My new TASCAM 388 + LOTS of pictures!!

At least half the charm of the 388 is the phenomenal mixer section,...

but if you don't need the mixer section, you're still probably best off with a 38.

The 38 will have more raw impact in the recording section than the 388, especially if you get the [2] DX-4D's as the 38's matched dbx units. The TSR-8 would also have higher fidelity than the 388, comparable to the 38/DX-4D's, but the 388's recording section's not too shabby!

In many cases, the 388 is worth considering for the mixer section alone!

YMMV!;)
 
David! thanks for your input on that. Speaking of tascam dbx(s) units.... I've read somewhere that dbx in addition to NR adds some sort of "unique dbx compression like" 'treatment' and.... hmmmmm, ???? I thought it's a sort of mystery subjective b.s. at first ...;-) or is there really something to it?
level of tape-hiss I get with reels never bugs me so far. in general i know how to deal with it :p , especially in kind of music/recording i'm after... plus I may add that I'm NOT a fan of steril recordings ... not anymore, actually, I almost detest it. To me 100% noisless recording is like having a bowl of rafinated sugar insted of fruit salad ...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyeek :eek: well, also, I'm not talking here about 'lo-fi' recording... and yes, in recording world noise and noise are not the same things ;-) ...depends on when and how etc...
respects,
/
 
Sure,...

I don't necessarily think the Tascam 38 absolutely needs the dbx units, but I always like to include that as a factor, when comparing it to the 388 and TSR8, both of which have dbx built-in. In fact, the 38 will make fine recordings without dbx whatsoever, but dbx pretty much eliminates unwanted tape hiss and gives a net boost in S/N ratio, when used properly.

The thing that freaks people out about dbx, is that it's a broadband compression/expansion system, and that goes against what people think about digital,... about how it's supposedly "pristine" and so on. People in the digital realm formerly clamored about "uncompressed" 16/44.1 (CD) format, and about how it's supposedly "unadulterated" sound,... especially as compared to a "data-reduced" ATRAC (Minidisc) type of digital.

My point is, that people nowadays are hung up on the myth of sound in the digital age being "pristine" and "unadulterated", and the full broadband compression/expansion analog system of dbx basically goes against the grain of that. Well, I'm here to tell'ya,... dbx is okay for sound, and digital isn't as "pristine" as they'd have you believe.

Another finer point about dbx, is that if you overdrive it severly, especially on percussive instruments, it may induce audible tracking errors. I don't think I've ever had any ill side effects from it, though.

Dbx is not intended to be a compression treatment. It's a noise reduction system. It's very effective, but fairly misunderstood this late in the game.
 
Intelligent stuff here Dave. I agree. Ive had both units. Only didn't care for the 1/4" tape format and window the 388 had. My TSR-8 had S type NR. Very clean, not "steril". Used to record 1st 4 tracks W/out NR for great natural comp.,[bass&drums some guitar] Next 4 With for keyboards and vocals.
 
heh heh, Dave , You are going to confuse the hell outa' some people by mixing into this conversation digital data-compression which has nothing to do with dynamics compression ...LOL - pristin "uncompressed" 16/44.1 (CD) format ..heh heh heh :D ... these words give me pre-migraine seizure right on the spot ... :p
/respects
 
ohh, btw, you can 'apply' dbx/nr on selected tracks with tascam 38 and DX-4D's? correct? Another words I can record/play some tracks with dbx and some without if desired? Is it the same in tsr-8 with its built-in nr system?
thanks again for info, guys
/respects
 
Dr ZEE said:
heh heh, Dave , You are going to confuse the hell outa' some people by mixing into this conversation digital data-compression which has nothing to do with dynamics compression ...LOL - pristin "uncompressed" 16/44.1 (CD) format ..heh heh heh :D ... these words give me pre-migraine seizure right on the spot ... :p
/respects
Click to expand...

Right, and I agree. The "data-compression" issue is separate from run of the mill "signal-compression", and they do get linked and confused in some people's minds.

The main point, I suppose, is that digital is represented as giving "pristine" signal quality, and dbx is seen as "adulterated",... and IMO that's why people misunderstand and disparage dbx, here/now in the digital age.
 
A Reel Person said:
On the DX-4D, you may apply dbx to any channel, individually. :cool:
Click to expand...
by a single push of a button on the unit or by patching? ... that's a question from a real lazy-a*s...i must add ... :D
 
I might have got an additional 2 to 3C off the unit for the dents Daniel. However, still a real steal! Have fun with it! I had one. Great sounding unit. Low maint., fast & easy to use. Never had problems with the transport. I believe it must have gone through some pretty rigorus testing before marketing. Made tons of great sounding demos with it. Two trk masters down to DAT, (Panisonic SV 3700. NOT Tascam.) Used to defrag once a week, cleaned heads every 4 to 6 hrs of use. owned it for 6 years, used it every day, never replaced the heads, got $700.00 for it when I sold it in 1994.
 
