I just recently acquired a Tascam Portastudio 464 for free but did not
get the manual with it. Does anyone here ever have one of these units
and is it worth trying to use it. Physically it looks to be in good
shape but I have no idea how to use it .

George

George Ashley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I just recently acquired a Tascam Portastudio 464 for free but did not
>get the manual with it. Does anyone here ever have one of these units
>and is it worth trying to use it. Physically it looks to be in good
>shape but I have no idea how to use it .

Tascam will actually sell you an owner's manual as well as a complete service
manual and they may even have a free .pdf on their website. These things were
not exactly high fidelity but using one will give you a good sense for how to
lay out tracks in a careful way and it will open your eyes a bit if you have
been used to working on a DAW.
--sdcott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:00:41 -0700 (PDT), George Ashley
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just recently acquired a Tascam Portastudio 464 for free but did not
>> get the manual with it. Does anyone here ever have one of these units
>> and is it worth trying to use it. Physically it looks to be in good
>> shape but I have no idea how to use it .
>>
>> George
>
>
> Yes, we all had one (or similar). No, it probably isn't worth trying
> to use it. What it does can be done MUCH better with cheap digital
> equipment.
>

Lawrence, refresh my memory. You used to hang out on alt.music.4-track,
right? I beleive you even recommended the Fostex VF16 to me, but it
could have been a different Lawrence.

I should put up some stuff that's pretty much electric guitar, bass and
drums that I did with a similar unit at some point. It has a certain...
thing to it. 'Course, I imported the tracks into a DAW to mix them...
haven't published them because they're just jams, not hewn into a
full song form yet.

> If your address works, I've sent you the manual.

--
Les Cargill

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:34:33 -0400, Les Cargill
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence, refresh my memory. You used to hang out on alt.music.4-track,
>> right? I believe you even recommended the Fostex VF16 to me, but it
>> could have been a different Lawrence.
>>
>> I should put up some stuff that's pretty much electric guitar, bass and
>> drums that I did with a similar unit at some point. It has a certain...
>> thing to it. 'Course, I imported the tracks into a DAW to mix them...
>> haven't published them because they're just jams, not hewn into a
>> full song form yet.
>
> I've hung out just about everywhere I could find appropriate to music,
> recording and the associated gear (though I don't linger too long at
> Tape Op or Gearslutz, where they seem to WANT to believe in magic a
> little too much for my taste :-)
>

Well, the cassette-based 4-track was the flintlock rifle* of recording.
Started out as a "chicken thief" sort of technology...

*I am sure others could trace that back to the Teac 3340, or the
Sony boxes servicemen brought back from PX-es in the Far East, or
even old consumer 1/4 machines.... might even include Les Paul's
innovations outside of formally built studios...

> I've never owned the Fostex VF16 (though I had an A8, and previously a
> Portastudio 144) so it seems unlikely I'd have recommended it other on
> an "it seems to have the features you require" basis.
>
> I've got stuff done on the 144 which still gives me pleasure. Come to
> that, I've got stuff done by bouncing between two Revoxes, and by some
> bastard trick on a domestic Grundig (when I was about 14). But I'm
> not kidding myself the technical limitations IMPROVED the result!

No, I know! Weird, isn't it? The human mind is the Great Liar. Not
espousing any sort of Skepticism, just sayin'.... 90% of what
you hear, your brain makes up on the spot. But for purposes
of art, constraints are very important....

--
Les Cargill

"Laurence Payne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 28 Mar 2010 13:03:10 -0400, (E-Mail Removed) (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Tascam will actually sell you an owner's manual as well as a complete
service
> >manual and they may even have a free .pdf on their website. These things
were
> >not exactly high fidelity but using one will give you a good sense for
how to
> >lay out tracks in a careful way and it will open your eyes a bit if you
have
> >been used to working on a DAW.
>
> i.e. it will teach you a skill that USED to be necessary. I'm afraid
> some of the old-timers round here can't quite come to terms with the
> fact that techniques such as track planning for bouncing, accurate
> punch-in and punch-out technique, pushing level onto tape for maximum
> s/n ratio, etc. have no inherent virtue, they're just how we used to
> have to do it.
>
> Today's recordist needs as much aural and musical judgment as ever.
> But the technical skills required are now about computers and
> software, not bias levels, pinch rollers, azimuth adjustment....

