8-track vs. 4-track?
JT Roberts
Does the cassette 8-track suffer appreciably versus the 4-track? I
would prefer to keep my instruments on separate tracks rather than
bouncing them between limited channels.
Thanks,
JT Roberts
Mike Rejsa
: Does the cassette 8-track suffer appreciably versus the 4-track? I
: would prefer to keep my instruments on separate tracks rather than
: bouncing them between limited channels.
I really wonder too... I tend to do two and three part guitar solos,
stuff like that, and 4 tracks just isn't enough, plus I don't like
the idea of having to do reduction mixes that I can't change at
final mix time.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/* mi...@primenet.com "Less is more..." */
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gieseke
panhead wrote:
>
> JT Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Does the cassette 8-track suffer appreciably versus the 4-track? I
> > would prefer to keep my instruments on separate tracks rather than
> > bouncing them between limited channels.
> >
> > JT Roberts
>
> I don't know what you mean by "suffer". I had a Teac 4 porta studio
> years ago...fine machine.
> Now (5 + years and counting) I have the Teac 488 portstudio. I
> wouldn't trade it for the world...well, you know.
> It will obviously do more then the 4-track what with the sync tracks
> and running at twice normal tape speed and DBX noise reduction. If your
> a keyboard/midi player that's what track 8 is for.
> I'm happier then a pig in shit with it.
> But one...hell, buy two ...link them up!
If you buy a either a new Tascam or Yamaha cassette based 8-track you
will see no sonic difference between these and similar 4-track recorders,
in fact in my opinion, the 8-tracks sound quite a bit better. The sound
on my Yamaha MT8X is extremely clear and even has some pretty descent
bass response. Plus...man its just the coolest thing when you can record
both a miced amp and the amps direct out sound onto two seperate tracks
then blend them and eq each one seperately when you remix. Sometimes I
have as many as 4 tracks of overlayed guitars to give me a super
saturated distortion sound...plus I have a drum machine and keyboard
synced to track 8 wich gives me a ton of virtual tracks...you just cant
beat it...unless you buy an ADAT or a hard disk recording system if you
got the money for them. Oh yeah... most reel-to-reel 8-tracks are pretty
good too but tape can be expensive for them.
Chris G.
Eleven Shadows
> Does the cassette 8-track suffer appreciably versus the 4-track?
In terms of sound quality, no, not really.
> I would prefer to keep my instruments on separate tracks rather than
> bouncing them between limited channels.
For the price of a cassette 8-track, I would look elsewhere, in my
opinion. The cassette 8-tracks go for about $1200-1500, last I heard,
right? For this price, you could get a Tascam r-r 8-track (38, for
instance)/Mackie 1604, an Akai 12-track analog (includes board), or
perhaps some other combination for the same amount of money -- or less!
-- used. It'll sound *considerably* better, have much greater detail
and dynamic range, and you'll have much more control over the EQ (the
Akai, for instance, has two effects sends and three-band sweepable,
defeatable EQ -- I don't know what the Mackie board has, but whatever it
is, it'll beat up all over any Tascam 8-track cassette board), and it'll
sound fuller and cleaner. There's probably a host of digital options,
but I haven't investigated those yet.
Hope this helps.
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
Rich Lamphear
In article <324B4D...@flash.net>, jt2...@flash.net wrote:
> Does the cassette 8-track suffer appreciably versus the 4-track? I
> would prefer to keep my instruments on separate tracks rather than
> bouncing them between limited channels.
>
> Thanks,
> JT Roberts
I've used both and I'm now using the Tascam 488 8 track. I think it
sounds as good as any 4 track cassette I've used, at least one with DBX
(I'd prefer Dolby S...)
Rich
Jeff Jourard
According to the spec sheets, the 8 tracks are split up 4 and 4 on two
heads and they also have them out of phase with each other to eliminate
the tracks leaking sound onto each other. The electronics, tape and
transports keep improving - now they have computer controlled cassette
tape tension to keep the tension the same so I have heard a couple of
jobs done on a 488 MK II and sure, you can tell it isn't digital or big
tape, but it is definitely no worse than a 4-track. Usually better
simply because there aren't any bounced tracks in most cases.
Rich Lamphear
> defeatable EQ -- I don't know what the Mackie board has, but whatever it
> is, it'll beat up all over any Tascam 8-track cassette board), and it'll
Actually, I have both a Mackie and a 488 mk II, and the Tascam eq compares
quite favorably to the Mackie. And it is a bit more flexible due to the
sweepable mid. For people like myself, who are more interested in
songwriting and production than in engineering, the cassette multitrack
wins over better-sounding reel to reel because of ease of use and lack of
the patch cable jungle.
