Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    First define your needs. Do you need an effects bus, MIDI interface...
    Then do your shopping. I  bought my machine (Tascam Porta One) too
    soon before I understood exactly my needs and how to apply then
    in hardware. Now, although the Porta One is a fine machine, I realize
    I should have got the Porta Two.
    
    Good Luck,
    
    Mark (Learning the hard way)

    Regarding sheer sound quality.
    
    I think what's most important is:
    
    	1) dbx noise reduction (not dolby, and especially not dolby
           B)
    
    	2) Faster tape speed
    
    	3) Input gain adjustments (often ignored but very important
           IMO).
    
    Also some units just seem to have "intrinsic" noise.  I dunno what
    it is, probably some design flaw like putting a power supply next
    to the tape heads or somethin like that.
    
    The Yamaha MT2X seems like a very good buy on these metrics, but
    of course you have to figure out your needs and establish what other
    features are necessary.
    
    	db

< Note 1044.0 by HARDY::JKMARTIN "Jay Martin" >
                             -< 4-Track Shootout? >-

    Has anyone started a general contrast/comparison between the various
    low-end 4 track decks around, like the TASCAM, Yamaha, etc, units?
    
    I am in need of buying one of these critters for my mom (of all
    persons!  I plan to borrow it religiously, though...), who is a
    semi-professional piano player.
    
    From what I could tell, the Yamaha unit sounded the best, in terms
    of reading specs (nothing other than that, though, for evaluation).

I'm not familiar with the Yamaha (model #____?) but I have 3 years of
experience with the TASCAM 234. It has built-in DBX, twice normal speed,
plenty of input/output jacks, headphone monitoring, etc. This is an
incredibly quiet unit, very forgiving if something feeds back to the
inputs, and works very well with bouncing-down tracks. It was rather
expensive at $995.00 at Framingham Wurly, but it put my band (a duo)
in business and paid for itself in one 2 month gig. We put the bass,
drums, background vocals, pad, strings, etc. on tape and then mix down
to Dolby-C 2 track. We use the 2 track at the gigs as our backup band.

Dave

    
    
    Hmmm...
    
    A Tascam 234.  What's the difference between that and the Tascam
    246?  I've got a 246, and from what you were describing they sounded
    like the same thing...
    
    BTW... I'm very happy with my 246.. I have only used mine at home,
    but I can't complain about the cost/performance that it has given
    me...
    
    /Mitch.
    

    
    If I remember rightly a 246 is a 244 with a 6 input channel mixer
    A 234 has no mixer at all and would rely on you having an external
    mixer and there fore relates more to the TASCAM open reel machines
    in terms of operation. It cannot therefore be deemed to be a
    portastudio. As a reccomendation I would say that if you were intending
    to mix lot's of midi instruments at the same time then a seperate
    mixer with more input channels would be a boon. You can of coure
    acheive this with a 244 or 246 as well just by inputing the outputs
    of your mixer into 2 of the channels of the portastudio !
    
    				Paul

    When I bought my 234 (rack mount 4 track cassette with only rudimentary
    mixing built in) it had far better specs than the portastudios.
    That may have changed. I like it because I can upgrade my system
    one piece at a time ie: next big purchase is a new mixer...then
    on to a tape deck (8 track) etc.. with the porta studios you are
    stuck with the mixer you buy the deck built into...or vice versa..
           
    The drawback is it's not as portable as the portastudios
    
    dave

What's the price on a 246 lately?

I know it has dbx.  Does it have 3 3/4 ips tape speed?

Todd.

    I probably should have said (in my original Topic note):
    
    	"What's the best 4-track portastudio for under $800?"
    
    Specs and requirements, you say?  You tell me.  Really, I would
    like to hear from those who bought machines (and for what reasons)
    and what they think about them.
    
    So far the replies are quite interesting, although I get the idea
    the Tascam 244/264 are above the $800 mark, right?

