Tascam TSR-8 V Fostex 16 track Half inch tape

There's so many things wrong with that post.
Your understanding of balanced signals and wiring, and how summing identical tracks has no effect on their quality...are both flawed.

Well that is becasue I have never used it before. I just know that is what it's for.... Balanced audio is for quality and noise elimination is it not? This is a learning exp. for me. I had a Tascam TSr-8 a long time ago and made one crappy test track before a bunch of coked up heroin adicts ruined it so this is my only second ecp. with having one and before that I had a 4 track cassette.

The reason I bought another one is becasue I find that working with tape is a little bit more enjoyable of a process.
 
Last edited:
Well that is becasue I have never used it before. I just know that is what it's for.... Balanced audio is for quality and noise elimination is it not?

Basically yes. Balanced cables are used to prevent noise in long cable runs. But that's just for carrying one audio signal.
 
Well that is becasue I have never used it before. I just know that is what it's for.... Balanced audio is for quality and noise elimination is it not? This is a learning exp. for me.

OK if you're looking to learn...maybe my perspective was triggered by that other thread where you generally rejected the notion.

Yes...as has been mentioned, balanced cables are for noise rejection...but the way you're assuming that running two signals in parallel to two tracks is the same thing as what balanced cables do...that's not the case.
Also... you're idea that 8 balanced lines is the same thing as "16 normal" lines (not even sure what you mean by "normal lines...unbalanced?)...is also not the case.
You can't take 8 balanced channels and get 16 unbalanced (or "normal") channels...you can only change the 8 balanced in to 8 unbalanced.

Likewise...recording the same signal to two tracks...doesn't increase their quality, and has nothing to do with balanced lines...you simply get the same signal doubled, which only increases output, but has no effect on the quality, since each track has the same quality limitation.
 
OK if you're looking to learn...maybe my perspective was triggered by that other thread where you generally rejected the notion.

Yes...as has been mentioned, balanced cables are for noise rejection...but the way you're assuming that running two signals in parallel to two tracks is the same thing as what balanced cables do...that's not the case.
Also... you're idea that 8 balanced lines is the same thing as "16 normal" lines (not even sure what you mean by "normal lines...unbalanced?)...is also not the case.
You can't take 8 balanced channels and get 16 unbalanced (or "normal") channels...you can only change the 8 balanced in to 8 unbalanced.

Likewise...recording the same signal to two tracks...doesn't increase their quality, and has nothing to do with balanced lines...you simply get the same signal doubled, which only increases output, but has no effect on the quality, since each track has the same quality limitation.

I had to reject that notion with overwhelming evidence against it.

I know how to hook things together here and ultimately what I got is what I want and that is full use of all 16 tracks and the entire half inch of tape. I don't have to do any wiring or buy another mixer.
 
I had to reject that notion with overwhelming evidence against it.

I know how to hook things together here and ultimately what I got is what I want and that is full use of all 16 tracks and the entire half inch of tape. I don't have to do any wiring or buy another mixer.

OK...you can live with your "overwhelming" evidence in that other thread...I just feel bad you refused to learn anything there.

AFA your mixer/tape stuff here...what's "full use of all 16 tracks" have to do with that things I was pointing out about your misguided understanding about balanced lines or that summing two tracks with the same signal doesn't increase quality, or that running two signals in parallel to two tracks isn't the same as balanced lines...???

Do you understand now why you have misconceptions about those things...or do you need more information...?
 
No, I learned a lot, but you guys failed to realize that more bits = more sound and that digital has it's limitations.... I do ananlog synthis which has computer controls.... I know all about nyquist or what ever the hell on how a triangle LFO = ma sign wave after it has gone through all the circutry. I read and understood everyuthing you through at me.

You guys refuted basic logic and refused to beleive in the truth and remainedoblivious to the fact that a 24 bit 384khz digital audio file is going to contain much more audio than a 44.1khz. Just becasue you guys don't hear doesn't make it right. I've been recording HI DEF audio my whole life, there is a huge difference regardless of what you say.


