upgrade my 388?

[hotel2tango]

i'm looking to maybe get a fostex e-16. how much better would the sound be than my 388? i dont' really ever use more than 8-tracks but sometimes i record a friends band and it's a little tricky. also what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by hotel2tango

what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx

The B16 was the first one, consequently the machines are by now rather old.
The E16 replaced it and became one of the most common 16-track machines in small to medium studios. Many popular albums were made on these during the late 80s and early 90s. It is said that Enya still uses one.
The G16 was the last revision. Technically I think the chief difference was that they switched from Dolby-C to Dolby-S, although that may have been an optional extra.

That's about as much as I know about these machines.

[Herm]

If you dont need 16 tracks then the fostex r8 may be a good way to go. They are small and easy to transport, They sound great and you can still use all of that tape you have for your 388.
They run at 15 ips and have dolby c. They are pretty easy to find at a price of about 200 to 300 bucks.

[pbergo]

I just bought this Fostex Model 80:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWN%3AIT&rd=1

I think the guy must have bought it, recorded a few things and then boxed it because it is in showroom condition.

I don't know about that Dolby C though...

[Beck]

Congrats!

The Dolby C may have drifted after all these years, but with a tune-up (if needed) it works pretty well.

[hotel2tango]

ok. thanx. will 15ips be that much better than 7.5ips? is it just a sharper sound?

[Beck]

Higher speed = less noise and better specs in general. However, it gets more complicated than that.

You can push a Model 20/R-8 or E/G-16 harder @ 15 ips. You want to hit a machine as hard as you can without too much distortion to keep the noise floor down, which is still a factor with Dolby C, but especially important without noise reduction. Faster speed means more tape area for the same signal, which = lower disortion at a given flux level.

But dbx noise reduction allows a unit like the 388 to run at a lower flux level and still be pin-drop quite. dbx needs little help to do what it does. My 246 cassette portastudio is pin-drop quiet @ 3-3/4 ips and 160 nWb/m flux level.

Even though the 388 runs at a slower speed it still holds its own against the Fostex 1/4" 8-tracks.

The sound may be different, but saying better or worse is a subjective call.

[Herm]

I have both of the R8 and the 388 I would have to say the R8 is a cleaner sound where the 388 is darker. If I get time later i will post a song i did on a R8 12 years ago. Its not much but you will get a idea how it sounds.

[Herm]

http://mysite.verizon.net/resopl6x/s...files/duke.mp3

Ok this sounds like crap cause it was mixed to cassette over 12 years ago and the tape has got about half funky.
The gear is Fostex R8, alesis 1622 mixer cheap ART reverb unit some sm57,s and a AKG 535 eb mic for vocals.
This was done by my band back when i was in a country state of mind and gigging alot.
I shouldnt even put this up

[hotel2tango]

hey, that track is pretty nice sounding.better than what i can get.but then i do have god awful stuff. i have a cheap vox amp (not valve) a dbx 266 compressor and a behringer c-1 mic for vox which is a bit cheap but it's all i could afford. the r8 does seem a little clearer sound wise. i might hve to look into it.but im still not sure about the 16 track 1/2". wouldn't the heads be better than a 388? plus i could use gp9 tape, right? and i geuss i would have the tracks there if i needed them.

[superbeatballer]

I'm no expert, but upgrading from the 388 may not be necessary. Many great recordings have been made on this humble machine, including these second rate mp3 clips. http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/musi...534202,00.html

You should upgrade from the berry mics. Get a 4033 or an NT2.

The recorder isn't the problem here if I had to guess.

[elmerfunk]

hotel2tango,

Check out the Beatles thread in the mp3 section. I posted a song I did on the 388. They are great machines and you can get great sounding recordings from them. I wish I still had mine.

[hotel2tango]

ok.i'll try upgrading my mics and see what it sounds like. thanx for all yr help.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by hotel2tango

i'm looking to maybe get a fostex e-16. how much better would the sound be than my 388? i dont' really ever use more than 8-tracks but sometimes i record a friends band and it's a little tricky. also what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx

The 388 sounds to a E-16 as a Wollensack cassete recorder sounds to a Studer.

The E16 is superior in all aspects in sound despite the ramblings of the few who will probably talk about track width etc.

18K gold can be made into any physical structure just like 24K gold, but, which is really better?

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by Beck

Higher speed = less noise and better specs in general. However, it gets more complicated than that.

You can push a Model 20/R-8 or E/G-16 harder @ 15 ips. You want to hit a machine as hard as you can without too much distortion to keep the noise floor down, which is still a factor with Dolby C, but especially important without noise reduction. Faster speed means more tape area for the same signal, which = lower disortion at a given flux level.