    
    Re: prices, .8
    
    The 244 is discontinued.  New it was over $800, the 246 is around
    $1200 I think.
    
    You see used 244s around for under $800.
    
    Doesn't anyone use Fostex 250s or 260s???
    
    I would lean to the 234, which I have used, because of the outboard
    mixer issue.  I'm still using my reel-to-reel and waiting for DAT
     8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    
    

    
    I got my 246 at Wurlitzer's for $995.  That's not their normal price,
    but I bought the demo unit (it had only been a demo for 2 weeks,
    so I thought there wouldn't be anything wrong with it -- I was right.
    It works fine...)
    
    Yes, the 246 has DBX (switchable on ch. 4 for fsk sync).  It also
    has both 1 7/8 and 3 3/4 tape speeds.
    
    I had neither a mixer nor a recorder when I was looking for it,
    and after playing with a friend's 246 it seemed like the right thing
    to purchase.  I don't see an 8-track in my immediate future (this
    is fortunate, as I don't see the money for one either!), so I'll
    be happy with this one for some time ...
    
    /Mitch.

    
    	I pickedup my 244 about 2 yrs ago for $700 (used).  I wanted
    	a recorder that I could "dub" with and since I had no mixer,
    	it 'fit the bill' just fine.  I write original music and
    	needed a way to create my "demos".  I've NO complaints with my
    	unit thus far - I put down the piano, rythm guitar, lead
    	guitar, and vocals on my tapes - more than enough to give
    	a publisher the idea of the song.  So far, NO problems with
    	the unit at all - it just keeps working nicely.
    
    	I haven't looked into a TASCAM 8 track due to monetary consid-
    	erations, but when I do - it'll be TASCAM (assuming they still
    	make them).
    							Rich
    

Does anybody make a machine that has 3.75 ips and Dolby NR?  The Yamaha
MT2X has fancier mixing facilities than I think I would need, and I would
prefer Dolby, but it has the high speed (high end response goes up to 18kHz).

The Fostex X-30 (replacement for the X-15) seems to have the amount of mixer
doo-dads I want, and switchable Dolby B, C, or NONE.  But it doesn't have 3.75
ips, so its high end is only 12.5kHz. Somehow I think recording hammered
dulcimers (a really bright sound) I will want to have plenty of high end, but
then how high do the mics go?

Of course an X-30 is a lot cheaper than an MT2X, too.  

Hmm, I wonder what the freq response is on my old stereo's Yamaha deck?
It sure doesn't go 3.75.

Anybody seen a good price on an X-30?  Daddy's prices are uncool.

Why do you want Dolby over dbx?

I seem to want dbx, 3-3/4 ips, and built in mixer.  I wonder if
I'd get the same fidelity (or better) with an open reel 4-track with
no noise reduction at all.  Do any open reel 4-tracks come with built
in mixers?

Todd.

Well ...

   You probably don't wanna hear this, but my Tascam 144 has Dolby B and
   3.75 ips.  I think the high end response is around 15K, if I remember
   right.  I'm pretty sure that they don't make 'em anymore, though. 

   You want Dolby B or C?  And why would you want Dolby instead of dbx? 

brad_the_nosy

RE: .13

   Arrrgh.  Beat to the punch again.  As for your speculation about an
   open reel deck w/o noise reduction, forget it.  A friend of mine has a
   4 channel 10" reel deck, running 3.75 ips and no NR.  My old 144 w/
   Dolby B beats the thing hands down for fidelity. 

   You can get the MT2X for around $500 at Sam Ash, no?

8-)

    My 3340 4 track reel to reel with no noise reduction is comparable
    in overall noise specs with my 234 4 track cassette with dbx...and
    it sounds better too...especially at 15 ips...
    
    dave

I have not done A-B comparisons of Dolby and dbx, but knowing how they both
work I think Dolby is better.  I don't see why the levels at low frequencies
(where there isn't any hiss) should effect the available dynamic range at the
high frequencies, and vice versa.  And Dolby doesn't "breathe".

