MCI2424 said:
I don't see them using a 388 at all on any of their albums. Actually knowing a few of the engineers who worked with these artists confirms that the stories are only 1/2 right.
You guys will try anything to justify using the hunk. I swear, I love this BBS because the comfort level of all the mangled stories in history is at the highest.
No MCI, it’s quite the opposite with you in particular. You regularly dismiss well-documented, verifiable information (which is the only kind I share here), and even global industry standards in favor of your own limited experience and exposure (real or imagined).
Your misconceptions are the standard that you insist the rest of the recording world must conform. You can only get away with that sort of nonsense in cyber-reality. It doesn’t matter who you are, who you know, where you’ve been, what you’ve done or how long you’ve done it… you generally speak here like a rookie… an eternal white belt.
You knowing professor X, Y and Z, whether true or not is not a sound argument because you haven’t established yourself as a credible source – far from it. Why should we let you speak for anyone when they do a fine job of speaking for themselves?
I am familiar with Daniel’s reference to Madonna and it is absolute incontrovertible fact. Furthermore, my reference concerning Jay Levy and Aretha Franklin is not an urban legend. It’s right here in my hand – pre-Internet in an official Tascam publication from 1990.
The publication contains a two-page interview with Jay Levy in which he praises the 388 for various features and also reveals the following:
“I can get most of my work done on the 388 and only use 24-track occasionally”
Hmmm, now why would Levy want to use the 388 at all when he had access to the highest state of the art available at the time? Could it be he had some talent and ability – something crazy like that?
Like Madonna, many of his original tracks recorded at home on the 388 ultimately ended up on the finished product. This was common in analog project studios – the norm. I guess you had to be there.
As entertaining as you find argument for arguments sake, I wouldn’t bother to participate in any dialog with you on any subject, if it weren’t for the fact that through my silence, I would be an accessory in your effort to sabotage this forum.
You can’t patronize people like Daniel or me, and you know it. Your rhetoric is intended for those younger and new to analog. And it’s for their sakes that I can’t pull any punches. I don’t mean to be unkind, but you give a person no choice. For the record I have to say, your contributions are generally uninformed and inaccurate to the point of absurdity.
We’re all really sorry you couldn’t get anything out of the 388 when you used it. That’s a bummer. However, Tascam does clearly state in the manual the following sage wisdom:
“Recording is an art as well as a science. As a result, your finished product may be judged more by artistic criteria than technical performance. Art is the province of the artist and TASCAM can make no guarantee that the Studio 8, by itself, will assure the quality of your work. Your skill as a technician and your abilities as an artist will be significant factors in the results you achieve.”