Dr ZEE said:
by a single push of a button on the unit or by patching? ... that's a question from a real lazy-a*s...i must add ... :D
Click to expand...

The TSR-8 gives you the option of S type NR for either of the first or 2nd 4 tracks on or off. ;) Yes. Button push. :o
 
A Reel Person said:
Right, and I agree. The "data-compression" issue is separate from run of the mill "signal-compression", and they do get linked and confused in some people's minds.

The main point, I suppose, is that digital is represented as giving "pristine" signal quality, and dbx is seen as "adulterated",... and IMO that's why people misunderstand and disparage dbx, here/now in the digital age.
Click to expand...

Digital "sound" got a bad rap when it first came out. But that was way back around 1984-85. Converters have gotten sooooo much better since then but the fear still persists in recordists today.

"pristine" vs. clear audio quality W/full dynamic range, measurable by today's AES standards has neglegable differances. That "steril", steely, britle sound digital had 20 years ago no longer appears on today's digital recording gear due in part to the quality of converters as well as other technological advances. :)
 
BMWerks said:
The TSR-8 gives you the option of S type NR for either of the first or 2nd 4 tracks on or off. ;) Yes. Button push. :o
Click to expand...
hmmmm, I guess tascam was trying to cut cost on buttons and leads...they arn't cheap :rolleyes: 50/50 option is not bad thou.. :)
thank you for info!
/respects
 
cjacek - I'm trying to think of a way to say congratulations that hides my jealousy, but I'm coming up short.
 
Yup. cutting costs while still taking a big chunk of the market share is where it's at for just about every corporation today. A?
 
BMWerks said:
That "steril", steely, britle sound digital had 20 years ago no longer appears on today's digital recording gear due in part to the quality of converters as well as other technological advances. :)
Click to expand...
that's is true... BUT! also depends on the 'gear' :) I can't afford the digi-gear and other NEEDED treatments and tools around it to get what I get with reels (also depending on what one expects from recording in general). That's just from my miserable experience :( ... I have (had for some time now) pretty good digital recording gear/computer-based soft/hard setup ..well, may I say it's in a 'pro-home-studio level' category or so.... and overall (just alone) it sucks comparing to reels (or better say, comparing to combination of reels, analog and digital-gear and computer-based tools... you just can't avoid it nowdays :) ). But again, I guess, it depends on type/kind of music/recordings the producer is after... another words, I can be very happy with the result when producing some specific type of music/tracks/backings etc by doing everything just with comuter-tools ALONE! hah ... the stuff I would never listen myself, but it has 'market' ..know what I mean? ;)
also, I think, that the term "steril" applying to digital recording may have very different subjective meaning for many people... You can write a book just on that lil'subject ;)
/respects
 
Dr ZEE said:
hmmmm, I guess tascam was trying to cut cost on buttons and leads...they arn't cheap :rolleyes: 50/50 option is not bad thou.. :)
thank you for info!
/respects
Click to expand...

It also has a separate DBX defeat on track 8 for sync purposes.
 
BMWerks said:
I might have got an additional 2 to 3C off the unit for the dents Daniel. However, still a real steal! Have fun with it! I had one. Great sounding unit. Low maint., fast & easy to use. Never had problems with the transport. I believe it must have gone through some pretty rigorus testing before marketing. Made tons of great sounding demos with it. Two trk masters down to DAT, (Panisonic SV 3700. NOT Tascam.) Used to defrag once a week, cleaned heads every 4 to 6 hrs of use. owned it for 6 years, used it every day, never replaced the heads, got $700.00 for it when I sold it in 1994.
Click to expand...

So, you had a TASCAM 388 ?? COOL!! Thank you for sharing your experiences with it. Especially good, real world, report on the heads! Though I think you've been waaaay too long with digital 'cause I believe you meant "demag" and not "defrag". :D

Btw, didn't you feel sad letting your 388, your friend for 6 years, go for a mere $700 ??

Thanks again!

Daniel ;)
 
Dr ZEE said:
So my 'simple' question is (also to all of you guys, who have or had in the past this 'complex machine') ...how is the recorder/transport part of it. How does it do recording job, let's say comparing to machines like tascam 38 or tsr-8 .... I am not on the hunt for any other and more expansive machines.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good words. :)

Any machine which has WIDER tracks and HIGHER speed will yield better recording performance. The 38 and TSR-8 have WIDER tracks and HIGHER speed. However, if your recording project ends up on CD, as most will, then the differences between a 388 and 38, for example, diminish somewhat. Hope this answers your question. ;)

~Daniel :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top