I couldn't find a Dolby vs dbx topic; is there one where the issue is
thrashed out? 

    I echo the sentiment of why would you ever want dolby instead of
    dbx.  

    I made the following experiment: I recorded
    a piece flipping the Noise reduction in and out every 3 index
    increments.  I played it back flipping the NR in and out as
    appropriate.  I did this with dolby B, Dolby C and dbx.

    Dbx doesn't seem to do any filtering other than noise.  Dolby
    B takes most of the highs out - Dolby C is noticeably better than
    Dolby B but still has a noticeable affect of removing highs.
    
    To my ears it was very clear that dbx was the only NR of the three
    that didn't alter the overall color of the sound.  So clear, that
    I decided to AVOID dolby altogether: dbx became a requirement.
    
    	db

    I have dbx on my Tascam 38.  It's strictly set and forget.  I have
    never heard it "breathe" under any circumstances.  The noise reduction
    is phenomenal.  I'm a very satisfied dbx user, I'll take it any
    day.
    
    len.
     

RE: .16

   Gee.  My buddy also has a 3340 (which is what I was referring to), and
   compared to my 144, it sounds lousy.  Maybe his heads are wasted?
   Hmmmm ... 

brad

       
    Re: Brad
    
    You can't compare 3 3/4 ips cassette to 3 3/4 ips rtr. You're not
    exploiting the best performance of the machine. Try the 3340 at
    7 1/2 or 15 ips. As you also mentioned, the heads on the 3340 could
    be dirty, misaligned, or trashed.
    
    Re: Dave B
    
    That's not a conclusive test, because you're auditioning the piece
    after the encoding and before the decoding. Both Dolby and dbx alter
    the sound during encoding. A fair test would be to record the same
    piece on two of the same decks, one with Dolby and the other with
    dbx, and A/B them when you play them back.
    
    Each system has their pros and cons.
    
    Dolby (B and C)			     dbx (Type I and II)
    ---------------			     -------------------
    
    partial spectrum noise reduction	     full spectrum noise reduction
    70+ db dynamic range		     90+ db dynamic range
    somewhat level sensitive		     level tolerant
    Dolby tape sounds tolerable on non       must be played back on
      Dolby machine                            dbx machine only
    inexpensive				     moderately expensive
    widely accepted in consumer market       fairly well accepted
    limited semipro applications	     the standard for semipro   
     

    Those are a few off the top of my head. I like dbx Type I best,
    myself.
    
    CdH
        

Ok, I'm convinced.  (How come some people report "breathing" and others
do not?  Does it only show up during silence?)

So the MT2X is back in the running.  Note 974.1 says Sam Ash has it for
$557 which is as high as I want to go.  (Daddy's says $645)  See note 974.0
for MT2X specs.

Is there anything nearly as good for less money?  I would take Dolby C
on a machine if it had 3.75 ips but cost under $500.  The difference
from having 3.75 probably outweighs the difference between Dolby C and
dbx, no?

    re: .21
    
    If the goal is to compare noise reduction systems, and the machines
    involved are both approximately equal in quality and representive
    of the deck with that kind of NR (I believed they were), the test
    is conclusive enough for me.
    
    I was NOT comparing decks.  I was comparing the difference between
    NR-in and NR-out.

    The difference was NOT subtle.  It was very noticeable.
    
    The only way to accomplish the test you recommend is to use external
    noise reduction systems which are almost certainly NOT typical of the kind
    of stuff you get in 4-tracks.
    
	db

    Does anybody know the phone No.and address for Sam Ash? I presume
    it is an 800 number of course.                        
    
    
                                        Thankyou
                
                                             rjr

    
    
    1-800-4-SAM-ASH
    
    rc
    
    

    
    
    Re -3 
    I can't see any value in checking the sound with the NR in and then
    the NR out. Surely you shold be comparing the result with the original.
    It sounds a bit like checking out a Porsche with the engine on and
    then again with the engine off, yep there's a difference compared
    to a Ford in the same test.     
                         
