[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference napalm::commusic_v1

Title:	* * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * *
Notice:	Conference has been write-locked. Use new version.
Moderator:	DYPSS1::SCHAFER

Created:	Thu Feb 20 1986
Last Modified:	Mon Aug 29 1994
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	2852
Total number of notes:	33157

823.0. "Four-Track (4 Track) Cassette Decks" by REGENT::SCHMIEDER () Mon Jun 01 1987 13:04

This is a general note for discussing new developments in four-track casette
technology.

After much waffling, I finally sold my Tascam 234 last week.  This, after hours
and hours of research and hands-on experiments.  The most important piece of
data I received was the excerpts from the April 1987 issue of Music & Sound
Output, with Mr. Rollow gratefully xeroxed for me after I missed it on the
newsstand.

It appears that the current trend is towards what is called a "compromise"
format.  Unfortunately, this "compromise" seems to give the worst of both
worlds, from what I can tell.

Early four-track casette decks, and current cheap ones, tend to use the same
tracking format as normal stereo casette decks, though unidirectional and often
at twice the speed.  The track spacing is uneven in the Philips standard, as
it had to be backwards compatible with the original mono casettes.  So, the L/R
channel pairs are spaced closer together than the pairs are to each other.
This results in worse crosstalk problems between channels 1 & 2 and 3 & 4,
which I gather is the main reason these four-track decks couldn't allow
simultaneous recording on all four channels or full bouncing capabilities.

The Tascam 234 was always in a special category, as a rack-mount unit with just
the basic mixing capabilities, and was briefly joined by an AudioTechnica deck
(since discontinued) and one other discontinued model I don't remember.  From
what I understand, the 234 is about to disappear also, as the 246 (with full
mixing capabilities) has undercut its sales dramatically.  I believe the 234
is still the finest on the market, next to the one I will describe a bit later,
and would hate to see it disappear from the marketplace.  Anyway, the tracks
are evenly spaced on the 234.  There is crosstalk, but I have found that
mixing externally gives better results than mixing down internally anyway,
and only do the latter when mixing another instrument "live" at the same time.

The "compromise" format is, I believe, used on the 246 and most newer recorders.
It has tracks 2 & 3 spaced somewhere in between the Philips standard and the
even spacing used by the 234.  The purpose of this is to eliminate one stage
of bouncing during mix-down.  Theoretically, one can mix to a normal stereo
deck and take the mix-down to place in the four-track deck (these four-track
decks, of course, either run at 1-7/8ips or have a switch to select between
1-7/8ips and 3-3/4ips), for further editing and recording.  Unfortunately,
mistracking results at both ends, and the middle tracks will be both softer
and more distorted.  This is an oversimplification, but I think the point is
pretty clear.

My feeling is that two generations of bouncing at 3-3/4ips to and from a very
high fidelity stereo casette deck and amplification system will result in much
better results than one generation of bouncing at 1-7/8ips.  The sonic
improvements betwee 1-7/8ips and 3-3/4ips are rather dramatic.  I can find
nothing very appealing about the compromise architecture, other than that it
makes things a bit siompler and cheaper for someone first starting out.

So, now we come to Akai.  They came out with a twelve-track machine two years
ago, though I don't know how many recording tracks it uses.  I suspect six or
eight, as it can record at 7-1/2ips, thus increasing headroom and dynamic
range to the point that squeezing extra tracks in shouldn't be as much of a
problem.  I'm probably naive here, as I can't remember how it works with
reel-to-reels in terms of increased tape speed, tape width and number of tracks.

Akai now has a four-track version, with six-channel built-in computerised mixer
(computerised in the sense that it takes care of most of the electronic signal
balancing automatically).  It goes for $1500 to $1600, is durable and is the
first four-track from a manufacturer on a par with or above Tascam.  In fact,
this particular machine has a cleaner mixer section, by far, than any other
four-track, and is also cleaner than most <$1500 separate mixers.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find one (LaSalle will order them), and
was only able to get literature for the twelve-track version.  It looks like
the twelve-track version has more features (including the 7-1/2ips option)
than the four-track version, and I wouldn't trust the specs to be the same
either.  Also, the twelve-track version has direct low impedance mic inputs
for each input channel (not a problem for me, since I have Hot Wires lo-hi
transformers).