But dbx noise reduction allows a unit like the 388 to run at a lower flux level and still be pin-drop quite. dbx needs little help to do what it does. My 246 cassette portastudio is pin-drop quiet @ 3-3/4 ips and 160 nWb/m flux level.

Even though the 388 runs at a slower speed it still holds its own against the Fostex 1/4" 8-tracks.

The sound may be different, but saying better or worse is a subjective call.

No, really, the 388 is a OK sounding unit but anyone doing any type of recording for any sound quality would bypass the 388 in favor of absolutely anything else with a reel and speed approaching 15ips.


The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it.

[elmerfunk]

MCI,
I am going out on a limb here and I am probably making the wrong assumption, but does your user name have something to do with the fact that maybe you have a 1/2", 1", or maybe a 2" machine? That's the ONE factor you have left out of the equation. We would all have 1/2", 1", or 2" machines IF our budgets allowed it. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing you in anyway. I think (I hope....Dave, Daniel where are you??) that others would agree that the 388 is a great machine capable of some great recordings. If I had a choice between the 388 or a cassette...there would be no choice. I now own a MSR-16 and yes there is a big difference, but it took me awhile to acquire it. Paying my dues, waiting, sacrificing gear, saving and I now have it. I am not going to stand on this level with my new gear and say that what I once had was shit. You have to start somewhere. I am not going to encourage someone to buy something better if they are not using what they have to its full potential. It's all a learning curve. I am not saying that you are not right as far as machines go....there's just so much more to consider.

[cjacek]

I think MCI2424 holds some sort of a grudge against the 388 'cause he paints a most biased but certainly unrealistic picture of the recorder in question. Take this quote: "The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it". Almost anyone here, who has / had extensive experience with the 388 and cassette portas from the same era can hear a night and day difference between the two. IMHO, the sound of the 388 is somewhere between a top of the line cassette portastudio and a stand alone reel to reel recorder, of the same era. The 388's advantage, though, is that it takes some of the better elements of cassette, reel to reel and mixers and combines these into what we call the Studio 8. It'd be unfair to compare parts of the 388 'cause it was meant to be a self contained Studio, really. Any stand alone recorder, with NR, would beat it for resolution, like the popular 38 and TSR-8 but they're a class of a different animal. The TASCAM 388 does what it was designed to do and it does it well.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by cjacek

I think MCI2424 holds some sort of a grudge against the 388 'cause he paints a most biased but certainly unrealistic picture of the recorder in question. Take this quote: "The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it". Almost anyone here, who has / had extensive experience with the 388 and cassette portas from the same era can hear a night and day difference between the two. IMHO, the sound of the 388 is somewhere between a top of the line cassette portastudio and a stand alone reel to reel recorder, of the same era. The 388's advantage, though, is that it takes some of the better elements of cassette, reel to reel and mixers and combines these into what we call the Studio 8. It'd be unfair to compare parts of the 388 'cause it was meant to be a self contained Studio, really. Any stand alone recorder, with NR, would beat it for resolution, like the popular 38 and TSR-8 but they're a class of a different animal. The TASCAM 388 does what it was designed to do and it does it well.

The grudge I hold is from 15 years of my drummer recording our band on that miserable machine. When we recorded in my studio on my E16, he would comment on how professional the sound was.

My 2" just killed him.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by elmerfunk

MCI,
I am going out on a limb here and I am probably making the wrong assumption, but does your user name have something to do with the fact that maybe you have a 1/2", 1", or maybe a 2" machine? That's the ONE factor you have left out of the equation. We would all have 1/2", 1", or 2" machines IF our budgets allowed it. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing you in anyway. I think (I hope....Dave, Daniel where are you??) that others would agree that the 388 is a great machine capable of some great recordings. If I had a choice between the 388 or a cassette...there would be no choice. I now own a MSR-16 and yes there is a big difference, but it took me awhile to acquire it. Paying my dues, waiting, sacrificing gear, saving and I now have it. I am not going to stand on this level with my new gear and say that what I once had was shit. You have to start somewhere. I am not going to encourage someone to buy something better if they are not using what they have to its full potential. It's all a learning curve. I am not saying that you are not right as far as machines go....there's just so much more to consider.

I have a 2" MCI24 track and 2 1/2" 16 track E-16s (OK, 1 is a B16 but the latest one that is exactly like the E16).

You don't have to be rich to go to a reel-to-reel 15IPS deck as they go pretty cheap these days. When you finally get one, you will totally understand why the 388 sucks eggs. Everyone has to pay dues, but that does not change the fact that the 388 has lousy sound. This you will figure out sometime in your recording career.
You can get your recording chops on a 388, but you will hit the stumbling block and little by little your finger will point to it as the culprit.


