Tascam Model 24 Multi-Track Live Recording Console

bert

Tascam did present a new, very well looking piece of gear which might be interesting for users here: https://tascam.com/us/product/model_24/top

JRSIV

I've made no secret here that I'm an absolutely unrepentant Tascam mark, I love their stuff and have been using at least one piece of their gear in my studio set ups since 1993 when I got my Tascam 424 PortaStudio.

This new Model 24 is very reminiscent of a product that Zoom (I believe) released awhile back. Same premise, mixer/interface/recorder.

The info I've seen on their site says that the internal recording system is based on their DP-24 Digital PortaStudio but this unit is paired with an full analog mixer and USB interface.

Their site says it's "core audio" but I don't see anything about it being class compliant, so I'm not sure if it will work with iOS or not.

I'm pleased with my setup but wouldn't say no to one of these. I'm really interested in the old school aspect of it because this is basically a 24 track Digital PortaStudio with a full featured mixer & individual inputs for 24 channels and LOTSA real knobs.

One of the things that turned me off of the DP-24/DP-32 when they first came out was that they only have 8 inputs and there is a certain number of tracks/channels that have to be stereo, with no way of having 24 or 32 mono tracks. This unit being 24 mono tracks, etc...

Thanks for the heads up @bert

mrufino1

Looks like there’s quite a few stereo channels on there, I didn’t look to see if they record to dual mono tracks, but it is still a stereo input. It also appears that 23/24 are the stereo bus mix? I had seen 22 track record, 24 playback somewhere.

u0421793

The UI is too cluttered, who needs to see all those channels at once, and the skeuomorphic knobs are just too cognitive this time of morning.

AndyPlankton

12 Mono tracks, 5 stereo tracks, and a stereo master gives the 24 tracks. Looks very nice indeed, no mention of class compliant....that could just be down to needing power though ?

Strizbiz

@u0421793 said:
The UI is too cluttered, who needs to see all those channels at once, and the skeuomorphic knobs are just too cognitive this time of morning.

its not software, it's hardware.

supanorton

@u0421793 said:
The UI is too cluttered, who needs to see all those channels at once, and the skeuomorphic knobs are just too cognitive this time of morning.

😂 Well played.

wigglelights

@supanorton said:

@u0421793 said:
The UI is too cluttered, who needs to see all those channels at once, and the skeuomorphic knobs are just too cognitive this time of morning.

😂 Well played.

+1
For all the restraint I decided to show out of respect to other’s points of view, this one was hard to pass up. Just glad you beat me to the punch

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

chris_foster

Looks to fit the bill for 'Mixer as an Instrument' Artist Tips: Legowelt

Envision Your Mixer as an Instrument:

Even if you work in the box, it is nice to have an analog mixer—it doesn’t really matter what goes in there; multiple outputs of your VST’s or real synths, it’s all the same to me. They can be all mixed and shaped by your hands using the mixer in an exciting interactive way.

Steer well clear of digital hardware mixers. Nothing is more mind-numbingly boring than working on something like a Yamaha 01 or Behringer X32. It’s like being on acid in a sterile office photocopying room with locked doors. I would recommend a mixer with mid-sweep EQs as this will give you more interesting EQ possibilities to play with.

Learn from dub reggae—the pure foundation of more “out there” studio / electronic music where the mixer itself took centre stage. Envision and play the mixer as an instrument—go crazy with the FX auxiliaries, sweep the EQ, fade tracks in and out manually while recording/playing.

Also, don’t be shy about changing the effects-AUX knobs during the recording. Connect lots of delay/reverb/phasers/filters, and whatever effects to the AUXs and turn those AUX knobs on the channels on different sounds continuously while recording—adding emphasis on certain parts and creating a feeling of dimensional space.

Use the mixer channels’ mid-sweep EQ as a filter, keep sweeping it throughout the whole track when you are recording—you can do that very subtly and slowly, so that the listener barely notices it—but it will give a certain animated life and spatial depth to the track (Like in Smackos "A Vampire Goes West") or you can go full out and create intense filter effects like in this legendary scene of a 1990s Dutch gabber documentary with Patrick van Kerckhoven.