Rich
Eleven Shadows
Rich Lamphear wrote:
>
> In article <324C6B...@primenet.com>, Bur...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > defeatable EQ -- I don't know what the Mackie board has, but whatever it
> > is, it'll beat up all over any Tascam 8-track cassette board), and it'll
>
> Actually, I have both a Mackie and a 488 mk II, and the Tascam eq compares
> quite favorably to the Mackie.
But do you feel that the Tascam board on a cassette eight-track is
cleaner and more flexible than the Mackie board? And has better,
quieter mic preamps (w/ phantom power, etc.?). And more effects sends?
Let's put it this way -- I've never heard a cassette eight-track
recording (unless it was virtually tracked) that I couldn't tell right
away that it was tracked on cassette. This includes a demo put out by
two veteran recording engineers who work at Track Records (a world-class
pro facility) that was tracked with Neumann microphones, and then mixed
through a Neve console with Pultec compressors and Lexicon PCM-70
reverbs onto an SV 3700 DAT machine with Apogee filters -- something
that most people don't have access to. Cassette multi-track just
doesn't have the detail, bottom end, depth, or presence. Don't get me
wrong, it sounded pretty darn good, but it still sounded like a
cassette. They thought it sounded like a cassette despite the elaborate
mixdown equipment and their recording chops (they've done sessions for
Billy Idol, Alice in Chains, Paula Abdul, and a gajillion others).
(BTW, in case you are wondering why they even tracked on a cassette
multi-track, it was because 1. they won it in a contest, and 2. they
wanted to see what the absolute best sound was that could be achieved
given their means -- sort of a personal challenge!)
> And it is a bit more flexible due to the
> sweepable mid. For people like myself, who are more interested in
> songwriting and production than in engineering, the cassette multitrack
> wins over better-sounding reel to reel because of ease of use and lack of
> the patch cable jungle.
Yes, which is why I suggested the possibility of the Akai, which records
12 tracks simultaneously with internal bussing capabilities, etc., and
is *considerably* easier to use than ANY four or eight-track cassette
I've ever seen (not of that funky sharing of the pan/buss thing, for
one). Also, much cleaner bounces. I'd also suggest looking into a used
Tascam 388, which is an all-in-one r-r eight-track and board -- again,
no patch cables, bussing cables, etc. Considerably better sound. Quite
a number of albums, CDs, and even movie soundtracks have been done on
both the Akai analog 12-track and the Tascam 388. These machines are
not the greatest things that exist either, but they sound a heck of a
lot better than a cassette multi-track, *and* for less money.
Another possibility is to look into the new mini-discs, which are
reviewed in the new Keyboard Magazine. I haven't read the review yet,
but this may something to check into.
To reiterate -- I think that four-track cassette machines are a good
bang for the buck. For $300-$400, you can throw down an idea quickly.
However, at $1500 for a cassette eight-track, I think that there are far
better, more cost-effective, easier-to-use, and better-sounding
options. For just a few hundred more, you can get a Roland VS-880 and
have signal processing, HD editing, really tight punching capabilities
and more. I just don't think eight-track cassettes are a good value for
the money -- If they cost $600-800, then maybe this would be an option.
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
Chris Gieseke
Rich Lamphear wrote:
>
> In article <324C6B...@primenet.com>, Bur...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > defeatable EQ -- I don't know what the Mackie board has, but whatever it
> > is, it'll beat up all over any Tascam 8-track cassette board), and it'll
>
> Actually, I have both a Mackie and a 488 mk II, and the Tascam eq compares
> sweepable mid. For people like myself, who are more interested in
> songwriting and production than in engineering, the cassette multitrack
> wins over better-sounding reel to reel because of ease of use and lack of
> the patch cable jungle.
>
Ah..hmmm good point Rich...sweepable mids can be very, very nice, though
I must also point out that most of the larger Mackie boards also feature
sweepable mids and some of them even have a Q (bandwidth) control on the
Mid frequencies which is super cool...but those boards are kinda
expensive...anyways I mainly wanted to point out that a patch bay can
also be extremely nice for a cassette multi-track studio as it allows you
to make all your connections from a nice neat and labeled patch bay
rather then be digging around in back or on top of your 8-track and then
wondering which cable was the input and which was the output to the
effects processor, no digging behind a mass of tangled cables in back of
your rack trying to find what cable goes to what, ect... Instead you
just pop a little patch cord into the top row (which usually are your
outputs from channels, outboard gear, ect..) and plug it in to whatever
piece of gear you want to send a signal through the patchbay on its
bottom row (inputs).
