Tascam 388 advice

I

ianbernacett

Member
Hey guys,

I just bought a 388 for $350 at a middle school's garage sale (belonged to a music teacher) also before buying, checking the heads never crossed my mind. I've tested all tracks after looking at heads and I've noticed a volume and frequency response difference on tracks 1 and 8. I've also noticed wear on repro head, after examining both tracks they can be eq'd to sound just as good as the rest of the tracks. I looked over the machine with my landlord who has owned numerous analog tape machines through his 25 years mastering music and he agreed 1 and 8 sound fine once eq'd. The machine came with Quantegy 456 basically a whole tub of it new and old. I spent a week using a new roll of this tape kinda getting a feel for the machine and am not sure if I've actually done further damage to heads (I've got a tendency to over analyze things especially the tape machine I've wanted since I started home recording on cassette recorders). I've got a band coming to record friday which I'll be using the money to see if I can relap the heads/getting everything checked out from a certified tascam/teac engineer in a couple weeks here in Florida. I've heard 456 puts considerable wear on heads due to thickness in tape. Do you guys think recording some more will be fine until I can get the machine thoroughly looked at? Does anyone want/know someone who might want to sell some relapped 388 heads? I could always use an extra pair considering I might get bad news from the guy I'm taking the tape machine to get looked at.

I'll try to get good pics of the heads later any help or advice is appreciated.

Thanks,

Ian
 
Do you mean that 1 and 8 are different from 2-7, or that 1 is different from 8? The edge tracks are often said to not sound as good as the centre tracks.
 
From what I could tell 1and 8 sounded worse than tracks 2 through 7. 8 sounds the worst in regards to frequency and playback volume. I've heard that before too, so I kind of expected that going in to recording on the tape machine. Mainly my question is would recording a band for two days do tremendous damage to the record/play heads?before I see if I can get them relapped in two weeks. I am using Quantegy 456 which I heard's thicker.

and does anyone want/know some selling 388 heads?
 
The general idea of thicker tape causing more wear is related to consistent use over time. 456 or any other 1.5 mil tape won't wear that quickly in the short term. It's a question of tape use in the long term. Edge track head wear is greater with thicker tape in the long term as well. Edge tracks show audible signs of wear first, but can be adjusted to the point of need for relapping. It's hard to know if an old machine was regularly maintained and setup for the tape you get with it. Originally the 388 was setup for Maxell UD 35-90. XLI 35-90B would be a level up and more similar to Quantegy 407 and 3M 207. Less oxide, less base tape thickness and overall wear. 456/457 was the highest output tape of the time.
 
Thanks for the response beck. What would you recommend getting my 388 calibrated to in terms of getting the most life out of my heads, tape availability, etc?
 
These days I would set it up with 3M/Scotch 207. 1800 feet on a 7-inch reel. That's regularly available as New-old-stock on eBay for less than, often half cost of a new tape from RMGI. Setting up for that will keep you in the ballpark for levels and bias with other tapes as well. So you can try other tapes like Quantegy 407, 642, Radio Shack Studio tape or Supertape and Maxell XLI 35-90B. None of this is being made anymore, but is always out there new and sealed on eBay, Cragslist, etc.

If you want to go with a tape in current production the only choice is RMGI LPR-35, but for around $30.00+ per reel for 1/4" on 7-inch plus shipping? Fu-k NO!!! The advantages of buying new production have diminished since eBay has made it so easy to exchange or get a refund for something defective or not as advertised. Craigslist not so much.

Maxell XLI 35-90B (AKA XL 35-90B) is a favorite or mine, but usually a bit more expensive than 3M/Scotch 207. Still worth it to me, but 3M 207 is a great tape.

I didn't mention ATR as a current production option because it's really not. They make one tape period and only use it on the 388 if you want to cut head life by a third compared to something like Maxell XL 35-90B, 3M/Scotch 207 or Quantegy 407.

Hope that helps...
 
Beck said:
These days I would set it up with 3M/Scotch 207. 1800 feet on a 7-inch reel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning that; I'm going to grab a NOS reel from eBay myself to hear the difference between that and the UD 35-90, which I really like but my current tapes are used and I'm finding random dropouts in them as I get deeper into the reel. How is the noise level with the 207 on the 388 compared to the 35-90? DBX off...
 
ianbernacett said:
Hey guys,

I just bought a 388 for $350 at a middle school's garage sale (belonged to a music teacher) also before buying, checking the heads never crossed my mind. I've tested all tracks after looking at heads and I've noticed a volume and frequency response difference on tracks 1 and 8. I've also noticed wear on repro head, after examining both tracks they can be eq'd to sound just as good as the rest of the tracks. I looked over the machine with my landlord who has owned numerous analog tape machines through his 25 years mastering music and he agreed 1 and 8 sound fine once eq'd. The machine came with Quantegy 456 basically a whole tub of it new and old. I spent a week using a new roll of this tape kinda getting a feel for the machine and am not sure if I've actually done further damage to heads (I've got a tendency to over analyze things especially the tape machine I've wanted since I started home recording on cassette recorders). I've got a band coming to record friday which I'll be using the money to see if I can relap the heads/getting everything checked out from a certified tascam/teac engineer in a couple weeks here in Florida. I've heard 456 puts considerable wear on heads due to thickness in tape. Do you guys think recording some more will be fine until I can get the machine thoroughly looked at? Does anyone want/know someone who might want to sell some relapped 388 heads? I could always use an extra pair considering I might get bad news from the guy I'm taking the tape machine to get looked at.

I'll try to get good pics of the heads later any help or advice is appreciated.

Thanks,

Ian
Click to expand...