Route the AUX-effect return audio back on a normal channel (not in the special dedicated AUX-return input—which most of the time doesn’t have EQ possibilities). Now you can EQ/filter the wet effects themselves, too. And feedback the channel by adding the same Aux effects for classic dub style feedback effects. But watch your ears (and speakers)!

mrufino1

I'm not sure why steering clear of an x32 is a must, it's really powerful, but interesting theory nonetheless. I don't use it for studio stuff necessarily, but love it live.

Crawlingwind

Looks fun. I have a DP24, which I really enjoyed. The 8-in, however, was indeed a limitation. Haven't used it in a long time, as I went back to the desktop. I love hardware, and this looks great.

rs2000

Imagine an iPhone with Audio Evolution Mobile recording 24 channels over USB

Will

@Dawdles said:
Tascam please make multitrack tape/mixer combos again. A new 388. Please. Thank you.

Failing that, throw a ton of money at precise modelling of all aspects of 388, 488 etc and have the ability to mix and match per channel with bang on ‘channel strip+tape’ sims from those units....In-sta-buy.

I made a few records on the venerable 388. Lovely machine, accepting it for what it is. While I love my tascam 4 track for "the sound" it imparts, and I have a certain love for the 388, I can't imagine why anyone would want an emulation.

I want them to make exactly what they have made without the mic pres (or with just two) married with digital recording chops like a Roland 2488 and an iPhone/iPad app that provides the extra UI. And more than one midi output.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Telstar5

Forget this : Go w Auria Pro if you want cluttered

Telefunky

the old Tascam 488 'sound' has it's place still today - imh ears it fits perfectly with the (often overclear) output of IOS apps.
If I only had more time, I'd definitely connect one to the 4 outputs of my iCA4+.
But a digital 'vintage' Pro Tools TDM rig helps out greatly with a (very) subtle amount of grit.

bert

@chris_foster Understand what you mean but aren't so called summing mixers not the right means for that? https://soundonsound.com/reviews/analogue-summing-mixers

Will

@Dawdles said:

@syrupcore said:

@Dawdles said:
Tascam please make multitrack tape/mixer combos again. A new 388. Please. Thank you.

Failing that, throw a ton of money at precise modelling of all aspects of 388, 488 etc and have the ability to mix and match per channel with bang on ‘channel strip+tape’ sims from those units....In-sta-buy.

I made a few records on the venerable 388. Lovely machine, accepting it for what it is. While I love my tascam 4 track for "the sound" it imparts, and I have a certain love for the 388, I can't imagine why anyone would want an emulation.

I want them to make exactly what they have made without the mic pres (or with just two) married with digital recording chops like a Roland 2488 and an iPhone/iPad app that provides the extra UI. And more than one midi output.

I (reluctantly) sold my beat up 388 for £1300 a couple years ago, there's definitely a market out there I can get by with desktop, bouncing stems through cassette occasionally and using digital tape sims to get a ballpark sound/vibe. But I love the focus of mixer + tape transport and physical knob/button/slider per function. No screens. No distractions. It's a breath of fresh air and everything I ever did on the 388 effortlessly sounded exactly like I wanted. Saturation/Distortion/width/glue/warmth.... Just totally effortless compared to getting the same feel on a computer screen with a bunch of plugins..

Yeah, I hear you. It's hard to replicate—particularly the sound of pushing the tape hard. When not pushing it, I thought the machine was transparent enough (like, punching above its weight transparent when using external mic pres) that I was thinking there wasn't much to replicate. But yeah, there's more there there than I was considering.

I can't say I really long for one (or the cost of 1/4" reels!). I really long for something like the Alesis MMT-8 (midi sequencer), a 16 track digital recorder and a decent 16 channel analog mixer mixed into one unit. Skip the tiny (expensive) on board screen and just use an iOS app for control. Skip all but two mic pres and one hi-z input. The new MPC felt like it could be pretty close to this but without the mixer bit.

amarok

@u0421793 said:
The UI is too cluttered, who needs to see all those channels at once, and the skeuomorphic knobs are just too cognitive this time of morning.

