Old tape and the Tascam 388

D

drrats

New member
302 HCTOCS

not sure if this is needed but I've put the brand name and number in reverse because from the few bits of info gathered so far i get the impression recording people are trying to keep this stuff a little quiet. the audiophiles don't really like it . . . yet. has anyone used this stuff with a 388 before?

I realise this stuff is not very good for making accurate recordings like say new +6 tape. I have old spring reverbs, tape delay so looking to get more character of this era from tape also if I can. From what I understand this tape was widely used in the 70s and doesn't have SSS problems.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why you shouldn't try it out and see if you like it. The bias and operating levels are aren't technically correct but that might work if you're looking for something more noisy and hazy.

One of the songs on a record I made was recorded on a 388, on a "wrong" tape (Ampex 641). Bandmate and myself both agreed the 641 sounded better for this song.
 
Last edited:
actually I bought some 641 based off of a couple of threads I read here regarding it! When I looked on Ebay is was quite cheap for a box of twelve so I grabbed them. Sounds like they might work great for these purposes also!

I came across another obscure thread somewhere on the internet where a guy running a studio with gear only from the 70s was using the other tape I mentioned with a 80-8. His recordings have THE sound. He said many things contributed, but things really clicked once he started using the vintage tape.

I'll give it a go but was really hoping someone might have already done this experiment and can confirm I'm not completely wasting my time. I'd also hate to damage my heads, I've read a post by someone claiming that this tape wasn't made to be kind to heads as this wasn't a consideration back in 60s. This sounds like crap to me but I thought I'd better post here as there are so many knowledgable people here, who knows what I might learn ;)
 
drrats said:
He said many things contributed, but things really clicked once he started using the vintage tape.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that certain tape formulations can make a difference...but like the guy said...."many things contributed"...so you never really know what all was part of a given signal chain and which combination actually made things click.
I mean....I doubt it's as simple as just the tape without those other things.

Of course...it doesn't hurt anything to try a variety of tapes and see which one clicks for you.
 
well he said after then instruments themselves... the big three were machine, mixer and tape. All three were from the 70s. He said that things weren't quite right (despite having the instruments and the studio gear) until he started using the old tape. This seem to me to be something people don't consider. People love owning 70's guitars and microphones but when it comes to tape everyone wants +9 super clean and extended hifi stuff.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm currently restoring my 388 and have decided to try some different tapes. Reason being that if I end up liking some of the older tapes that hold up really well and are cheap. . . then I might calibrate it for one of these older tapes. 67-73 was a pretty 'good vintage' for recording imo heh :) I'm thinking these older limited freq response tapes in combination with the narrow track width and slow speed of the 388 might be just what I'm after.. as I said I own springs, tape delays, p bass... hell my drum kit is from 67'. I dunno... maybe I'm crazy. Maybe it'll be too much. Would be nice to know if anyone else out there has tried something similar with the 388.
 
Yeah...I think it's important to use the tape that the machine was primarily designed for.
Not saying you can't use other formulations...but like you said, early '70s machines weren't designed for the newer +9 tapes...so the audio path was fine-tuned to sound best with a specific formulation.

The more modern pro decks often had more than one tape formulation setup...so one could easily switch the deck for what was preferred by the client and engineer.

My only point was that you have to find that right combination with the gear and the tape to hit "that sound" you are after, and not everyone hears the same thing or has the same preference...or like you hear someone raving about a given tape...but they don't mention the gear that they are using in combination with the tape...so someone else tries that tape with different gear, and it doesn't sound good to them. :)

With my 2" tape deck, I stick to two formulations...Ampex/Quantegy 499 and 456, and BASF/Emtec 911 which is pretty much the same as the 456, though IMO, much smoother/silkier, and less shed.
The deck's "default" setting A is factory preset for 456...and then setting B is left for the user to calibrate, which is where I went with the 499, and I really love the 499. It doesn't have as much tape "mojo" as the 456/911, but it's extremely consistent, so what I put in is what comes out.
 
Yeah you make a very good point! So far I have lpr35 and 641, I'll get some others and see what works I suppose!
 
Using the "wrong" tape can sometimes be usefull, don't know the tape in question though. I used to enjoy feeding my eight track Fostex AGFA PE36 from the 70's.
However I don't think limited frequency response will get you closer to a vintage sound. On the contrary I think the 1" eight tracks and 2" 16 tracks used in those days could blow our Fostex and Tascams out of the water frequency response wise.
But for my part when recording rock music without too much dynamics I wish there was a +3 tape in current production or at least easily available. I love that distorted hihat and cymbal sounds often found on old Stax records as well as stuff like George McCrae. Could have been other things than tape saturation on older tape contributing though... compressors being abused, preamp running out on headroom, multiple tape generations, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top