half-inch models

[FALKEN]

thanks....

 

[mixmkr]

you will only find 1/2", half track stereo decks from manufacturers like Studer, Ampex, etc...or something that has been modified. Tascam, Fostex and Otari for the most part where consumer machines and NOT pro quality at the time. Otari being the best of the bunch, and guaduated into larger format machines. Some of the upper end Tascams like the 42 and 52 approached PRO quality and where found in studios that were on more of a budget and couldn't afford the 'big boy' recorders....or places like radio stations. The 22-2 was the LEAST expensive recorder on the market and only could accept 7 1/2" reels. ..basically for a guy that wanted something a radio station could play, send to press up his 1000 albums, etc. The S/N ratio on those things were pretty horrible, but they did serve their purpose being only about $800 new at the time....about the only way to get into that format without spending some more serious cash...unless you got used or Tascams bigger brothers. ...but you are still not talking pro quality yet. This stuff, I REPEAT, was geared for the hobbiest/home recorder, as that was the only viable format really available at the time. Most people didn't have 20 grand for a stereo deck at the time, but TEAC/Tascam (then followed by Fostex) led the way for limited budgest to at least record at all. Several offshoot companies such as Dokorder existed and probably the recorder made by Revox (B77) was probably the best of the low cost reel to reels....Revox the baby sister company of Studer at the time.

But...anyways... good luck hunting and buying.

Personally, I would not waste your $100 even on a Tascam 1/4" half track machine, as you are falling into the current "trap" that you are going to warm up your tracks mixing to one of these machines. I'd almost rather have a DAT, but that's another subject and debate. I think a good computer with a 24 bit DECENT card will yield MUCH better results.....unless you like tape hiss and a noise floor ONLY down about 50dB.

If you think mixing to a cassette, or something like that will give you a nice analog sound, then it is OBVIOUS you don't even know what you are talking about and are approaching this method completely blind and unaware what the benefits of these various formats are/where.

 

[A Reel Person]

The Fostex E-22 was a pro 1/2" 2-track w/timecode & XLR inputs (+RCA's)..

They're very hard to find, these days.

I don't think he said he needed to warm up his tracks. His basic format is 1/2" reel 16-track, and therefore is already analog, by definition.

Ok, continue with your rant about how 1/2" 16 track is not a pro format.

Thanx.

 

[Beck]

you will only find 1/2", half track stereo decks from manufacturers like Studer, Ampex, etc...or something that has been modified. Tascam, Fostex and Otari for the most part where consumer machines and NOT pro quality at the time. Otari being the best of the bunch, and guaduated into larger format machines. Some of the upper end Tascams like the 42 and 52 approached PRO quality and where found in studios that were on more of a budget and couldn't afford the 'big boy' recorders....or places like radio stations. The 22-2 was the LEAST expensive recorder on the market and only could accept 7 1/2" reels. ..basically for a guy that wanted something a radio station could play, send to press up his 1000 albums, etc. The S/N ratio on those things were pretty horrible....

We interrupt this rant for a special announcement (with no malice or offence intended toward mixmkr).

While I agree that Tascam, Fostex and Otari machines were marketed to a budget minded clientele, I have to respectfully disagree with some things here based upon how a lot of these machines were ultimately used.

I've known too many people over the years with working studios (including myself) that have produced entirely professional recordings with machines like the Tascam 388, 38, TSR-8, Fostex B/E/G 16, etc. This really took off in the 80's to the shock and horror of traditional studios using "real" equipment costing 10 times as much.

When I say professional I'm talking about objective things like frequency response, S/N, crosstalk, THD and wow & flutter, as well as a few intangibles. Tascam for one managed to exceed the specs of some of the older big boys with major advances in head design. And when Akai came out with their proprietary MG1212/1214 12-track it made the skin crawl of many a studio owner that had more invested in their 2-inch 24-tracks than they did their homes.

The terms consumer, semi-pro, and pro are rather ambiguous. In one respect when we talk about pro level and semi-pro level we are literally talking about signal level not quality level. Pro level is nominally +4 dBv and semi-pro is nominally -10 dBv for compatibility reasons.

There is often little or no difference in signal-to-noise between some machines regardless of their operating level or list price. I wouldn't call a s/n ratio of 68 dB w/out noise reduction (NR) horrible. That's what you can expect with the Tascam 32 and 22 series and was pretty standard at the time. The Otari MX5050 around 70 dB and the Tascam BR-20 is a hair better than that at 72 dB (79 dB wtd) -- no significant difference among the lot, considering that many of the biggest studios in the country used some kind of NR anyway. It's almost a moot point.

Having lived through and been a part of the home studio revolution from the beginning this is my 2-cents. Someone with excellent credentials and different experience may disagree-- that's ok. I'm still having the time of my life making exceptional recordings with my hotrod "semi-pro" gear.

-Tim

 

[mixmkr]

Tascam for one managed to exceed the specs of some of the older big boys with major advances in head design. And when Akai came out with their proprietary MG1212/1214 12-track it made the skin crawl of many a studio owner that had more invested in their 2-inch 24-tracks than they did their homes.

I am not going to go back and dig up specs from 25+ years ago, but I feel really confident that you are not correct with those statements. The 22-2 barely squeaked into the 60's if I recall with a S/N, was NOT user friendly for calibrating...as well as basically most of those consumer machines. The headstocks were fixed, if I recall, and calibrating them was usually left to the service shop and not the engineer prior to each session...not to mention even getting to the electronics of the machines for adjustments without having to physically move the machine on its' side or something similar.

I hope you are not refering to the AKAI unit that used the VCR tape and had the mixer all in one. Not a bad unit for sure, but you got to be crazy if you think it compared to a to even a mid priced MCI/Sony machine.