I put over 30 years in recording in every facet imaginable with absolutely some of the shittiest equipment available (from the 70s).

The 388 is not THE shittiest by far, but pit it against anything with 2 reels at 15ips, and there is just no contest.

[hotel2tango]

yeah i kinda thought the e-16 would sound better. im happy with the sound of my 388 for my own stuff, just that when friends me ask to record them (and they seem to be asking more and more) i feel like im letting the down a bit, esp the bigger bands (one of them is a six piece,pretty hard to fit it all on 8-tracks). also some of the albums i love most were recorded on a an e-16, i know thier mics shit mine but hey it's a start.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by cjacek

I think MCI2424 holds some sort of a grudge against the 388 'cause he paints a most biased but certainly unrealistic picture of the recorder in question...

There are a few possibilities

1. Those that can make the 388 sing are exceptionally talented.
2. Those who can’t get anything out of it are exceptionally unremarkable
3. Some are using well calibrated machines or even better tape and others aren’t
4. All of the above

So it’s inevitable if someone announces that the 388 sounds bad, many of us are going to quietly think (even if we don’t say it) that it’s a user problem. And especially for those of us that were there when the 388 was new, no argumentation will change this perception. It’s not a hypothetical because we’ve been there and done that. We don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

Many people have embarked on an endless quest for “better” equipment, when the problem is not the equipment. In fact, it’s the norm. This techno-lust is driven by manufacturers through magazines, web sites, and music store salesmen. These are the same people that say you need to have 10,000 different patches on your synth or 1000 different reverb programs. It’s never been worse than it is today.

Anyone can buy stuff. Some are talented composers, musicians, producers, etc. Others are just possessors of stuff… and no amount of stuff will make them talented composers, musicians, producers, etc.

If everyone with a recording background suddenly left the forum, well then maybe one could find some groupies here to worship them just for owning a 2-inch. Until that day, I’m afraid that balloon is going to continue to pop no matter how many times it’s flown.

Now back on subject with the original poster -- if you need more tracks, that's a great reason to get an E-16 or Tascam MSR-16. Personally I wouldn’t consider going from the 388 to the R8, or visa-versa, worth the time and expense.

These machines are all 20 years old now. It would be more cost effective to have whatever you have tweaked back into spec, as most have probably drifted.

[A Reel Person]

Of course more tracks has more utility in production, & wider track width and higher tape speed yields a sonically better recording, as do differences in quality components of the circuitry. I'm not under any illusions about that. It goes almost without saying, that a 2" tape recorder stomps any of the lesser formats, so why try to make that the press-fit answer to every question?

I use and appreciate a variety of formats, for the inherent qualities that they each have. A lot of what you use is based on budget and personal preferences, but the bottom line IMO is that the 388 is fine, for what it is in the relative scheme of things. Everything's relative.

For someone to assert that the 388 is a piece of crap that barely edges out cassette based units, is a bit of an overstatement. It's just an opinion, and we all have'm. For the record, and with all due respect,... MCI and I disagree on this point and a number of other things.

I have my own opinions, and you're free to take'm or leave'm, but I'm not gonna get all high & mighty about it. If MCI were to say I have junk equipment and tin ears, (as stated more than once in the past), I'd consider it his problem and not mine. I've not heard anything that would lead me to believe that MCI's recordings are any better than average. 2" is a dynamite format, but it doesn't raise you to godlike stature. Not with me, anyway.

/DA

[edit] Sorry to take you off-topic like that! I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. [/edit]

[A Reel Person]

Nice!.................

[cjacek]

Well said guys and, really, no one's disputing where the 388's recorder section "sits" as compared to stand alone, wider formats @15ips. Did anyone state otherwise ?

The TASCAM 388 is a unique unit which stands on its own and cannot be fairly compared to semi-pro and pro stand alone recorders. To call the 388 "shitty sounding" is very unfair 'cause the next question to ask is: compared to what ? The 388 is basically a bloated and higher spec'd cassette portastudio. It offers better electronics, mixer section and higher fidelity (and selection of higher quality but inexpensive tapes).

Look, we're not morons and obviously don't think the 388 is superior to wider, faster open reel recorders. The 388 is what it is and excells at it.

There are a number of 388 advantages over the stand alones, however, that made the Studio 8 popular. I too have wider and faster formats but the 388 will never be less than what I think it is and was meant to be.

When you are a competent musician and recordist, then you'll make the 388 sing with people's eyes bulging at the results.

I understand where MCI2424 might be coming from but he is definitely unfair and unbalanced with regards to the 388 but comes off as a know-it-all. I respect his opinions but the world doesn't revolve around his MCI and other "pro" rated equipment, either.

[cjacek]

Nice Fostex btw, Dave.