    As to NR I have both, in that the Fostex uses Dolby C and My TEAC
    mastering deck has DBX. They both seem to work fine I can't say
    that I prefer one over the other. Although the pundits seem to push
    DBX as the better.
    
    As to the original topic have you checked out the Fostex 160. This
    is the cheapest 3 3/4 machine I am aware of. It is supposed to have
    excellent tape handling and sound characteristics but is not as
    well heeled as some of the other machine in the Mixer area. Price
    in the U.K. is about 400 pounds or cheaper.
    
    
    							Paul
       

    working with a standard stereo prioneer deck and dolby b vs dbx
    dbx beat dolby b hands down on the same deck. There was no comparison,
    with dolby the high end wass attenuated and all the hiss was not,
    with dbx the sound was identical to the input to the deck, no hiss
    etc.
    
    Dolby b: eats high end but doesn't get all the hiss out
    
    dbx: eats hiss
    
    re: breathing
    
    my dbx 128 (stereo unit not really for studio purposes) used to
    have a problem with breathing...it's problem was me. If you cause
    a dbx encoded signal to clip (you gotta push it as it compresses
    by a 2:1 ratio) it will breathe, since it expands the signal at
    a 1:2 ratio on playback..if you take out amplitude by clipping it
    will definately not expand the dynamic range properly. the other
    breathing problem is on tracks without a great deal of high end,
    say for example bass guitar. This is solved very easily (I've never
    seen this problem mind you, it's in my 234 owners manual) by adding
    some high end when you record and taking some off when you mix... 
    
    dave

    re: .26
    
    The goal is to compare noise reduction systems.
    
    Comparing NR-in with original compares the decks involved, not the
    noise reduction systems.
    
    	db

    As a nominally disinterested observer, I think Paul and Dave are
    "failing to communicate".
    
    My understanding of what Dave did is that he made a tape that
    alternately used and did not use noise reduction.  He then played
    the tape back, engaging and disengaging the decoding side of the
    process at the appropriate times.  I.e., suppose the tape "looks"
    like this during recording:
    
    NR  on	off	on	off	on	off
    
    The during playback, you do the same thing
    
    NR	on	off	on	off	on	off
    
    This strikes me as a pretty clever way of hearing just what the
    effect of the NR process is, more or less regardless of the recorder
    itself.  There's clearly no point in decoding an unencoded signal,
    or not decoding an encoded signal, since that's not how you use
    NR.  And, as Dave points out, the goal was not to compare the quality
    of the overall recording process to the original, but to determine
    the effect of an NR technique.
    
    len.
    

    
    
    Aha .
    
    Sorry ny misunderstanding. I understood that the reduction was only
    switched during the playback pass. What a pillock I am. Thanks Len
    for interpreting.
    
    				Paul.

I spent the weekend visiting stores, collecting specification sheets and prices,
and doing a lot of comparitive reading.  I focused my survey on 4-track cassette
recorders in the "portable studio" class (that is, those with built in mixers)
at prices under $800.  The results of this survey are presented below in a
table.  There are a few holes where information was not available.

Description of the rows in the table:
   Speed       "slow" is 1 7/8.  "fast" is 3 3/4 ips
   Response    The upper frequency response, in kHz
   Chan sep    The channel separation, in dB
   Chan mix    The number of inputs to the mixer
   Chan rec    The number of tracks which could be recorded at the same time
   NR          Noise reduction method employed.  "B" and "C" refer to Dolby
   Aux send    the number of aux sends per mixer channel
   EQ          The number of equalizers and the number of bands per equalizer
   Meters      The number of meters.  Needle-type unless it says LED.
   Retail$     Typical prices found in New England retail stores such as Union
               Music, E.U. Wurlitzer, and Daddy's.
   Sam$        Price from Sam Ash mail order.