Great post.
I forgot how good I used to be with punching in and out.
Ahhh....the good ole days.

Poly

George Ashley wrote:
> I just recently acquired a Tascam Portastudio 464 for free but did not
> get the manual with it. Does anyone here ever have one of these units
> and is it worth trying to use it. Physically it looks to be in good
> shape but I have no idea how to use it .

It depends on what you want to do. If you don't know anything about how
multitrack recording works but want to learn about it, I think you'll learn
better on real hardware than diving head first into a computer program.
You won't be making CD quality recordings on it but you can learn how
the process works and get the basic concepts and procedures down when
you have real physical knobs to turn and buttons to press. Read the manual,
pay particular attention to what you CAN'T do (like how many tracks you
can record simultaneously - it might be only two) and start playing around.

On the other hand, if you're experienced with computer recording already
and wanted to try using analog hardware to warm up your sound, this one
will be better off in service as a door stop.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

Laurence Payne wrote:

> i.e. it will teach you a skill that USED to be necessary. I'm afraid
> some of the old-timers round here can't quite come to terms with the
> fact that techniques such as track planning for bouncing, accurate
> punch-in and punch-out technique, pushing level onto tape for maximum
> s/n ratio, etc. have no inherent virtue, they're just how we used to
> have to do it.

Yeah, but we got jobs done a lot faster when we worked within those
limitations. And we charged for hours worked, too. Now you spend twice
as long on a project, and as much as the traffic will bear (if greater than
zero) is half what studios used to charge. And you get stuck with the cost
of media and time making backups, too.

This is progress for sure.

> But the technical skills required are now about computers and
> software, not bias levels, pinch rollers, azimuth adjustment....

Exactly. But your knowledge of how to support a computer or what
software to use becomes obsolete in a heartbeat. I can adjust the
bias and a align the heads on a 50 year old tape deck knowing what
I learned 50 years ago. And it's always important to set levels properly.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

Laurence Payne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>i.e. it will teach you a skill that USED to be necessary. I'm afraid
>some of the old-timers round here can't quite come to terms with the
>fact that techniques such as track planning for bouncing, accurate
>punch-in and punch-out technique, pushing level onto tape for maximum
>s/n ratio, etc. have no inherent virtue, they're just how we used to
>have to do it.

Maybe, but things like planning arrangements to be built in as few pieces
as possible will never go out of style.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2010 17:27:54 -0400, (E-Mail Removed) (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but things like planning arrangements to be built in as few pieces
>> as possible will never go out of style.
>
> And if I'm recording (or emulating) a real instrumental ensemble,
> that's what I'll do. But I also have the choice of creating a
> completely unrealistic soundscape, using a mosaic of sounds,
> effects... And when working this way I'm delighted not to have to
> hunt for spaces among a limited number of tracks.
>
> I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there's any benefit at all in
> forcing an author to cut and use a quill pen.


OTOH there are plenty of authors who prefer to write long hand rather
than use a computer. It's quite easy to look at two pages at once for
instance which is a bit of a chore on a PC.

Everything new is not better.

Cheers

Ian

On Mar 28, 12:00*pm, George Ashley <galoves...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just recently acquired a Tascam Portastudio 464 for free but did not
> get the manual with it. Does anyone here ever have one of these units
> and is it worth trying to use it. Physically it looks to be in good
> shape but I have no idea how to use it .


Sure it's worth trying to use it. Why not? If it's in good mechanical
condition you can make some great recordings with it and have a lot of
fun. I like retro stuff.