Chris G.
Rich Lamphear
> But do you feel that the Tascam board on a cassette eight-track is
> cleaner and more flexible than the Mackie board? And has better,
> quieter mic preamps (w/ phantom power, etc.?). And more effects sends?
The Tascam 488II does have phantom power and 2 effects sends. But the
Mackie is marginally cleaner, and definitely more flexible. But I don't
think there are MILES of difference between the two, sound-wise...
> Let's put it this way -- I've never heard a cassette eight-track
> recording (unless it was virtually tracked) that I couldn't tell right
> away that it was tracked on cassette. This includes a demo put out by
> two veteran recording engineers who work at Track Records (a world-class
> pro facility)
Oh, sure, I would never dispute that. My only point is that one needs to
think about whether one's priority is the best quality sound or ease of
use. I used to have an Audiomedia setup using Studio Vision -- the sound
quality blew away any cassette multitracker -- but I got rid of it and
went back to cassette because the complexity of my setup was getting in
the way of my getting things done. Not to mention that squinting into a
computer screen is no way to make music, IMO. I sync virtual MIDI tracks
with the portastudio. The results are definitely not "pro", but they're
certainly listenable, sometimes even enjoyable!
> both the Akai analog 12-track and the Tascam 388. These machines are
> not the greatest things that exist either, but they sound a heck of a
> lot better than a cassette multi-track, *and* for less money.
These are fine suggestions, though they do rely on actually being able to
_find_ this stuff in good condition on the used market....
> However, at $1500 for a cassette eight-track, I think that there are far
I would just point out that the Tascam 488 is available on the street for
around $1200. Anyway, your points are well taken. Different strokes for
different folks.
Rich
Eleven Shadows
> > both the Akai analog 12-track and the Tascam 388. These machines are
> > not the greatest things that exist either, but they sound a heck of a
> > lot better than a cassette multi-track, *and* for less money.
>
> These are fine suggestions, though they do rely on actually being able to
> _find_ this stuff in good condition on the used market....
Right, which in a small town, may be difficult. In large metropolitan
areas, it's usually not a problem. For those in the Los Angeles area,
there is an Akai service center in Pasadena called VST that regularly
has the Akai machines selling for about $1000, freshly serviced and
ready to go. (818) 794-8196. And as I mentioned, far easier to use
than a cassette machine. There are drawbacks (tape
availability/proprietary tape format and finding someone who knows how
to service these machines, for instance), and are definitely not for
everyone. For someone who cannot find a tech who is familiar with these
slightly strange machines, I would really hesitate in recommending
them!!! The Tascam 388 might be a better choice, at that point. Or
something newer...
> I would just point out that the Tascam 488 is available on the street for
> around $1200. Anyway, your points are well taken. Different strokes for
> different folks.
Sure...it's just that a lot of people think that they are tied to only
certain options, when a large multitude of options exist. I've had a
number of people come over and change their minds about getting into a
cassette format upon seeing what I can do with my setup. One of my
friends actually returned his 488. For these people, since they live in
a large metropolitan area, some of the suggestions in my previous post
were a viable option for them, due to servicing and availability.
Anyway, thanks for your posts.
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
David Doerr
Eleven Shadows <Bur...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<324D6D...@primenet.com>...
> Rich Lamphear wrote:
>
> I just don't think eight-track cassettes are a good value for
> the money -- If they cost $600-800, then maybe this would be an option.
>
For Sale: Tascam 488 Portastudio -- $700 US
-Dave
Chris Gieseke
Well....alot of good points....my Yamaha MT8-X 8-track only cost me $1100
and the only reason why I didnt buy the VS-880 was because people tend to
forget that you have to buy a DAT machine to backup your songs with HD
recorders. And yeah sure the Tascam 388 and Akai 12 tracks may sound a
*a little* better but 1.they are hard to find and 2. reel to reel tape
can be very expensive and only offers slightly better performance.