Just as an aside, LaSalle is now offering the eight-track reel-to-reel Tascam
Studio8 (also known as 388) "portastudio" for $2800.  I'm not convinced that
option is any better than their four-tracks, and that four extra tracks without
a corresponding giant leap in quality is worth the extra $1600 over the 246.

Summer NAMM should be coming up.  Not much high end activity at Winter NAMM,
but maybe the summer show will see some new products announced to open up
competition at the high end of the four-track casette market.


				Mark

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
823.1	wot? wit wit n happy phaces	JON::ROSS	Network partner excited first try!{pant}	`Mon Jun 01 1987 14:17`	7
	You included an 8 track discussion in your general note of four-tracks. 8') What did you want to discuss? I think you covered it. ron
823.2	Rock 'n' Rolla	CYBORG::ROLLA		`Mon Jun 08 1987 13:43`	9
	re:-2 ROLLOW ? I've heard: Rola, Rolka, Rollo, Rolland, Rolle and Roller I guess I'll have to add Rollow to the list. Mike Rolla
823.3		REGENT::SCHMIEDER		`Mon Jun 08 1987 15:19`	5
	Sorry, there's a Greg Rollow in one of the other conferences, and I got the two of you confused. Mark
823.4	a rose by any other name	ERASER::BUCKLEY	Restless and Wild	`Tue Jun 09 1987 09:54`	6
	Re: -2 Yeah, I remember the Rollo incident...I thought it was kinda funny. DO you remember it mike? WjB
823.5		REGENT::SCHMIEDER		`Tue Jun 30 1987 11:24`	34
	I resolved the issue of separate mixer vs. integrated mixer some time ago, and ended up selling my Tascam234 to Dave Coleman. Now that DEC SummerJam is out of the way, I've had some time to organise things again and am pretty much ready to start working on songwriting/recording again, as well as making up practice tapes. I definitely plan to buy a new four-track with integrated mixer by the end of the summer. Unfortunately, I still have not been able to decide between the Akai MG614 and the Tascam246. I was VERY happy with the Tascam234, with the minor exceptions of crosstalk on adjacent channels during internal mixing (which I usually avoid, and which is less of a problem on the 246), and ramp-up time for speed stabilisation during punch-ins. These would be problems on any deck. The Akai supposedly is much better than the Tascam, according to what I have read in various magazine articles that have mentioned it. But no one seems to carry it! And LaSalle has nothing more than a one-page data sheet on the 1214, which is an entirely different beast! Not only that, but the data they supply is weird and not all that useful! According to LaSalle, the only advantage is having direct MIC input (big deal - I have transformers), and having a MIDI sync track that can defeat dbx on track 4. They claim the difference in quality is minimal, although Music & Sound Output mentions that the Akai is so easy to run that it practically runs itself (presumably, this means that it is intelligent enough to be able to balance signals with minimal user interface). Is there some reason why no one has the Akai? Does anyone know of a store that carries it, or how to get literature (Akai will only send the page that LaSalle has on the 1214)? Is it still true that they make EXTREMELY unreliable products, as they were notorious for during the early 80's? I will probably be making a decision within the next four to five weeks, as LaSalle has the Tascam246 on special for $1095 until the end of summer, the next price increase, or depletion of overstock; whichever comes first. Mark
823.6	Don't Punch Unless Moving	DRUMS::FEHSKENS		`Mon Jul 06 1987 12:08`	8
	re .5, "ramp up time for speed stabilisation during punch-ins" Punch-ins are done with the deck in motion; all that changes is the state of the recording electronics; I'm not sure what your concern is. len.
823.7		REGENT::SCHMIEDER		`Mon Jul 06 1987 12:28`	28
	RE: .6 Oops, I used improper terminology again. I never spent the $80 to buy a punch-in for the Tascam234. I did it the hard way, which isn't a true "punch-in". That is, I "punched" the "start" button with one of my relatively free limbs while gearing up to play whatever instrument I was holding. Your question makes it clear I need a punch-in for my next deck, though. Having never had one, I didn't know what they did. I thought they started up the tape from afar. I didn't realise that all you did was to set the tracks you wanted to record on and use the punch in to actually start the recording process on those tracks, from remote. I'm having a difficult time wording this, I know. I thought that the tape had to be stationary, and that the punch-in started