So I don't know wehat your problem is against me, but you need to chill out becasue you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
No, I learned a lot, but you guys failed to realize that more bits = more sound and that digital has it's limitations.... I do ananlog synthis which has computer controls.... I know all about nyquist or what ever the hell on how a triangle LFO = ma sign wave after it has gone through all the circutry. I read and understood everyuthing you through at me.

You guys refuted basic logic and refused to beleive in the truth and remainedoblivious to the fact that a 24 bit 384khz digital audio file is going to contain much more audio than a 44.1khz. Just becasue you guys don't hear doesn't make it right. I've been recording HI DEF audio my whole life, there is a huge difference regardless of what you say.


So I don't know wehat your problem is against me, but you need to chill out becasue you are wrong.

Ahh...I'm talking about the things you are misunderstanding here...about balanced lines, about summing two identical tracks, about running parallel channels and thinking it's the same as balanced lines...etc....etc.

AFA the digital stuff, you ignored what everyone else in the industry has to say on the subject, and you claim you know better...yeah, OK. :rolleyes:
So are we going to have the same thing here about your misconceptions that I mentioned above...?

No one has anything personally "against" you...but you do have a reluctance to accept what is known as fact by most audio folks as the correct answer.
People are trying to help...but why ask questions if you end up rejecting everything.
 
Ryan Murphy said:
No, I learned a lot, but you guys failed to realize that more bits = more sound and that digital has it's limitations.... I do ananlog synthis which has computer controls.... I know all about nyquist or what ever the hell on how a triangle LFO = ma sign wave after it has gone through all the circutry. I read and understood everyuthing you through at me.

You guys refuted basic logic and refused to beleive in the truth and remainedoblivious to the fact that a 24 bit 384khz digital audio file is going to contain much more audio than a 44.1khz. Just becasue you guys don't here doesn't make it right. I've been recording HI DEF audio my whole life, there is a huge difference regardless of what you say.


So I don't know wehat your problem is against me, but you need to chill out becasue you are wrong.

More bits affects the digital noise floor, putting quantization artifacts in fixed point systems at lower signal levels. In the other thread we were talking about sample rates and bandwidth, not "more bits". There can be disadvantages to running ultra high sample rates. If you disagree, do as you like. Nobody is obligated to agree with you.

I think it would be best to leave that discussion in the other thread. There's plenty of analog confusion in this one.


Ryan Murphy said:
On the bright side though I was taking a look at my mixer and it looks like all the 1/4 inch inputs and out puts are stereo for bal audio signal.... So alls I need is to get stereo 1/4 inch to rca adapters. Even the 8 direct outs are balanced it appears.... and 8 inserts...

No. "Stereo" and "Balanced" are not the same thing.

A balanced audio cable is usually a twisted pair of wires to carry signal with a shield conductor as the ground. An XLR mic cable is an example. The shield is going to help isolate the signal from noise somewhat, but on long cable runs the cable can still pick up unwanted noise. The core wires are twisted to help get the noise as close to identical as possible in both conductors. The audio signal in one of the conductors is travelling with the polarity flipped 180 degrees out of phase through the cable. When the signal reaches its destination and gets converted back to unbalanced, the out of phase signal is flipped back to normal which cancels the noise when it gets summed to the other side. It's still only one signal. It's not stereo. You can't route the 2 signal wires to different channels.

You can have a stereo signal in a cable with 3 conductors like a headphone cable, but it's not balanced.

If you use RCA adapters to split a balanced signal (+ & -) into separate channels, the level in each channel would be reduced in half and one channel will be out of phase, cancelling the other one.

The direct outs on the Mackie 1642 are TRS balanced. You can probably use them as unbalanced with a TS cable, which would connect the reverse polarity side to ground.