Personally I'm extremely happy with my MT8X because the sound quality is
very good quality...to regular music listeners and not engineers with
"golden ears" (who can say things like, "yeah that guitar needs more
boost at 2kHz" without even fooling with the eq), they can seldom tell
the difference between my mixes and their cassette albums of
profesionally recorded groups. Now if they compared them to a CD then
the first thing they say is that the CD is quieter but thats mainly due
to no hiss and often because digital recording was used at all stages of
the production of that CD album. But my point is...is that you can do
fairly good quality stuff very cheaply, and easily with a cassette
8-track multi-tracker...no its not as clean and clear as digital, but its
still fairly cheap. An ADAT would mean you have to buy a good size
4-buss mixer with plenty of channels, but in order to record on 8tracks
at once you would either have to buy two 4-buss mixers or 1 quite
expensive 8-buss mixer. Then down on the bottom of the digital recording
scale there are those little 4-track minidisk recorders which sound very
good...they have fantasic ping-pong capability but the fact is, is that
you still have to ping pong...once you commit your tracks to be
ping-ponged, you lose them forever, and unless you have a good monitor
amp and accurate monitor speakers, changes in mixes are usually made
after mixdown when you discover that their is to much treble in the mix
after playing the mix on diffent home stereos, walkmans, ect...but if you
already ping-ponged then you are screwed and any eq change you make will
affect all the tracks that you ping-ponged on that track. Still though
its a very nice recorder..just wish they could bring the price down a
little more. Anways thats my opinions....
Chris G.
fdf
5tert
Eleven Shadows wrote:
>
> Rich Lamphear wrote:
> >
> > In article <324C6B...@primenet.com>, Bur...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > defeatable EQ -- I don't know what the Mackie board has, but whatever it
> > > is, it'll beat up all over any Tascam 8-track cassette board), and it'll
> >
> > Actually, I have both a Mackie and a 488 mk II, and the Tascam eq compares
> > quite favorably to the Mackie.
>
> But do you feel that the Tascam board on a cassette eight-track is
> cleaner and more flexible than the Mackie board? And has better,
> quieter mic preamps (w/ phantom power, etc.?). And more effects sends?
>
> Let's put it this way -- I've never heard a cassette eight-track
> recording (unless it was virtually tracked) that I couldn't tell right
> away that it was tracked on cassette. This includes a demo put out by
> two veteran recording engineers who work at Track Records (a world-class
> pro facility) that was tracked with Neumann microphones, and then mixed
> through a Neve console with Pultec compressors and Lexicon PCM-70
> reverbs onto an SV 3700 DAT machine with Apogee filters -- something
> that most people don't have access to. Cassette multi-track just
> doesn't have the detail, bottom end, depth, or presence. Don't get me
> wrong, it sounded pretty darn good, but it still sounded like a
> cassette. They thought it sounded like a cassette despite the elaborate
> mixdown equipment and their recording chops (they've done sessions for
> Billy Idol, Alice in Chains, Paula Abdul, and a gajillion others).
>
> (BTW, in case you are wondering why they even tracked on a cassette
> multi-track, it was because 1. they won it in a contest, and 2. they
> wanted to see what the absolute best sound was that could be achieved
> given their means -- sort of a personal challenge!)
>
> > And it is a bit more flexible due to the
> > sweepable mid. For people like myself, who are more interested in
> > songwriting and production than in engineering, the cassette multitrack
> > wins over better-sounding reel to reel because of ease of use and lack of
> > the patch cable jungle.
>
> Yes, which is why I suggested the possibility of the Akai, which records
> 12 tracks simultaneously with internal bussing capabilities, etc., and
> is *considerably* easier to use than ANY four or eight-track cassette
> I've ever seen (not of that funky sharing of the pan/buss thing, for
> one). Also, much cleaner bounces. I'd also suggest looking into a used
> Tascam 388, which is an all-in-one r-r eight-track and board -- again,
> no patch cables, bussing cables, etc. Considerably better sound. Quite
> a number of albums, CDs, and even movie soundtracks have been done on
> both the Akai analog 12-track and the Tascam 388. These machines are
> not the greatest things that exist either, but they sound a heck of a
> lot better than a cassette multi-track, *and* for less money.
>
> Another possibility is to look into the new mini-discs, which are
> reviewed in the new Keyboard Magazine. I haven't read the review yet,
> but this may something to check into.
>
> To reiterate -- I think that four-track cassette machines are a good
> bang for the buck. For $300-$400, you can throw down an idea quickly.
