Dude!
I'm here.
First, I'd be skeptical about trying to convince anything about analog to a person with a "digital is better" mind set. There are two distinct camps, [Analog/Digital], and different trains of thought, and not very often do they overlap or meet half way.
I hate to tell you this, right off, but it often breaks out over lines of age. "Older folk", like me & Herm, often stick to analog, often times because it's what we know & are comfortable with,... among other things.
Likewise, the "younger" crowd often go "digital" because it's all they know, and they've been indoctrinated with the "wonders of the computer age", and "digital is better" mentality since birth, of which there's still a healthy amount of debate going on, to this date, in more "expert" circles than this. Digital and the computer has seemingly been represented as everything good, up to and including the being savior of the world!
[SORRY to be making assumptions about the age of the person who asked the question!!! But,... I'll continue!!]
Excuse me, with all due respect to your band of cohorts, if you're layin' down the bread, it's your decision. They may never fully support you, no matter what you do, so be prepared for lots of criticism from people with no power or say-so in the deal. If they want to be recorded, and they're looking to you for a solution, then they'd better be nice & feel at home with whatever solution you come up with, or just buy their own recording "solution", themselves. The person who spends the money has the power, and that's the bottom line.
A Tascam 388 will never be digital or compete, feature for feature, with a "digital solution", because they are just two different things, from design concept, & on up. However, the 388 often excels at things that the "digital solution" may be weak at, in case after case-study. In essence, they are so very different, that I'd hesitate in comparing them at all,... but, you know,... I've actually done just that, many times, and you asked for it! Been there/Done that, & the 388 always comes out the winner, IMO, every time.
Think of the price range of the 388 [$300-$550] and comparable digital "solutions" you'd likely get at the same price.
--> Things like number of mixer channels,... many digital "solutions" only have two inputs and TWO [input-side] mixer channels, but the 388 has 8.
--> How 'bout a "mix-buss"? Many digital "solutions" have none, whatsoever, but the 388 has 8.
--> How 'bout onboard EQ? Many digital "solutions" have either prefab EQ presets, or some EQ scheme that's buried in a menu system. The 388 has 3-band sweepable EQ on each channel, "real" tactile EQ controls [knobs], right on the mixer top panel.
-->Faders? Many digital "solutions" will link two tracks permanently on a single fader, but the 388 has a full complement of 8 faders, one for each track.
The list of comparisons and differences goes on & on, and there are many so-called digital "solutions" out there. Many look alike & some are different, but there's only one Tascam 388. One. They broke the mold when they produced the 388!
On the other hand the market is glutted with "me-too" clone digital designs, too many to mention individually. The same-ness of them all is almost stupefying.
Compare the 388 head-to-head with many digital "solutions" out there, if you want, as I've done myself, many times, and I have yet to find an all-in-one digital "solution" that packs as much in features and quality as the 388.
--> Now, there's sound quality. The 388 has that characteristically smooth top end and rounded-bottom sound quality that's typical of analog, that's as yet to be fully duplicated on any digital "solution" out there. The typical raw digital recorded sound is about as natural & pleasant as nails on a chalkboard, or breaking glass.
Q: What's the most talked about topic in digital, or issue that's hotly pursued in engineering circles?
A: How to get that analog "warmth" back in digital recording. Hey, quote specs, bits and bytes all you want, or tell me "warmth" is just "distortion", but it's what people want, in most cases that you'll hear of. There's a whole industry dedicated to putting the "warmth" of analog back into "sterile" digital recording. A whole industry.
--> How'bout ease of "data" storage and transfer? Many digital "solutions" bind you to some archaic backup scheme, of only-too-quickly outdated technology, or they tether you permanently to the 'puter. That's not what some people want, to be tethered to their 'puter,... although it's good enough for a great many of you, digitally inclined readers.
--> The 388 has a simple removable media, being the common and widely available 7" reel of 1/4" tape. When your reel's full, you just pop on another, and it takes maybe a few seconds. Archiving the reels is no problem, as they have almost unlimited shelf life.
