 with 4 working channels for the same price on ebay... I think a brand new one will run just over $300.

 

[marathonman]

Provided it was a fully functional unit! Local pickup is best, because at nearly 90 lbs, it's a bear to ship!

GOTTTT DAMNNNNNN what am i gonna do with that that? lol it better work or i'm....

 

[marathonman]

464s were the precursor to the 424s right? sorry $125 doesn't sound like a great deal, you could probably grab a 424 with 4 working channels for the same price on ebay... I think a brand new one will run just over $300.

well i thought they stopped manufacturing them? what do you mean 'new' then? how much will a new 388 cost then?

 

[Hi_Flyer]

They still make 424s, not 388s though...

 

[marathonman]

They still make 424s, not 388s though...

ok guys, i'm thinking bout the 488 now, i'd be buying it for 175. the guy has decided he'll invite me over to read the manual and check the machine etc, how would i even know what to check for if i dont know anything bout tape machines... i mean what do u guys think? my thought was to just ask him to record on it on the spot so i see it works...

advise on how to check it would be appreciated...

and how bout this, why dont i just buy a Tascam 424MkIII , a new one for $279? or is the 488 a better machine?

 

[A Reel Person]

There's nothing wrong with a brand new 424mkIII for $279,...

and that's an awesome deal.

It's hard to compare the 488 to the 424mkIII, because they're slightly different in almost every area.

The 424mkIII has 4-tracks on cassette, and the 488 has 8. 4-tracks on cassette (424mkIII) would sound more robust than 4-tracks (out of 8/488) on cassette, but overall fidelity should be roughly the same between the 424mkII and 488. It's when you go into track-bouncing scenarios on the 4-tracker (424mkIII) that you'd be better off with the straight 8-tracker (488), because bounced tracks will compromise fidelity. I hope that's not confusing.

The 424mkIII has a mid-sweep 3-band EQ, and the 488 has 2-band fixed EQ,... so the 424mkIII edges out the 488 on EQ.

The 424mkIII has 4 XLR inputs, and that's nice, but the 488 has none,... but all 1/4" inputs.

The 424mkIII & 488 have different displays, with the 424mkIII's being a bit more modern, & with better visibility.

If you're talking about a 488mkII, it's a slightly better version than the 488, and would be more on par with the features of the 424mkIII. The 488mkII has the same EQ as the 424mkIII, same display, plus features 2 XLR inputs with phantom power, which seems to be the sought after feature these days.

Aw heck,... get'em both!

 

[marathonman]

and that's an awesome deal.

It's hard to compare the 488 to the 424mkIII, because they're slightly different in almost every area.

The 424mkIII has 4-tracks on cassette, and the 488 has 8. 4-tracks on cassette (424mkIII) would sound more robust than 4-tracks (out of 8/488) on cassette, but overall fidelity should be roughly the same between the 424mkII and 488. It's when you go into track-bouncing scenarios on the 4-tracker (424mkIII) that you'd be better off with the straight 8-tracker (488), because bounced tracks will compromise fidelity. I hope that's not confusing.

The 424mkIII has a mid-sweep 3-band EQ, and the 488 has 2-band fixed EQ,... so the 424mkIII edges out the 488 on EQ.

The 424mkIII has 4 XLR inputs, and that's nice, but the 488 has none,... but all 1/4" inputs.

The 424mkIII & 488 have different displays, with the 424mkIII's being a bit more modern, & with better visibility.

If you're talking about a 488mkII, it's a slightly better version than the 488, and would be more on par with the features of the 424mkIII. The 488mkII has the same EQ as the 424mkIII, same display, plus features 2 XLR inputs with phantom power, which seems to be the sought after feature these days.

Aw heck,... get'em both!

hey thanks so much , that really narrowed it down for me, i've decided to get a 424mkIII because i dont care much for 8tracks, i'm only recording vocals. and it seems the 424 is more versatile or should i say its easier to use it for connecting my condenser mic to, and even transfering recorded signals into the digital realm to mix... is that just bout everything?

and what bout the speed etc i dont know the terms etc if someone can break ti down for me quick... and how this 424 is... i do know 2' is the standard but its more expensive etc.

again thanx everyone for helping me with this.

 

[famous beagle]

how bout the 388 for 175?