The TRS inserts are unbalanced. The insert works as send and return with a Y cable, like if you wanted to "insert" a compressor or something on that channel. You can usually use an insert as a line out by using a TS cable to the "first click" on the insert jack.

The manual for the VLZ does explain these things for the most part, but they take the liberty of using creative language in spots which can be confusing if you take it too literally.
 
Ahh...I'm talking about the things you are misunderstanding here...about balanced lines, about summing two identical tracks, about running parallel channels and thinking it's the same as balanced lines...etc....etc.

AFA the digital stuff, you ignored what everyone else in the industry has to say on the subject, and you claim you know better...yeah, OK. :rolleyes:
So are we going to have the same thing here about your misconceptions that I mentioned above...?

No one has anything personally "against" you...but you do have a reluctance to accept what is known as fact by most audio folks as the correct answer.
People are trying to help...but why ask questions if you end up rejecting everything.

Gorrilaz is one of my favorite albums at 44.1khz I'll never be able to beat it. Do we know what resolution that album got sampled at? Anyway. I love my 384khz stuff. You hear things in those files that I have never heard on any CD before. Even 192khz the amount of detail present is amazing. I've never heard anything so rich on a CD before.

More bits affects the digital noise floor, putting quantization artifacts in fixed point systems at lower signal levels. In the other thread we were talking about sample rates and bandwidth, not "more bits". There can be disadvantages to running ultra high sample rates. If you disagree, do as you like. Nobody is obligated to agree with you.

I think it would be best to leave that discussion in the other thread. There's plenty of analog confusion in this one.




No. "Stereo" and "Balanced" are not the same thing.

A balanced audio cable is usually a twisted pair of wires to carry signal with a shield conductor as the ground. An XLR mic cable is an example. The shield is going to help isolate the signal from noise somewhat, but on long cable runs the cable can still pick up unwanted noise. The core wires are twisted to help get the noise as close to identical as possible in both conductors. The audio signal in one of the conductors is travelling with the polarity flipped 180 degrees out of phase through the cable. When the signal reaches its destination and gets converted back to unbalanced, the out of phase signal is flipped back to normal which cancels the noise when it gets summed to the other side. It's still only one signal. It's not stereo. You can't route the 2 signal wires to different channels.

You can have a stereo signal in a cable with 3 conductors like a headphone cable, but it's not balanced.

If you use RCA adapters to split a balanced signal (+ & -) into separate channels, the level in each channel would be reduced in half and one channel will be out of phase, cancelling the other one.

The direct outs on the Mackie 1642 are TRS balanced. You can probably use them as unbalanced with a TS cable, which would connect the reverse polarity side to ground.

The TRS inserts are unbalanced. The insert works as send and return with a Y cable, like if you wanted to "insert" a compressor or something on that channel. You can usually use an insert as a line out by using a TS cable to the "first click" on the insert jack.

The manual for the VLZ does explain these things for the most part, but they take the liberty of using creative language in spots which can be confusing if you take it too literally.

Where are you getting this? I did not say stero and balanced are the same thing? I never said that and that is not true, but when it comes to running wiore from an electricians point of view, which is what I do; it is.

I don't have manual for that thing... Got it used for 300 dollars and usually figure things out by trying first and running tests.

AND I KNOW WHAT BALANCED IS SO PLEASE STOP WITH THAT, but all the insert and intricacies of the Mackie mixer are unknown to me... And I only just now started using auxiliary send. When I had Tascam TSR-8 I used insert to monitor playback from the tape.

Is being out of phase a big deal? IDK what dose it sound like. I have an old tube amp that you can switch phases on, to change the color of the sound. I don't think that is to important to me. I'm not that bad. If worse comes to worse I could switch the ground with the second send on the jack.... Alsdo after careful inspection; all the inserts (first 8 channels) all have a sleeve for a second input channel. ie. balanced audio it probably is, or did they put all 3 pin jacks to save money?
 