Mfg       TASCA	TASCAM TASCAM FOSTEX FOSTEX YAMAHA
model     Porta	Porta2	 246    X-30   160    MT2X
          ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ======
Speed      slow   slow   dual   slow   fast   dual
Response   12.5   12.5          12.5   14.0   18.0
Chan sep    55                  >50     50    >55
Chan mix    4      6      6      2      4      6
Chan rec    2      4      4      2      4      4
NR         dbx    dbx    dbx     B,C    C     dbx
Aux send    0      1      2       0     1      1
EQ         4-2    4-2    6-2     2-2   4-2    6-2
Meters      4      4      6      2LED  4LED   4LED
Retail $   469    695    995     495          645
Sam $      438    657   1095                  557

The Tascam 246 is out of the price range, but I included it as representative
of the next class upward.  The Fostex 260 would also be in that class.  Both
have parametric equalizers, more versatile channel assignments, more aux sends,
and so on.

Sam Ash does not carry Fostex, so I don't have an equivalent price for them.
It seemed that places that carry Fostex don't carry Tascam and vice versa.
Naturally the salesmen will bad mouth whatever line they don't carry.
I am missing a retail price for the Fostex 160, as the machine I was looking
at was missing a sticker and I had to leave for an appointment before the
salesman could get back from doing something.

The VestaFire machine was left out as it is really too limited for anything
needing a real mixer.  It is available for under $400.

It was surprising how few machines had 3.75 ips speed available.  Nothing from
Tascam in the price range had it.  I am concerned about frequency response
because I think I will need as much as I can get to accurately reproduce the
sound of my hammered dulcimer.

I compared wow/flutter specs and so on, but everybody was about the same in
those areas.  You have to be careful, as there exist more than one way to
measure these things, and you get different numbers.  Yamaha always quotes
the method that gives the best looking numbers; most everybody else would
quote several numbers for the same measurement.  But after making sure I
was comparing apples to apples, they seem to be pretty much the same.

Except for Yamaha's frequency response claim of 18 kHz at 3.75 ips.  The Fostex
160 claims only 14 kHz at that speed.  I dug out the specs for my old Yamaha
K850 stereo deck, and it claims 18 kHz too, and at only 1 7/8 ips.  (But that
one is a little fuzzy - they call it "rec/pb amplifier response with CrO2 tape".
Could be they are quoting the response of the electronics alone.)  This makes
me slightly suspicious of Yamaha's specifications.  Are they really that good?
And if the K850 specs are real at 1 7/8, how come the 4-track machines are so
awful in comparison?  Something doesn't add up here.

Specsmanship aside, the Yamaha MT2X looks like the best deal to me,
especially when you narrow consideration to those machines with the 3.75
speed and better frequency response.
(But the MT2X control layout has got to be the ugliest
thing I've ever seen.  Totally unlike any other gear from Yamaha.)

    Well, I had to make a decision and purchase a unit before this recent
    flurry of activity and information from everyone.  (I touched off
    this discussion a week or so ago.)
    
    I ended up getting a Yamaha MT2X for $575 from Cook Music, a tiny,
    unknown store in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan (mail order).  The comment
    in .31 is right on track (no pun intended):  the layout appears
    quite confusing.  I attribute that primarily to the severe lack
    of "level indicators" on the various level controls; that is, the
    many slide faders have these thin medium green lines which indicate
    the position of the slider.  Since Yamaha did the whole thing up
    in black, it's really quite hard to quickly see the various settings.
    (I plan to paint in the lines with white paint, and make the lines
    slightly wider...perhaps this will help.)
    
    Overall, I'm pretty happy with the setup.  It's good to know that
    spec-wise, I didn't do too badly.
    
    Thanks one and all for the responses.

    
    Re: .31, Yamaha spec
    
    You have to be careful and make sure they specify the half power
    points in a bandwidth spec; like 30Hz-18KHz, +/- 3db. If they didn't
    spec the half power points then they're stretching the numbers,
    and the 18KHz response could be 60db down, in other words, noise.
    