> However, at $1500 for a cassette eight-track, I think that there are far
> better, more cost-effective, easier-to-use, and better-sounding
> options. For just a few hundred more, you can get a Roland VS-880 and
> have signal processing, HD editing, really tight punching capabilities
> and more. I just don't think eight-track cassettes are a good value for
> the money -- If they cost $600-800, then maybe this would be an option.
>
> -Ken/Eleven Shadows
J. Ricks
Actually, I hear the TASCAM 564 digital Portastudios will have
nondestructive, bounce-forward capability. I want one!
Chris Gieseke
J. Ricks wrote:
>
> Actually, I hear the TASCAM 564 digital Portastudios will have
> nondestructive, bounce-forward capability. I want one!
Hmm interesting..if they do make mini disk recorders with some type of
undo commands on it then it would definatly be better then an a cassette
8-track, because then even if you didnt like the way your mix came out
you could just ......hmmm hold on...ok say you just press the undo button
and bounce back to the original mix...After you make some more EQ changes
could you bounce back forward (with the added eq changes in addition to
the newly recorded tracks) to the final mix or will it erase what you
recorded previously after you make those eq changes....If it is truly
non-destructive then I would say that it would be an awesome recording
machine, and that you could get by without an 8-track as you could do all
your mixing and editing internally. Well, I guess I'll just have to try
one of the new Tascams out.
Chris G.
Blind Dog
Chris Gieseke wrote:
>.If it is truly
> non-destructive then I would say that it would be an awesome recording
> machine, and that you could get by without an 8-track as you could do all
> your mixing and editing internally. Well, I guess I'll just have to try
> one of the new Tascams out.
>
> Chris G.
Well, yes and no. The one advantage of digital 8-tracks and some of the
hard disk recorders is that they record uncompressed, whereas the most
of the minidisk recorders use compression, so you actually get some
digital artifacts from bouncing. However, it's still a big step up from
cassette.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Zimmerman ernie.z...@rpsolutions.com
RP Solutions
129 North Street, P.O. Box 28
Dryden, NY 13053
(607)844-8254 (voice) (607)844-8257 (fax)
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.961001...@homer13.u.washingto
n.edu>, "J. Ricks" <jri...@u.washington.edu> writes
>Actually, I hear the TASCAM 564 digital Portastudios will have
>nondestructive, bounce-forward capability. I want one!
>
why not go for something like a fostex DMT-8. it's 8 track, it's
digital, it has full timecoding and midi sync capability. It only has 12
mintues recording time, before you have to back up to dat, but then it's
not much more expensive than an MT8-x (in GB anyway) and sounds far far
better.
I've just borrowed one for the moment, and it's great!
Matt
--
God Bless
J. Ricks
How are the mixer facilities on the Fostex DMT 8? I hear it only has
two-band EQ, and doesn't have XLR mic jacks?/
J. Ricks
Can you add an external hard drive, Zip or Jaz drive to the Fostex DMT-8?
Does it have SCSSI port?
Chris Gieseke
J. Ricks wrote:
>
> Can you add an external hard drive, Zip or Jaz drive to the Fostex DMT-8?
> Does it have SCSSI port?
Unfortunatly the Fostex DMT-8 doesnt have a SCSI port. Also while it has
a midi sync capability, from the review that I've read of it, you can't
sync it up to an analog multi-track. The only way to back songs up is
to buy a DAT recorder. For just a little more money, the Roland VS-880
hard disk recorder is a much better deal.
Chris G.
RJHolohan
I have the Roland VS-880HD. It is harder than hell to use, but it is
pretty powerful. I haven't had a lot of experience with Busses, but this
seems a little ridiculous.
Ron Holohan
Matthew Amster-Burton
rjho...@aol.com (RJHolohan) wrote:
Can you be (a lot) more specific about what makes it "harder than
hell"? I'll bet a lot of four-trackers out there--including
myself--are drooling over these things and would love to know the pros
and cons from one of our own.
Matthew
----------------------------------------------------------------
The CIA introduced crack to South Central LA to fund the Contras
http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/
Ira White
> >I have the Roland VS-880HD. It is harder than hell to use, but it is
> >pretty powerful. I haven't had a lot of experience with Busses, but this
> >seems a little ridiculous.
>
> Can you be (a lot) more specific about what makes it "harder than
> hell"? I'll bet a lot of four-trackers out there--including
> myself--are drooling over these things and would love to know the pros
> and cons from one of our own.