Last edited:
OK Ryan...I'll leave you with your misconceptions, because attempting to have a conversation with you becomes a circular, go-nowhere thing since you first say something that makes no sense, and then I think you realize it at some point, and then you attempt to turn it around and say you never said it...or you start talking about something else, never returning to answer anything about your misconceptions...and round-n-round it goes.

Enjoy your 384 and your B16...and whatever it is you do with all that stuff. :thumbs up:
 
Ryan Murphy said:
Where are you getting this? I did not say stero and balanced are the same thing?

Post #15 on page 2

Ryan Murphy said:
On the bright side though I was taking a look at my mixer and it looks like all the 1/4 inch inputs and out puts are stereo for bal audio signal.... So alls I need is to get stereo 1/4 inch to rca adapters. Even the 8 direct outs are balanced it appears.... and 8 inserts...

Here's the manual:

Support Loudtech

Ryan Murphy said:
all the inserts (first 8 channels) all have a sleeve for a second input channel. ie. balanced audio it probably is, or did they put all 3 pin jacks to save money?

There's no second input channel. The insert point acts as a send and return, like an effects loop. Tip = send, Ring = return (To the mixer, not from - the signal goes the other direction) Sleeve = ground. Not balanced. Fairly standard, though sometimes the tip and ring are wired the other way. Check the manual.
 
1- Tascams are better than Fostex, more or less across the board. Regardless of format or tape speed IMO. They sound better, and they are better built and more reliable.

2- The TSR-8 uses more of the 1/2” tape than the Fostex 16-track, even if you recorded a mono signal on all tracks on both machines. There are gaps between each track, and the 16-track has twice as many.

3- You’re gonna run into trouble “doubling up” tracks. Any potential (very small) benefits of slightly wider tape per track will be offset by phase problems on the paired tracks. This will be heard as a slight loss of highs and clarity, and potentially a swishing/phasing sound. Even when major mono masters are transferred from a stereo deck for reissues by ‘60s artists - the engineers will pick one track rather than sum the two mono signals.

4- Tape width is only one factor in sound quality. A Fostex 1/2” 16-track is an intentionally compromised machine that was designed to provide more tracks at the expense of quality.
 
A Fostex 1/2” 16-track is an intentionally compromised machine that was designed to provide more tracks at the expense of quality.

With all due respect...I wouldn't call the Fostex G series a compromised machine compared to the Tascam MSR 16...both sound about the same, with just the difference in NR...but AFA functionality, the Fostex w/8330 sync card onboard, was much more robust...and it had pro-level options, in a small-format deck.
Had mine for over 20 years before I moved to the 2" format...never had an issue with anything on the machine, it always worked flawlessly...still, these are all small-format, and none of them measure up to the large-format decks.
The E16 was also solid deck, but didn't have as much functionality as the G series. I can't really speak about the earlier B series.

The reason Tascam gets the lion's share of that small format market...is due mostly to them being around a lot longer, as Teac and then as Tascam...so they churned out a lot more gear, which meant a lot more users.
The Fostex G series came out during the last days of analog tape use as the main medium, especially in the project and early home studios...and then ADAT came along, and that helped kill off the tape decks in those types of studios, since it promised the digital benefits, though ADAT generally sucked overall...and while it lasted for a good period, it vanished along with the company the introduced them, Alesis.

I think if the digital stuff held off for another 5-10 years, the Fostex tape decks would have gained a much greater fan base...but I still don't think they would have equaled Teac/Tascam, which was already way ahead with users.
I always wondered what was on the drawing table for Fostex right before ADAT and digital kicked in...were they going to introduce something in a large format tape deck, or...???
 
With all due respect...I wouldn't call the Fostex G series a compromised machine compared to the Tascam MSR 16...both sound about the same, with just the difference in NR...but AFA functionality, the Fostex w/8330 sync card onboard, was much more robust...and it had pro-level options, in a small-format deck.
Had mine for over 20 years before I moved to the 2" format...never had an issue with anything on the machine, it always worked flawlessly...still, these are all small-format, and none of them measure up to the large-format decks.
The E16 was also solid deck, but didn't have as much functionality as the G series. I can't really speak about the earlier B series.