You can hide the channel strips if you double-tap them. With a sledge hammer.

[Deleted User]

I’ve been getting my head around a second hand Zoom R16 today. Bit long in the tooth, but the quality of recording is superb.

chris_foster

@bert said:
Understand what you mean but aren't so called summing mixers not the right means for that?

Legowelt is talking about using the mixer as a creative tool, so a summing mixer would be good I'd think.

Telefunky

A summing mixer (devices as advertized today) does nothing to a plain digital signal.
It doesn't turn shit into gold
In the old days of broadcast consoles that was slightly different when summing was performed on expensive transformer chains (roughly $100 per channel), but the difference is (intentionally) subtle.

An old school Tascam mixer isn't a particular exciting device - the magic is in the tape tracks, but it's about the whole thing, not just 'tape saturation' (which isn't much anyway on those slim lines). It's a rather special sound, which certainly isn't the optimum for each and every task.

Some IOS devices have pretty sophisticated mix-engines (f.e. Auria and Multitrack DAW).
But the core problem is NOT the mixing stage, it's overprocessed channels (often) in combination with inferior digital algorithms.
With proper choice of tools/setup you CAN mix flawless in the digital domain.

[Deleted User]

Man I love a tascam 388, nowadays I have a ghetto Yamaha MT120 I was given for just bouncing audio to tape once in a while. I’m still waiting for that cheapo usb multitrack analogue mixer with 96khz 24bit audio recording. Hoping soundcraft will upgrade their MTK in the future.

bert

@Telefunky said:
A summing mixer (devices as advertized today) does nothing to a plain digital signal.
It doesn't turn shit into gold
In the old days of broadcast consoles that was slightly different when summing was performed on expensive transformer chains (roughly $100 per channel), but the difference is (intentionally) subtle.

An old school Tascam mixer isn't a particular exciting device - the magic is in the tape tracks, but it's about the whole thing, not just 'tape saturation' (which isn't much anyway on those slim lines). It's a rather special sound, which certainly isn't the optimum for each and every task.

Some IOS devices have pretty sophisticated mix-engines (f.e. Auria and Multitrack DAW).
But the core problem is NOT the mixing stage, it's overprocessed channels (often) in combination with inferior digital algorithms.
With proper choice of tools/setup you CAN mix flawless in the digital domain.

Shit into gold is not the case of course. But what you get out of those mixers do sound much better than you suggest here.

Will

@bert said:

@Telefunky said:
A summing mixer (devices as advertized today) does nothing to a plain digital signal.
It doesn't turn shit into gold
In the old days of broadcast consoles that was slightly different when summing was performed on expensive transformer chains (roughly $100 per channel), but the difference is (intentionally) subtle.

An old school Tascam mixer isn't a particular exciting device - the magic is in the tape tracks, but it's about the whole thing, not just 'tape saturation' (which isn't much anyway on those slim lines). It's a rather special sound, which certainly isn't the optimum for each and every task.

Some IOS devices have pretty sophisticated mix-engines (f.e. Auria and Multitrack DAW).
But the core problem is NOT the mixing stage, it's overprocessed channels (often) in combination with inferior digital algorithms.
With proper choice of tools/setup you CAN mix flawless in the digital domain.

Shit into gold is not the case of course. But what you get out of those mixers do sound much better than you suggest here.

Think it depends on the source material and how much you’re willing to spend. Summing mixers can get $illy quickly. https://www.sweetwater.com/c1071--Summing_Mixers/high2low

Will

More I look at this, more i see that it’s really geared for live use. Just like the Zoom with all of those monitor mixes. This has 16 pres, XLR main outs, Auxes are labeled “mon 1, mon 2..” and a global stereo graphic EQ. So if you need a decent live mixer and want to capture the shows as multitrack audio, this is probably a winner.