You need to make sure it's functioning and find out what shape the heads are in. If the heads are shit and need to be replaced or relapped, that's going to be a few hundred.

 

[TeyshaBlue]

If you want to hear some stunningly good recordings done on a humble 488 and 244 click here.

Thanks Mark7!
Which leads to the point that's already been made...take your time and learn your machine's weaknesses and strengths and it's amazing what can be done with even the little cassette portastudio.
A 388 for $175.00, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

I'm curious about your original premise...you are going to be tracking only vocals on the porta then importing to Sonar3?
Are you certain this is the best avenue to avoid the harshness you are experiencing? The reason I ask is that I've done some very warm sounding stuff in Sonar recently (new DAW convert here!). I have been using a Tascam US-122 interface, but tracking thru an old but very nice Yamaha mixer. Doesn't help me a whit with the mix down, but the vocals do pick up some warmth going in.
I don't really know how much of this is attributable to the Yamaha or my rapidly aging ears. Anyway, just another log to throw on the fire.

 

[cjacek]

Yeah, take a listen to some cuts done on the 388:

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1609&alid=-1

(1) God
(2) Long Time Gone
(3) Love Me Do

...among others by Dave (A Reel Person)

(Hope you didn't mind me steppin' in, Dave ?)

~Daniel

Add "Moonage Daydream" to the mix (no pun ). It's another fav of mine! (Currently listenning).

I know dbx wasn't engaged on that one and I'm actually amazed that even at the very beginning, where you can hear the hiss for a split second, it's not that bad! Everything would point to hiss being pretty annoying for this type of "narrow" format, but it certainly is not a nuissance and may I say now that I feel the recording has more of that "airy" and "piercing" feel to it than the others with dbx engaged. Still great sounding but Moonage has something else that I can only attribute to the dbx being off ... Strange .... Gotta tell you that dbx on the 388 is not an absolute neccessity as I thought it would be and perhaps gives a different "flavor" or "colour" to the sound when disengaged... Puzzling ....

~Daniel

 

[A Reel Person]

It's more raw and punchy without dbx, & definitely brighter.

I've recorded many times on analog without dbx or NR, and even if there's a hint of hiss on the lead or tail of a song, it's usually transparent when the song commences, & has never been a deal breaker in otherwise normal recordings.

Dbx really silences residual tape hiss in most cases, and I usually prefer it, but results are usually decent and acceptable without it. It helps to print levels a bit hotter when not using dbx.

I see tape hiss mentioned as a problem of analog, & emphasized many times over on bbs posts, and I almost always think it's overstated. Hiss can be minimized, and it often reflects improper use of dbx, poor signal levels, or other noise in the signal chain. YMMV.

 

[jpmorris]

I've recorded many times on analog without dbx or NR, and even if there's a hint of hiss on the lead or tail of a song, it's usually transparent when the song commences, & has never been a deal breaker in otherwise normal recordings.

I see tape hiss mentioned as a problem of analog, & emphasized many times over on bbs posts, and I almost always think it's overstated. Hiss can be minimized, and it often reflects improper use of dbx, poor signal levels, or other noise in the signal chain. YMMV.

I concur. I haven't been doing this all that long, but I've only had two tracks which had real noise problems. The first track I ever did was printed with a rather high noise floor owing to inexperience, the other problem track was one of my most complex engineering projects to date, and the noisy tracks were dubbed across from a Uher 4000 which I was using for tape manipulations. The 'tone' control was set way high and I didn't notice.. I'll never be able to reproduce those tape effects, so I'm stuck with it.

In both cases the problem was chiefly noticable at the start and end. I also figured that there wasn't any point in worrying about it, since a lot of people have actually been trying to add noise to digital recordings. Why worry, if you can have the real thing for free?

 

[A Reel Person]

Heh.

... often reflects improper use of dbx, poor signal levels, or other noise in the signal chain...

We've all been there, dude.