The reason Tascam gets the lion's share of that small format market...is due mostly to them being around a lot longer, as Teac and then as Tascam...so they churned out a lot more gear, which meant a lot more users.
The Fostex G series came out during the last days of analog tape use as the main medium, especially in the project and early home studios...and then ADAT came along, and that helped kill off the tape decks in those types of studios, since it promised the digital benefits, though ADAT generally sucked overall...and while it lasted for a good period, it vanished along with the company the introduced them, Alesis.

I think if the digital stuff held off for another 5-10 years, the Fostex tape decks would have gained a much greater fan base...but I still don't think they would have equaled Teac/Tascam, which was already way ahead with users.
I always wondered what was on the drawing table for Fostex right before ADAT and digital kicked in...were they going to introduce something in a large format tape deck, or...???

Fair, as I have not personally used these exact machines - however based on the (numerous) Tascam and Fostex decks I have owned, I would say that is more likely to be the exception rather than the rule if that's the case.

IME, a Teac 144 is better than an Fostex A8, a Tascam 388 is better than a Fostex 80, etc. ... even though the Fostex decks might spec out better or look better on paper - Teac/Tascams sound better and perform better. One man's opinion. And like for like, the Tascams should fair even better.
 
Fair, as I have not personally used these exact machines - however based on the (numerous) Tascam and Fostex decks I have owned, I would say that is more likely to be the exception rather than the rule if that's the case.

IME, a Teac 144 is better than an Fostex A8, a Tascam 388 is better than a Fostex 80, etc. ... even though the Fostex decks might spec out better or look better on paper - Teac/Tascams sound better and perform better. One man's opinion. And like for like, the Tascams should fair even better.

I don't deny that the earlier wave of Fostex tape decks was playing catch up, and if I'm not mistaken, Fostex was founded by some ex-Tascam folks...but my point was that with the G series, Fostex had outclassed the same format Tascam deck, the MSR16, on many levels.
Many G series users who also had Tascam machines, would agree with that...so I think you have to take it on a per model basis, rather than as some blanket view.

I think maybe some of it also has to do with NR preferences...some people liked the DBX, others preferred the Dolby, and with the Dolby S that the G series had in their second production wave (mine was a C)...it really raised the bar....of course, FFW 20 years post-production, and it turned out the S chips had some issues and there was no easy way to replace them when they failed...but again, soundwise, those decks were as close to pro large format as the technology could go, IMO.

They were the Fostex "Delorean" ...classy, lots of promise with pro features...but, the analog rug got pulled out from under them just when they got going.
 
OK Ryan...I'll leave you with your misconceptions, because attempting to have a conversation with you becomes a circular, go-nowhere thing since you first say something that makes no sense, and then I think you realize it at some point, and then you attempt to turn it around and say you never said it...or you start talking about something else, never returning to answer anything about your misconceptions...and round-n-round it goes.

Enjoy your 384 and your B16...and whatever it is you do with all that stuff. :thumbs up:

You keep thinking I keep saying all this stuff that isn't true. I already knew that balanced audio was created for sdending audio signals long distance accuratly. And I vaguely remember them being out of phase for canceling out noise too. But you see I do not use balanced aufdio on a day top day basis nor have I ever used it not even once.

I do not understand what misconceptions you mean, but I am learning here. I am merely going to use the balanced audio to fill up all 16 tracks of tape reel to reel. That way I can down mix all 16 tracks at the same time. Also You only have to arm one of the channels.... My purposes here are not balanced audio purposes. I have ulterior motives.
 
Post #15 on page 2]

You misunderstand me. They use the same 3 pin jacks as stereo.


Also I remember tracks on the Tascam TSR-8 would overlap a bit.


