Fostex and Tascam Reel to Reels

S

studiodrum

New member
Hey Guys,
I was just wondering if Fostex ever built aN 8 Track, 1/2" Reel to Reel recorder (other than the 16 track E-16), . .and if so, what models were they. . . Also, how is the sounds quality of the Fostex 1/4" Reel recorders, compare to other brand 1/4" or, 1/2" recorders ?

I have been using a Tascam 238 for recording demo stuff, and was toying with the idea of buying an older Fostex 1/4" reel recorder. . . and was wondering if anyone had any experience with them. Thanks guys!
 
The 238 is a nice unit, considering it's 8-tracks onto cassette.

Fostex made some pretty decent 1/4" 8-tracks. The A-8, A-8LR, Model 80 and R-8, all running 7" reels, while the bigger E-8 handled 10.5" reels.

Fostex never made a 1/2" 8-track.

For 1/2" 8-track, your basic models would be the Tascam 38 and TSR-8.

There are other 1/2" 8-tracks, like Otari, but I'm not familiar enough to comment on them.
 
The Fostex models are considered pro studio quality.

If you want to hear what an analog tape was meant to do, pick up Tone Poems Vol.1, a collaboration of Tony Rice and David Grisman, on one acoustic guitar and one mandolin. No special effects, no reverb, no compression, just two Neumann mics per instrument inserted into an MCI mixer straight to a Fostex E-22 two track 1/2" tape running at 30 ips.

Everyone on this analog board should have a copy of Tone Poems Volume One, as something to strive for in analog recordings.

The sound is so pure, so unabated, so innocent, this is what analog is all about. I seriously doubt you could ever get this sound with digital.

I would simply love to hear the master prior to it going to CD. I'd imagine the final is utterly beautiful.
 
The Fostex E-22 may be considered a pro deck but their 1/4", 8 track decks should not be included in that characterization. Nor their 16 track, half inch models.

Though they may sound good to their owners, you would be hard pressed to find a professional studio in their day that used them for signed artists with recording contracts.

They were designed for home studio users and as such, made a decent product for its intended market.

Cheers! :)
 
I guess I wan't speaking of the 8-track models.

The E-22 and it's 1/4" brother the E-2 are considered the pro studio models.

In fact there's an E-22 on Ebay right now, no it's not mine. It seems to have some troubles but would be a great top of the line recorder if you know how to work on em.
 
trtab said:
The Fostex models are considered pro studio quality.

If you want to hear what an analog tape was meant to do, pick up Tone Poems Vol.1, a collaboration of Tony Rice and David Grisman, on one acoustic guitar and one mandolin. No special effects, no reverb, no compression, just two Neumann mics per instrument inserted into an MCI mixer straight to a Fostex E-22 two track 1/2" tape running at 30 ips.

Everyone on this analog board should have a copy of Tone Poems Volume One, as something to strive for in analog recordings.

The sound is so pure, so unabated, so innocent, this is what analog is all about. I seriously doubt you could ever get this sound with digital.

I would simply love to hear the master prior to it going to CD. I'd imagine the final is utterly beautiful.
Click to expand...

Have you ever listened to a Direct Cut vinyl? Sheffield lab made some spectacularly sounding vinyls in the late seventies or early eighties where the mixing board's output was directly connected to the lathe, the cutting machine.

Some SACD's sound very good as well and these are digital innit? Although the best sounding SACD's are recordings that were tracked to analog machines, like DSOTM by Pink Floyd and 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis.

I know what you're talking about, sometimes the recordings on two inch sound so great that it makes you wonder why the hell it must end on 'CD quality'.
 
Yea man that'd make me jealous, there's nothing like vinyl. I could careless what digi freaks say today, you can't recreate the real world with one's and zero's, ons and offs, the real world is too complex to reduce it to digital.

Of course when your talking about Davis' stuff, then you gotta add in the old tube mic sound to the equation, probably a U-48 my guess.

The reason lots of folks seem to not hear the difference between analog and digital today is because the analogers to don't take the time to set up the sound environment. If you got crappy acoustics, analog at 30 ips will pick it up.

The amazing thing to me is that I can't hardly hear the difference between 16 bit dig and 24 bit dig, which I guess is supposed to hit the 30kHz mark. Well you can attain that with 30 ips tape and the difference is so obvious.
 
My 2" machine (Otari) records a 35khz sinus without any problem, yet I prefer 15ips because of the nicer low end. 30ips otoh sounds unbelievably nice in the highs, yeah, I know how that sounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top