When I bought my 388 I had the same problem and my heads look decent; what I was told to do was fast-wind and rewind the tape back and fourth with the lifter ON so that it runs across the heads at a fast speed and attempts to 'seat' the tape better in the groove. I did see a noticeable difference after doing this, but also using the same tape consistently (or same .mil thickness) is your best bet.
 
Just because that machine came with 456, doesnt mean it was calibrated for it. And who knows how long ago any calibration was done.
I would think as a bare minimum before recording a band for money (presumably), you would go through a complete alignment and calibration.
 
WhinyLittleRunt said:
Thanks for mentioning that; I'm going to grab a NOS reel from eBay myself to hear the difference between that and the UD 35-90, which I really like but my current tapes are used and I'm finding random dropouts in them as I get deeper into the reel. How is the noise level with the 207 on the 388 compared to the 35-90? DBX off...
Click to expand...

Just listening to the inherent background hiss on a blank tape with volume all the way up, the 3M/Scotch 207 is quieter to my ear. 207 is very low noise and high output. But Maxell UD 35-90 is no slouch in that department either. In the Maxell offerings XLI 35-90B (formerly known as UDXL 35-90B) is their high end and more equivelent to Scotch 207, Quantegy 407, etc. Maxell 35-90 is not backcoated. For greater stability and lower print through I would favor backcoated tapes on that machine. Non-backcoated like UD 35-90 is good tape, but if you want to get the full measure of performance use a backcoated tape.

But hopefully you're not running the 388 without dbx. :eek: Let me know if you are and I'll talk you out of it. :)
 
Awesome! this has been extremely helpful. I just got another parts unit from a guy here in Florida for $250. I haven't had the chance to check the heads out personally but the guy had it at a tech's house and assured there's about 80 to 60% life left on the heads after relap or money back. I'm thinking I'm gonna get it calibrated for Scotch 207 beck seemed pretty adament about that tape and seems to know his stuff. My question is how abundant is this particular tape? Also I'd like to hear the DBX on theory for the sake of curiosity? I particularly like the harshness of DBX off on louder sources and off for quieter sources vocals, etc. Another question with thicker tape would it be counter intuitive to try the tape lifter on method for restoring signal to 1 and 8. I've noticed the start of a curve towards track 8 in the repro head where is the rest of the wear looks healthy.

thanks,

ian
 
Beck said:
But hopefully you're not running the 388 without dbx. :eek: Let me know if you are and I'll talk you out of it. :)
Click to expand...

Haha, well... Yes and no. I've heard so much back and fourth on the DBX / no DBX issue that I've tried it both ways. I forgot who it was here who claimed that you would want to use a 388 without DBX and then widen the output by running through a BBE 422... I bought the 422 and then never used it yet so..

I think that the tracks are too narrow to not use DBX... Without DBX on it gets noisy very quick and it's not that pleasing of a sound; sounds more like a crappy cassette than "analog warmth"...
 
WhinyLittleRunt said:
Haha, well... Yes and no. I've heard so much back and fourth on the DBX / no DBX issue that I've tried it both ways. I forgot who it was here who claimed that you would want to use a 388 without DBX and then widen the output by running through a BBE 422... I bought the 422 and then never used it yet so..

I think that the tracks are too narrow to not use DBX... Without DBX on it gets noisy very quick and it's not that pleasing of a sound; sounds more like a crappy cassette than "analog warmth"...
Click to expand...

I think my quotes are getting mangled as time goes on. It was me who said some years ago to record with the dbx engaged and then brighten the overall stereo mix through a BBE 422 if the dbx was too warm for someones taste. The Alesis Micro Enhancer is also good in that role. It's a little trick I've used since mid 80's on narrow-track dbx machines like the 388 and 246 portastudio.

You'll hear a lot of opinions concerning use of noise reduction on web forums, but there is a definitive "right answer" when it comes to the narrow track multitrack decks. The 388 and others were designed to be used with dbx. These narrow track slow speed systems would not have been possible without advances in head design and well integrated noise reduction. The only reason Tascam put switches on the dbx NR is for calibration... and one for channel 8 for striping sync.

dbx does more than just give you pin-drop quiet background (if that weren't enough.) It also reduces cross-talk, harmonic distortion and modulation noise. Without dbx on the 388 you've got a S/N ratio of 59 dB WTD per track... basically sounds like Niagara Falls. With dbx your S/N ratio is 95 dB, which means virtually no hiss at all, and right up there with digital S/N specs.

Some people don't like dbx, but for the most part it's because they don't no how to use it. You'll hear people talk about dbx "pumping" and "breathing." That's only going to happen with low frequencies like bass and kick drum if it happens at all. The simple solution is to turn the high frequency EQ all the way down on bass heavy tracks. Since dbx is a broadband compander it opens up the entire frequency spectrum when a bass heavy instrument is played and there are no high frequencies in that instrument to mask the high frequency hiss. Consequently you can turn the high and high-mid EQ down on those tracks. Tascam worked closely with dbx to eliminate artifacts for their machines. It's especially well done.
 
Last edited:
ianbernacett said:
I'm thinking I'm gonna get it calibrated for Scotch 207. Beck seemed pretty adamant about that tape and seems to know his stuff. My question is how abundant is this particular tape?
Click to expand...

There seems to be an endless supply of NOS 207. Look for the stuff in the black box with the gold stripe for latest stock (See below). It's a good tape. IMO Maxell XLI 35-90B edges it out as my favorite by just a bit, but 207 is a good performer and more reasonably priced... about half to a third what Maxell is going for now days.

Grab a reel and give it a go!

View attachment 92632

New SEALED Scotch 207 Premium Quality Recording Reel Tape 7R 1800 | eBay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top