Well geez thanks. In the back of my mind I knew I should have got the Tascam TSR-8 becasue I remember seeing this discussion somewhere before, but I tricked myself think that I could double up channels and that it would bleed out into each other and have the same quality as an 8 track. Either way. It'll be better than a 4 track cassette... Hopefully as tape quality has improved.

ATR Magnetics

I'm still going to double up tracks though. Like to get a nice thick heavy bass. I know that width is good.

I could wire up some xlr to stereo rca and use those to monitor 2 tape channels per mixer channel and use the balanced sub outs to send 16 channels of audio to tape. Quadruple bussing.

Space is an issue.
20200930_201358.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ryan Murphy said:
You misunderstand me. They use the same 3 pin jacks as stereo.

When I think of a connector with 3 pins XLR-M comes to mind. You're probably talking about TRS connectors which are commonly used for balanced lines, stereo lines or inserts. All that stuff and more is covered in the manual for your mixing board. You should read the whole thing, as well as the manual for your recorder.
 
When I think of a connector with 3 pins XLR-M comes to mind. You're probably talking about TRS connectors which are commonly used for balanced lines, stereo lines or inserts. All that stuff and more is covered in the manual for your mixing board. You should read the whole thing, as well as the manual for your recorder.

yeah thats the ones I was talking about. But I am going to try something here. I am going to use the balanced lines to send two channels of audio to the 16 channel tape that way I fill up all 16 channels with 8 outputs and mix it with 8 mixer inputs coming back the same way onto the computer.

I have read that manual before [bits and pieces before I bought the thing; been like 5 years; never used inserts didn't know that thanks!], but I have been using this mixer for years w/o any problems... When I had that TASCAM tsr-8 it was damaged and I had to fix the tension arms. I did get it working. I know how to keep heads clean whit isopropyl and degauss. One of things I made sure of before I bought this unity was that it could spin. The tension arms are well bit. It's strong. It plays rewinds, forward etc... It is also heavy.... I am disappointed to hear that they don't utilize the full tape like the tascam dose, but hopefully it will sound great and I won't notice.
 
I'll try one more time to help...if you're really looking to learn...

I do not understand what misconceptions you mean, but I am learning here.

I'm still going to double up tracks though. Like to get a nice thick heavy bass. I know that width is good.

I am going to use the balanced lines to send two channels of audio to the 16 channel tape that way I fill up all 16 channels with 8 outputs and mix it with 8 mixer inputs coming back the same way onto the computer.

You keep repeating that you're going to "double up" your tracks, and I think you mean to take the balanced lines, and split their +/- signals, so you can then use 8 channels to fill up 16 tracks...basically doubles of 8 signals, because you think 1+1=2 in tape width.

First off...that's not how tape width works. What you end up with are two identical tracks, that are not any wider than a single track. Imagine in simple terms if the sound wave on one track can go up and down only as much as that track width allows...well, that's the exact same thing on the doubled track....there is NO increase in tape width, you basically have two tracks each with the same width, as one track, and summing them will only give you 2x the output level, but it does NOT increase the audio quality or total track width.
I wish you would just understand that and stop ignoring it...it's like you don't believe it, and you're convinced you will get 2X track width. You don't have to take my word...take some time to actually read up on these things...it will save you time and effort.

The other thing...that part about taking a balanced line and splitting the signal to two tracks...well, if the original balanced signal is split in two...you're going to end up with a +/Positive signal on one track, and a -/Negative signal on the second track. When you mix them together, they should cancel out, since they will be 180 degrees out of phase with each other...so that will not even give you doubled level output...you might just hear a small amount of the summed/doubled channels, and it won't be good.

Finally...if you take a single balance line/signal...and split it into two (+/-) signals...you end up with two unbalanced lines/signals...so any noise in them, will no longer be cancelled.

If you don't understand how balanced audio lines work...you can't think of them like an electrician running wires. Read up on that too if you don't want to
 
Back
Top