The VS880 interface takes a bit more getting used to from the basic
'hands-on' layout of a standard 4-track. There's a small screen and
multiple windows that must be paged through to access the various
functions. For those used to the hands-on layout, the Fostex DMT-8 can be
a lot easier to work with, costs less, and has some advantages like number
of channels and external processor connections available, 8-track analog
outputs, and no data compression in 8-track mode. Another new entry to
consider is the Yamaha MD4 MiniDisc 4-track. This gives you digital
(though data compressed) quality and random-access on a removable medium
with a hands-on layout.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
| [[[[[ [[[[[[[ [[[ [[ [[[[[ [[[ [[[[ [[[[[ [[[[[[[ |
| [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[ [[[ |
| [[[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ |
| [[[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ |
| [[ [[[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[ [[[ [[[ [[ [[ [[[ [[[ |
| [[[[[ [[[ [[[[ [[[[[ [[[ [[[[ [[[[[ [[[ o |
| ))) O=----The Professional Audio and Recording Source----[K ))) |
| Virginia Beach, VA (804) 424-0490 |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
"If you can't sing good, sing loud."
John Fisher
Hi group/landed here following a crossposted ad/I use a Tascam
portastudio 246/ and after a stripe/ a 3 track if there ever was one/
and my opinion is,,,,,,,/as far as home brews go/ I find the people who
go out and buy all this expensive muti-track stuff/ many times either
never really learn the operation or loose interest and end up posting
them for sale on boards like this/measure twice and cut once/and if you
don't like the mix..redo it/cause who really cares ?
PS: I would love mail from other 'MIDIOTS' I use a MAC and PERFORMER -
trade tunes ?
Tanks for the time / don't you hate newsgroups ?
JF
jas999
Matthew Amster-Burton wrote:
>
> rjho...@aol.com (RJHolohan) wrote:
>
> >I have the Roland VS-880HD. It is harder than hell to use, but it is
> >pretty powerful. I haven't had a lot of experience with Busses, but this
> >seems a little ridiculous.
>
> Can you be (a lot) more specific about what makes it "harder than
> hell"? I'll bet a lot of four-trackers out there--including
> myself--are drooling over these things and would love to know the pros
> and cons from one of our own.
>
with a good operations manual? How much did you have to pay? thanks
for any info! ---john---
Eleven Shadows
I hope it's better than other Roland manuals. Roland is notorious for
having crappy manuals. The manual for the XP-50 is next to useless.
However, I would imagine with the VS-880, there would probably be one or
two third-party manuals available, and I also believe that there is an
instructional video for this machine as well.
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
RJHolohan
Yes, there is a video. And yes the manual is useless.... I went to a
huge bookstore in St. Louis and looked for supporting material (since I
have not been able to get any book info at any music stores or mailorder
houses), and I still am unable to find any books written on the Roland
VS880! Has anyone else seen any?
Ron Holohan
Matthew Amster-Burton
RJHolohan
In article <54gr4d$f...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, mam...@u.washington.edu
(Matthew Amster-Burton) writes:
>rjho...@aol.com (RJHolohan) wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, there is a video. And yes the manual is useless.... I went to a
>>huge bookstore in St. Louis and looked for supporting material (since I
>>have not been able to get any book info at any music stores or mailorder
>>houses), and I still am unable to find any books written on the Roland
>>VS880! Has anyone else seen any?
>
>http://www.rolandus.com/products/MIFAQS/supnotes/sn_vsrecorda.html
>
>Matthew
>
>
Thank you VERY much for pointing me to this website! I think these
supplimental notes for the VS-880 should answer all my questions! I now
have re-newed faith in the product, and will point others to the site as
you have done.
Ron Holohan
henry yu
Actually, I have found that the VS-880 to be great. Actually, you should
also check out this website:
There are answers to a lot of questions here, as well as upgrade info
(new OS version), and a link to another site that offers a program to
transfer VS-880 data DIRECTLY to the PC as a .WAV file. No need for a
digital audio i/o card anymore! Good luck!
Henry
Matthew Amster-Burton (mam...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: rjho...@aol.com (RJHolohan) wrote:
: >Yes, there is a video. And yes the manual is useless.... I went to a
: >huge bookstore in St. Louis and looked for supporting material (since I
: >have not been able to get any book info at any music stores or mailorder
: >houses), and I still am unable to find any books written on the Roland
: >VS880! Has anyone else seen any?
: http://www.rolandus.com/products/MIFAQS/supnotes/sn_vsrecorda.html
: Matthew
: ----------------------------------------------------------------