the tape up, in record mode. It appears that the tape should actually be moving, with the recording tracks seleceted but not actively recording, and that hitting the punch-in, from remote, switches from play mode to record mode on the slected tracks. This is a much more useful feature, and perhaps worth the $80 that Tascam charges for it. I will consider it for my next four-track. I'm not going to bother buying a new one until I know I have time to use it (I have several higher priority items I'm winding down on this summer), but it looks as though I'll be buying the Tascam246. I simply can't get any info on the Akai, and their bad reputation for reliability has been confirmed by numerous people. At least I know I'm getting my money's worth with the 246. Mark
823.8	Punch Drunk	DRUMS::FEHSKENS		`Mon Jul 06 1987 16:11`	25
	The 234, 244, and 246 all have punchin/out capability builtin. The extra cost option is just a footswitch that makes invokation of the punch-in feature more convenient when your hands are otherwise occupied. Typically what you have to do is select the desired tracks in record-ready mode, start the deck in play mode then hit the record button when you want to punch in (you may have to hit play at the same time, my recollection is foggy). Hitting record again will "punch-out", i.e., stop recording on the selected tracks, so what's already there after the punchin in doesn't get erased. The footswitch is obviously a lot easier to use. The Tascam footswitch is a $35 option. The $80 option is probably the remote control unit, which I'm not sure is compatible with the 4 track cassette decks. The switchover time is not quite instantaneous, and if you listen very closely you may be able to hear a minor glitch. Unless you punch in multiple tracks at exactly the same time you will not likely hear the punch-in glitches in the final mix. Punch in/out is an extremely useful feature for "touchin up" minor screwups in an otherwise good take. Obviously, it's of more use to live players than sequencers. len.
823.9		REGENT::SCHMIEDER		`Mon Jul 06 1987 17:07`	11
	Thanks, Len. I never really knew the punch-in feature could be had with or without the footswitch, and I did indeed get the two footswitch prices confused (either that, or the guy at LaSalle did, and I was stupid enough to believe him). Glad to know it's so easy and cheap, and I could kick myself for not using it before, since I lost a lot of good takes by doing them over to patch a minor screw-up. Using punch-in with my next unit should remove 90% of my frustrations and lead to faster recordings, freeing me up for more important things like woodshedding and improving my raw talents (and boy, are they raw!). Mark
823.10	Punching Out .... NOW	DRUMS::FEHSKENS		`Mon Jul 06 1987 17:16`	16
	re .9 - read the manual for details. You may puch out by hitting play while in record mode, my memory is, as noted, foggy, since I traded my 244 up to a 38. The 38's remote control is not a foot switch but a hand held unit on a long cable. The unit duplicates the transport controls (stop, rewind, fast forward, play, record, pause). I believe the cassette decks support a footswitch start/stop (i.e., no rewind, fast forward, record or pause). I use the 38's punch in/out footswitch a lot more than I use the remote control. Sometimes I even use the footswitch by hand - it's easier than hitting the two buttons on the deck. len.
823.11		GIBSON::DICKENS	Distributed System Manglement	`Tue Jul 07 1987 12:09`	5
	Even my lowly porta-one has a punch-in footswitch. A very useful feature. Not quite noiseless though, you sort of have to get the hang of when to hit the switch, like not while a note is sustaining.
823.12		REGENT::SCHMIEDER		`Tue Jul 07 1987 13:54`	18
	Ah, noise! Now I remember some more details about my own naive early experiments with multitracking and overdubbing, way back in high school when I had no technical knowledge and thought I had invented the process myself! I have noticed that the "noise" that a punch-in makes (from the front panel, at least) varies considerably from deck to deck. I have not noticed that it is distracting on the Tascam234, but it certainly was on the Pioneer TR707 reel-to-reel and my Dad's Sony reel-to-reel. Thus, I'm not sure whether punch-ins come out cleaner on casettes than reel-to-reel, or whether it's purely a unit-by-unit quality issue. I'm not that nitpicky about pops and clicks in my home recordings anyway (or prerecorded music, for that matter). Dropouts would concern me a lot more, and I'm happy to say that I have never suffered dropouts on a Tascam machine. Mark