 

[marathonman]

i see this thread is still alive!

well guys i've come to my last question for you guys, 424mkIII or the Tascam 414MKII 4-Track Recorder, this is the only thing i would like to hear good discussion on. WHICH WOULD WORK FOR ME BEST?

i'll brief you on my needs ...

i use sonar 3
m-audio 414 firewire with pre on it
RNC compressor

i would like to JUST RECORD VOCALS, nothing more, with the tape machine and THEN DUMPING IT all in sonar 3 producer edition to mix.

and my other question is, they actually use regular cassettes but i saw other tape machines that do NOT use cassettes but tape on that....i dont know what you call it but the tape is wrapped around, just look at the tascam 388.... is there a difference in that? i hope people understand what i mean...

anyway lookin forward to replies, please read everything i just wrote carefully because i've had many questions skipped in this thread...

thanx guys

 

[cjacek]

i see this thread is still alive!

well guys i've come to my last question for you guys, 424mkIII or the Tascam 414MKII 4-Track Recorder, this is the only thing i would like to hear good discussion on. WHICH WOULD WORK FOR ME BEST?

i'll brief you on my needs ...

i use sonar 3
m-audio 414 firewire with pre on it
RNC compressor

i would like to JUST RECORD VOCALS, nothing more, with the tape machine and THEN DUMPING IT all in sonar 3 producer edition to mix.

and my other question is, they actually use regular cassettes but i saw other tape machines that do NOT use cassettes but tape on that....i dont know what you call it but the tape is wrapped around, just look at the tascam 388.... is there a difference in that? i hope people understand what i mean...

anyway lookin forward to replies, please read everything i just wrote carefully because i've had many questions skipped in this thread...

thanx guys

As you would like to record vocals (nothing more) then it's pretty much a coin flip between the 2 machines. Pick one which is less expensive and that would be the 414. Note that neither has inserts for your compressor so you'd just run it direct mic - preamp - compressor to the XLR mic input. You'd then, when you have finished recording your vocal, use either the L or R RCA outs to go to your computer's soundcard. Really, the only feauture you'd find beneficial on the 424mkIII is the automatic punch in and punch out with rehearsal. That is if you wish to do a lot of "inserts" to make the vocal "flawless". Now, what I just thought of is that the 424mkIII also has 4 RCA tape outs that you can run into 4 RCA's of your soundcard (if you have that option). That could be beneficial too. But I'm kinda confused .... Do you wish only to do your vocals on one of the tracks or would you take up all 4 ? Sorry to be writing in a chaotic type of manner but I'm just writing as things "come to me". Another thing you may try on the 414mkII is record your vocal on 4 tracks and then dump them to one track (via the L or R RCA outs) but this time ride the faders to come up with one "perfect" take taken from all four. This may take some practice but it's an old recording school type of trick that works good. That way you may not need to spend more on the 424's automatic punch in feature. Seriously, I think you could do pretty much similar things with both machines. Again, it's a coin flip .... Tho I wonder why you don't want to pick up one of those stereo consumer open reel decks ... Can be found locally too and if in good condition will suffice for what you wanna use it for but will sound much better than teh 424 or 414. They run at 7 1/2 ips and have 2x the track width and are arguably much easier to use than the cassette portas for your purposes.

With regards to your last question: Usually open reel tape means that the machine that it is being used with is operating at a much faster speed (tape speed) and/or has wider tracks than a cassette (recorder). This means more space is being given to frequencies and they become more and more defined and truer to life as the speed and track width increase. Generally cassette is Low Fi and open reel is Hi - Fi. In your example, the TASCAM 388 open reel will sound more Hi-Fi than your cassette porta because it dedicates TWICE the amount of tape to the source sound but even more so, electronics of the 388 are HUGELY superior to the 414 or 424 making the sound even better.

~Daniel

 

[cjacek]

I've recorded many times on analog without dbx or NR, and even if there's a hint of hiss on the lead or tail of a song, it's usually transparent when the song commences, & has never been a deal breaker in otherwise normal recordings.

Dbx really silences residual tape hiss in most cases, and I usually prefer it, but results are usually decent and acceptable without it. It helps to print levels a bit hotter when not using dbx.

I see tape hiss mentioned as a problem of analog, & emphasized many times over on bbs posts, and I almost always think it's overstated. Hiss can be minimized, and it often reflects improper use of dbx, poor signal levels, or other noise in the signal chain. YMMV.

Yeah, me thinks tape hiss is overstated as well but speaking of the 388 and its track width ... It would be expected that the tape hiss would increase but I did a test and it is not much more than on my 3440 which has 2x the 388's track width. Could it be that the electronics in the 388 are so good that they kinda mitigate the effect of the narrower track width on tape hiss when dbx is off ?

Daniel