    Fostex likes to play that game.
    
    CdH
    

The 60-series Fostex brochure does not say 3dB, but the X-30 brochure does, as
does the Tascam Porta1 brochure. The copy of the MT2X spec (from this notes
file) *does* say 3dB for the 18kHz figure, but I don't know if they are
claiming that for the deck or the mixer.  (I don't have a real MT2X brochure,
as everyplace I visited either did not carry Yamaha or did not have any
brochures I could take away.)

One thing I learned is you gotta go by what is in the brochures and by looking
at the machine yourself.  The junior salesmen know very little about how the
various machines work.

I did find an extra piece of dbx/Dolby propaganda (from Fostex).  They claim
that dbx is not suitable for the cassette format due to "inevitable playback
response errors".  I can see their point, but I wonder if running at higher
tape speed (as the MT2X does but Fostex low-enders do not) would reduce that
problem.

RE: dbx not suitable for cassette format

   Rot and balderdash.  I've been using dbx on my cassette stuff for
   YEARS with NO glitches. 

   So what in the heck does that mean?  Probably marketing crap, since
   THEY don't use dbx. 

brad who_is_sick_of_marketing_lies

    
    Re:  specs and dbx
    
    1.  Another number often buried in fine print is the *record level*.
    For instance, back in the 1970s it was common to test frequency
    response on open reel machines at -10 dB but to test cassete machines
    at -20 dB, largely because at -10 dB, the cassette machines couldn't
    perform.  A deck will *always* show extended high frequency response
    when measured at a lower record level (i.e. there is less or no
    tape saturation causing high frequency self-erasure).
    
    2.  The thing about dbx and cassettes has to do with dropouts; since
    dbx compresses the full audio band a dropout on the tape will cause
    a more severe glitch than with a Dolby system.  And cassettes have
    narrow tracks running at slow speeds, therefore more potential
    dropouts.   Is this really audible?  Well, if you keep your machine
    clean and use high quality tapes, and don't *reuse* tapes often,
    you won't have much problem with dropouts.  Also, since there is
    less headroom on cassettes than open reel, the fact that dbx compresses
    more than Dolby makes it easier to saturate your tape.    
    
    Despite the above, I have no complaints with dbx.  In cassette based
    systems, it is practically essential in order to get reasonably
    quiet multi-track recordings.
    
    
    

    Well I'd like to tag along with Brad, fostex is pulling our legs
    because they can't get a license for dbx (my understanding is that
    tascam has that tied up)
    
    However, re: .36  I have reused many of my tapes both on my stereo
    cassette and on my tascam 234 with no problems at all, ie: no dropout
    I use only maxell UDXL-II C-90 tapes and have found that they hardly
    ever shed ferrite (ie: the heads are sparkling clean all the time)
    and I've never had a dropout problem on any maxell tape. I can say
    that with the 234 I've had similar good luck on the single occasion
    I used TDK's equivalent tape. I have had less than satiusfactory
    results with Fuji, but mostly the problem lies in the tape mechanism
    on the Fuji.
    
    I still vote for dbx
    
    dave

    A few months on..anyone using a Fostex X30? I have limited cash,
    it seems to have the edge on a Porta 05, and, hell, if it doesn't
    work it's so pretty I can stick it on the wall and call it a picture.
    
    Experience, anyone?
    
    Richard.

    I got a Tascam Porta-One Ministudio in February and am really pleased
    with it so far. It does have it's limitations but so did my wallet.
    
    Getting an easy to use multitrack for under $500 was my goal. This
    now allows me to write my songs, adding different instruments and
    vocal harmonies. I realize that isn't state of the art recording
    but when I know I've got a "HIT" I can arrange studio time.
    
    I'm inputting either direct, through a Rockman Sustainor, or live,
    mixing down onto a Magnavox VHS Hi-Fi VCR. Haven't tried many fancy
    things because I haven't had to.