--> They can still play the earliest 1/4" tapes from the 40's, but I dare you to find a comparable solution to playing some of those earliest PCM-encoded digital tapes from the late 70's! Now, consider CF flash media, SD data cards & all that,... each technology only occupying a few years of useful life in the marketplace. Consider it, because it's a factor.
--> Those other backup schemes of so-called digital "solutions"? Dude, don't get me started!
--> All the many formats and schemes of the "digital revolution" are outdated too darned quickly! Remember when all the 20-Bit people thought they were on top of the world?
Of course, there's always at least one digital "revolutionary" who's going to read this, and come charging out all great-guns, & tell me I'm full of crap, and digital is "it". I expect that,... but people, I've compared features, value, price, and yes,... sound quality,... of the 388 to a fair amount of the digital "solutions" out there, first hand, and I have yet to find any one digital 8-track "solution" that does not pale in comparison to the 388.
You want slick, advanced editing? Get digital & forget anything analog. For everything else in function, ease of use, and sound quality, go analog and/or get the 388, [in the case of this example].
Dollar for dollar, you can't beat the 388 as a total "solution",... with the only drawback being analog's a used gear market only, so be very careful about finding a low-use deck in relatively good shape. They are out there, if you look hard enough.
Otherwise,... stack up those digital "solutions" against the 388, one after the other, feature for feature, dollar for dollar,... GO AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY! The decision is easy. It's the 388.
I don't really care what your friends say. I've been home recording for well over 22 years, and I've seen all the coming and going of the latest digital gear. I'm not just talking out'my'ass. I've given digital and 'puter recording a fair chance, more than once, ... and I HATED IT! Talk about hate,... we could talk about the Tascam US-428, but that's a whole other story, and you probably don't have that much time.
For my money, it's the 388, and I have FOUR of them! For balance of comparison,... I also have the Fostex FD-8, Yamaha MD-8, Fostex FD-4 and Tascam 564,... which are all good digital machines in their own right, but they all lack "something", while 388 has it all. [HINT: I also have all sorts of other great analog gear, spanning the formats from cassette to 1"].
The 388 was a pro-level machine in it's day, and not some tinker toy, like the Fostex MR-8.
--> The 388 literally crushes the likes of the MR-8. Literally!
--> The Fostex VF-08 or VF-80?? Naaaaaaaaaah!! Neither of those units have 8 inputs or record 8 tracks simultaneously. Neither does the DMT-8 or FD-8. As a self contained unit, the DMT-8 is only a 4-buss architecture, and the FD-8 is 2 buss. The FD-8, in particular, WILL record 8-tracks simultaneously, with the addition of an ADAT-I/O compatible mixer, but that's another piece of gear entirely, and then the FD-8's no longer a self contained "solution". The 388 records 8 discrete tracks, simultaneously, in 8-buss format,... all "in the box".
--> Dude, you'd need a Fostex VF-16 or Tascam 2488 to equal what the 388 offers up front, in one pass, in a self-contained "solution", but even then it's a very uneven comparison. F/I, the Tascam 2488, in all it's glory, only has 4 XLR inputs, and yet the "antiquated" 388 has 8.
--> Forget the Tascam 788, as it only records 6-tracks simultaneously, w/no XLR inputs, and has all the backup-restore nightmarish complications of all the rest of the digital workstations in it's class.
--> Honestly, the best head to head comparison you'll get to the 388 would be the Yamaha MD-8. Trust me on that. However, the MD-8 is only a 4-buss architecture with advanced Direct recording function, which totals up to give you actual 8-simul recording,... but not true 8x8 8-buss architecture,... which is something it may take you a while to really appreciate. Also, some people shy away from the MD-8 because of something called "Minidisc" and "ATRAC". That's a whole other post!
All bow! Hail to the grandeur of the Tascam 388!
I could go on, if you want me to!! Say Uncle!!
STOP ME NOW
