MCI 1" 8-track vs Tascam 1/2" 8-track

ethyrvalve

ethyrvalve

Norman Nanoweber
Hi all,

I've been mulling over getting an MCI JH110c-8 1" 8 track that's for sale locally but i was looking at the specs and they look, if anything, slightly inferior to those of my tascam 58 http://www.mcirecording.com/JH-110/JH-110C-8 Specifications.pdf
Granted the s/n ratio specs are for IEC in the case of the Tascam and NAB for the MCI but I would have expected a marked reduction in tape hiss with the wider format.

Has anyone here ever used a 1" 8-track (MCI or otherwise)? Any thoughts?

I wouldn't be ditching my beloved tascam; i just have long-term plans (aka "a pipe dream") for a part-time analog-only studio that would offer folks the choice of wide and narrow format based on their tape budget.
 
Assuming the MCI is in good shape, it should outperform the 58. It would be a good idea to check out it's overall condition and the availability of replacement parts before buying it though.
 
hey thanks for the input.
the machine is in good shape though it does have what are apparently infamously flaky molex connectors.
 
Pete,

I'd second what Rick said.

The 1" 8-track has double the "tape real-estate". True wide format multi-tracker. It doesn't really get any better than that (unless you go for theUltimate Analog 8-Track :D) Its going to have better fidelity potential. I don't know about how the MCI JH-series decks handle tape, but I know they are legendary.

I will say though to, as you inferred, that the Tascam stuff is nice for, amng other reasons, parts availability and affordability.
 
I know that specs don't tell the whole story but the MCI model does indeed fair rather poorly against the 58, especially in the sync response. I too, at least based on the specs, would expect a much better S/N ratio [from the MCI] but at least on paper, it's no better than the 58. Hmmm..:confused:

----
 
Your concerns about the molex connections are quite valid.

MCI sometimes stands for "munch crunchy intermittencies," especially when the molex connections start to get tired and oxidized. You may want to un-seat, de-ox-it, and re-seat all of the cards and connectors if it's an issue.

Also, look on the cards for any red-colored IC chips. If the chips or the sockets that they live in are red plastic-colored, buyer beware -- it will need some TLC before you can use it reliably. The red-socket IC's are the older-style chips, and have been known to short out and make very poor connections after sitting there for 25 years. It'll be a high-budget soldering job to overhaul the cards if that's the case.

Otherwise, MCI's kick ass.
 
Hey thanks so much for the input folks.
The machine doesn't have the dreaded red IC, it does however have the molex connectors. I read a tip on tape op's message board to treat them with a product called Stabilant 22A (which is, conveniently enough, made in canada)
I was a bit concerned about the specs on the record/sync response. they'd seem to indicate that there's no high treble coming off the sync head. Does that make any sense? I usually only bounce when i record drums on separate tracks initially (impatient drummers don't like waiting for a perfect balance) and i s'pose i could bounce off the repro head and just tape over any scratch instrument tracks (which i normally end up doing anyways). but is 30hz-10khz @15ips/30hz-4khz@7.5ips a typical sync response for such a (relatively) modern pro machine?
 
ethyrvalve said:
Hey thanks so much for the input folks.
The machine doesn't have the dreaded red IC, it does however have the molex connectors. I read a tip on tape op's message board to treat them with a product called Stabilant 22A (which is, conveniently enough, made in canada)
I was a bit concerned about the specs on the record/sync response. they'd seem to indicate that there's no high treble coming off the sync head. Does that make any sense? I usually only bounce when i record drums on separate tracks initially (impatient drummers don't like waiting for a perfect balance) and i s'pose i could bounce off the repro head and just tape over any scratch instrument tracks (which i normally end up doing anyways). but is 30hz-10khz @15ips/30hz-4khz@7.5ips a typical sync response for such a (relatively) modern pro machine?
Click to expand...

Those specs are rather unimpressive. As I recall, the sync and repro response were identical on the JH16 series. You might try to find one of those in good repair.
 
As I recall

I recall that the sync head is optimized for recording and the repro head for playback.

This means that the sync head does not give optimal playback results. But then again you do not need it to give great results. Makes for non-optimal bouncing but works great for laying down another track.