Telefunky

@bert said:

@Telefunky said:
A summing mixer (devices as advertized today) does nothing to a plain digital signal.
It doesn't turn shit into gold
In the old days of broadcast consoles that was slightly different when summing was performed on expensive transformer chains (roughly $100 per channel), but the difference is (intentionally) subtle.

An old school Tascam mixer isn't a particular exciting device - the magic is in the tape tracks, but it's about the whole thing, not just 'tape saturation' (which isn't much anyway on those slim lines). It's a rather special sound, which certainly isn't the optimum for each and every task.

Some IOS devices have pretty sophisticated mix-engines (f.e. Auria and Multitrack DAW).
But the core problem is NOT the mixing stage, it's overprocessed channels (often) in combination with inferior digital algorithms.
With proper choice of tools/setup you CAN mix flawless in the digital domain.

Shit into gold is not the case of course. But what you get out of those mixers do sound much better than you suggest here.

I referred to 'budget' gear and not the top cats on @syrupcore 's Sweetwater list.
Some of those expensive unit's do additional sound processing, some feature the 'vintage style' mentioned above.
But to drive them, add another few $k for an appropriate multichannel converter.

Tascam is a budget company - abusing their mixers for analog summing doesn't add to a mix - while the complex tape action of their 4/8 track things does some 'magic' indeed, though rather in the lofi domain. Whatever it is - it's affordable.
(and the tape units are easy to resell if the result doesn't match expectations)

A Neve (or similiar) device is plain ridiculous for a system that still lacks some proper reverbs - and I'm not even talking high end here. (Pro-R may be an exception, but I didn't want to buy into this just for tryout).
It's also pointless if channels are mud-processed before the mixing stage, which seems to be the gold-standard today (not IOS specific, but a VST symptom in the 1st place).
At least I could tell by ear that a really nice 'unknown' mix wasn't VST based (turned out to be Auria later) and @theconnactic has lots of nice (Auria Pro) examples, too.
Also worth mentioning are @flo26 's rather 'minimal' recordings which are mainly based on Apogee input and Multitrack DAW.

So it's not the DAW technology itself, but WHAT people throw into the channels and HOW they do it. Shure you can polish the final 10% of a mix by a Neve class analog chain - if you spend 10 times the amount on it

chris_foster

A Bus Mixer US$299

Telefunky

add another 300 bucks if you want the resistors (hopefully included...) in a cute box

Shazamm

It will work talked to them at NAMM and a guy at the Auria forum confirmed as well

http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15943

Re: new TASCAM Model 24 arrives today! hoping for awesomeness
Post by artguy » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:49 am

So far so good!

The recorder sees Auria and the input/output uses the 24 channels when in pc mode. The workflow is pretty straightforward. You just assign an input to a track in Auria pro, then after recording, flip the input selection switch and it comes right back to the tascam from the iPad. I haven't monkeyed around too much, but I could easily assign any fader to any track in Auria on the iPad.

I've been buying/selling interfaces/mixers for the past year or so, trying to find one that does exactly what the tascam does. I can use it with Auria pro, I can use it by itself and record to SD card, or I can drop tracks in from my little spire studio, and build them up from there.

The build quality is really great. Faders are looooong throw, and the monitoring is pretty flexible. I can run a feed to my JBL control room monitors, drive shure 1840s with the headphone out. (plenty of volume) It's heavy (which I prefer) and in my opinion designed very well. I also like the fact all of the inputs/outputs are on the top/rear of the unit. No fumbling around back especially when you are working solo! The only items on the back are the power button, power cord receptacle, and USB port.

There is a stereo input on the last 2 channels which is bluetooth. At first I had no idea what I would use it for, but it's quite handy to get my iPhone connected, play something I recorded using an audio app, and then record it onto the last 2 tracks of the tascam. In a live situation, you could use it to play background music or the like. It turns out it's a quick and easy way to get a scratch track into the box.

So overall, I'd say they did a really good job combining bits of other products (from other manufacturers) into this one. I think I'll be hanging onto this for awhile!