Tascam 22-4...any reason I should not get this?

[KermitPickle]

I was looking around for a Tascam 234 syncaset when a buddy offered to sell me a Tascam 22-4 rtr deck for peanuts. This is a lower-end 1/4" 4-track.

Is there any really compelling reason not to get this? I know it's not as nice as a 3440 or what have you, and I know it only does the 7" reels. That's fine. But is there a really really good reason why this wouldn't be as good as waiting for a 234 to come up for sale? It would be smaller than the 3440, yes? That would be a good thing to me.

"It isn't digital" isn't a good reason, I already have a digital setup. And yes I do have a mixing board.

[earl parameter]

id guess and say that the 22 will destroy the 234, but might not be as nice as the 3440, though if the price is right the sonic difference is very minimal. i have never hear ANY of them, so take that for what its worth.

you should understand that to get a reel to reel running perfectly will take a little time, money and work. but to get it to run just o.k. should still beat out the cassette deck any day.

id say get the 22 and don't look back.



steven

[KermitPickle]

Yeah, I just talked to a tech, and he said 'go for the 22." So I'm going.

He also recommends the Tascam 34B as a less-antique alternative to the 3440, and of course the mighty 388. Damn I'd like one of those too someday.

[earl parameter]

ive always thought that dealing with the reels on a 388 would be a hassle. hard to find and you'd have to wind them off of a different machine. stuff like that. i could be wrong though.

good luck with the 22.

[joeysimms]

ive always thought that dealing with the reels on a 388 would be a hassle. hard to find and you'd have to wind them off of a different machine. stuff like that. i could be wrong though..

The 388 just 7" reels, no big deal. You don't have to wind them off of a different machine.

[earl parameter]

i thought they were like 4 inches or something

edit:

i guess that machine is a lot larger then i thought. i just expected it to be a smaller, which is why i always passed it by (because of the hassle that doesn't exist). my little m-35 is two feet deep and now that i look at it the channel section is almost exactly the same.

from image search:

http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/fil ... _388-1.jpg

http://fr.audiofanzine.com/img/produits ... /16669.jpg



thanks for correcting me. its been like this all day.

[KermitPickle]

I have a Nagra that uses 5" reels. Whee.

[BeatleFred]

I dont see how an A-3440 would be considered an "antique" compared to a 34. I believe they are only about 2 or 3 years apart in the time span that each model was introduced by the company.

Ive heard it said that the 3440 is the better built machine, and I also think it looks nicer than the 34.

3440's are available on Ebay in the $300-400 price range, which I consider to be an excellent buy, its a GREAT recorder.

[KermitPickle]

Okay...so now I have the 22-4. And it's great. But...

I no longer have a mixer, so I have to get one. Space is at a premium for me, I'd like something small if possible. Like 6-8 channels. And I have nice preamps, so I don't really need to use board preamps. Is there such a thing as a small, decent line mixer that I could use for mixdown with this thing that won't take up too much room?

[curtiswyant]

I have a 388 AND a 22-4. I use the same size of tape/reels on each, it's perfect. I mainly use the 22-4 for tape echo or varispeed. They're both really solid machines. !