Tascam and others who use the same heads for sync and repro have a built in compromise that allows for good bounces.

Just a thought that really is not worth 2 cents....

-Ethan
 
interesting point about the optimization.
upon closer examination of the numbers the MCI's record repro numbers give a +.75/-2db range while the tascam gives a +2/-2db spec across the board. 2.75 vs 4 db deviation from flat response--that's pretty significant.

the MCI's outputs are 150ohm load vs the 600ohm outs on the Tascam. Does anyone know of the real-world implications of the 2 different numbers?
 
I recall that the sync head is optimized for recording and the repro head for playback.

This means that the sync head does not give optimal playback results. But then again you do not need it to give great results. Makes for non-optimal bouncing but works great for laying down another track.

Tascam and others who use the same heads for sync and repro have a built in compromise that allows for good bounces.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely right, Ethan. In fact I recall when I first got my 48 and 58 decks, and then when I finally got a manual for one of them I was surprised that the response specs for each head were identical. I was used to the way most 3-head cassette decks are setup where one head is optimized for record and the other for playback like you said. That's how the 1" MCI deck is setup. Optimal for straight tracking.

interesting point about the optimization.
upon closer examination of the numbers the MCI's record repro numbers give a +.75/-2db range while the tascam gives a +2/-2db spec across the board. 2.75 vs 4 db deviation from flat response--that's pretty significant.
Click to expand...

I was going to ask about that...judging a deck by the spec sheet is indeed only part of the picture, and those response spec deviation differences are significant. Plus, what you aren't going to see on paper is that the 1" MCI deck is going to have a very different low-end response. less of a head-bump (I think...) and better able to capture the low-low end...cleaner.

the MCI's outputs are 150ohm load vs the 600ohm outs on the Tascam. Does anyone know of the real-world implications of the 2 different numbers?
Click to expand...

Very little difference. This would really only come into play if you were wanting to split the signal coming out of the deck a whole bunch of times, and the MCI deck on paper is designed to handle more . The output load specs have nothing to do with the record/repro capability of the machine.
 
dang, it ended up being a littered with those red socket ICs... the seller was asking wayyyy too much money for that kind of hassle. oh well, maybe next time.
 
You are pretty far from Nashville, but I would still go for the MCI. Blevins in Nashville is the place for MCI stuff. Once you sort out any connector issues, the MCI will be an awesome machine.

Who cares about sync specs? :) As long as you can hear enough to track in sync, it's the record and playback performance that count, at least in my book.

Have fun! If I were starting from scratch, I'd go MCI, rather than with the 3M's I have, even though they are, if anything, even better performers than the MCIs. There is just a lot more MCI related parts available.

Cheers,

Otto
 
I think i misunderstood the specs. Now i think the sync head is +.75/-2db within that range, it still reproduces high treble but the curve might be out of that pretty narrow range.
I definitely still want the machine, but sadly the guy wants $1800 for it (he won't budge a dime) and it will require a tonne of work to replace those red IC sockets--and that's a must if i plan on getting any recording done with the machine (See: this damning report on those sockets)
 
Yeah, that's too much $$. I've seen 2", 24 / 16 track machines go for that or not a lot more.

The MCI's sync response reminds me of the 'ol beast, the TEAC 80-8. It sounded great though and ofajen is right that you'd use the sync head for tracking and, obviously, not mixing down from.

If I were shopping for one of those wide track MCI machines, I'd probably do so for reasons of ease of serviceability, access and less likelihood of dropouts [which the wide format affords]. Otherwise, sonically and cheap parts access, I'd stick to my 8 track, 1/2".

---
 
Keep this in mind:

MCI's all have one thing in common: They use easy-to-obtain parts on their circuit boards. Much like an old pickup truck, parts are easy to obtain if you don't mind giving it some TLC.

MCI's are beastly audiophilic works of art, and I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up if all it needed was some soldering work. Of course, the price point on THIS MCI is about DOUBLE what it should be, given its condition.

If you keep searching for an MCI, and find one at the right price, it will continue to reward you as long as you give it the care it needs. Point being -- parts are more readily available for MCI circuit boards than, say, for some Teac/Tascam circuit boards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top