But, I guess that is why you see all these Tascam 38 machine in studios instead of peoples bedrooms Personally, I have never seen a Tascam TSR or 38 in a studio that had a board that cost 20 times as much...or more. Not saying that is what is need for good sounding end product ALL THE TIME, but narrow gauge tape formats ALONG with the operating levels IN MY BOOK differentiate between consumer and "pro" machines.

 

[mixmkr]

Ok, continue with your rant about how 1/2" 16 track is not a pro format.

OK...the 1/2 inch 16 track, pioneered by Fostex is NOT a pro format. They were generally aimed at the home recordist....not for full time operating studios in the commercial market. But, then this debate could go on for days. But, I don't want to get into what is "pro" and "not pro" debate. Obviously there are some "pro" studios with Teac 3340's and a Tapco mixer that is making some $$, but in THIS discussion, that is not what I mean by "pro." It seems apparent you haven't had the benefit of tracking on a 2" 16 track machine...or a 1/2" four track machine for that matter....or (the obvious I guess) 1" 8 eight track for that matter. Saying that a Fostex machine has the "punch, low end balls, even keeled freq. response, low end range, and yeah, S/N ratio as one of these wider guage machines is an opinion you are certainly entitled to, but I think there are more people that would ultimately disagree, rather than agree with that statement.

 

[mixmkr]

and apologies for coming on 'strong' with what appears as a "rant"...certainly not my intentions, except I am pretty much unmoveable in my opinion on this subject.

Carry on....I'll try and play "nicer"

 

[Beck]

OK...the 1/2 inch 16 track, pioneered by Fostex is NOT a pro format. They were generally aimed at the home recordist....not for full time operating studios in the commercial market. But, then this debate could go on for days. But, I don't want to get into what is "pro" and "not pro" debate. Obviously there are some "pro" studios with Teac 3340's and a Tapco mixer that is making some $$, but in THIS discussion, that is not what I mean by "pro." It seems apparent you haven't had the benefit of tracking on a 2" 16 track machine...or a 1/2" four track machine for that matter....or (the obvious I guess) 1" 8 eight track for that matter. Saying that a Fostex machine has the "punch, low end balls, even keeled freq. response, low end range, and yeah, S/N ratio as one of these wider guage machines is an opinion you are certainly entitled to, but I think there are more people that would ultimately disagree, rather than agree with that statement.

Unmovable is ok -- I know how it is.

What you're saying about the balls and punch of the wider track machines is a point well taken and understood. However, if those balls and that punch never make it to the end product -- CD, cassette, LP, whatever it happens to be past or present, what good is it?

The processing, compression and low frequency roll-off that has always been a part of the journey to the consumer end product has the effect of filtering out a lot of what the original big boy machines had that lesser machines don't. It is this realazation that persuaded a lot of people to give narrower track formats a hard look. If we all listened to music at home on 2" tape, well that would be a different story.

I've had the benefit of using all manner of so-called pro and semi-pro equipment over the years. From looking at pictures of Reel's studio I would say he has had exposure to even more equipment than I have.

I'm assuming you have had the opportunity to work with what you would call semi-pro and just don't care for it. That's perfectly fine. I think the value in this forum is sharing different experience and success stories.

My bottom line message to all is that you can achieve professional results without mortgaging your house to build a studio. And not to open another can of worms, but when comparing vintage Tascam and Fostex machines to the current digital "state of the art" they are even more impressive and advantageous. In my humble opinion, the decision of the industry to abandon analog in favor of digital has only served to close the gap between "pro" and "semi-pro" studios.

-Tim

 

[Beck]

I do tend to dig up specs from 25 years ago by the way. The 22-2 was indeed a 68 dB machine and unlike many of their competitors Tascam's specs were conservative. Independent tests time and time again bore this out -- I have those too. Ok, I'm a hopeless packrat.

 

[FALKEN]

WHOOOOAAAAA.


first of all, I am not going to put one of those reels the size of a washing machine in my house.


that being said,

I plan on mixing down to 24-bit digital AND half track split signal. so, HA!

I plan on releasing some vinyl, so It would be reasonable to stay in the analog realm the entire way.

however, for getting a CD mastered, I will probably have to try both digital and analog versions and see which sounds more palatable.

however,

the original intent of this thread, is that right now prices are rock bottom on pretty much all of this stuff. I want to make 1 or 2 informed purchases, and hang on to them for YEARS.

other recent threads have said that new formats will be coming out soon;
or that there is an analog resurgeance on the way. I am just trying to buy at the low while I still can.

But I still am not going to spend $10,000! or even 5k, or even 3k.

while I think that an Otari would fit my needs fine, I am curious on what mixmkr's choice gear goes for on the bay.

 

[BRDTS]

Here's some general info based on my experience...

First of all, I still periodically use an 8516b, TSR8, MSR24 for tracking..sometimes..for tracking some things. Sometimes for convenience, sometimes when I need a fast capture method for a remote setup, sometimes because I get a sound I'm not getting directly into Nuendo. I also still do this occasionally with a stack of 3 synchronized D-90's which are only 16 bit, but also give a very appropriate sound in some cases.

What I create with all the above makes it onto finished commercial cd's, dvd's and in several cases, onto the air on tv. Several of these things are due to make it onto indie film projects, although who knows what "indie" ever ends up meaning. I make my living, a very good living, with all this stuff...it all works.

In my book, that makes all these tools professional.

Long gone are the days of anyone coming in here and looking around to see whether the tape formats are 2", 1", half inch or otherwise. Of course, no one even looks to see if tape is here and most of my clients wouldn't have a clue what tape does. Computers they know. Tape they don't.

Now, I know for a fact that a 2" Studer 24 track or an old 2" MCI sound "bigger" than the analog tracks I make. I've heard it with my own ears in specific occasions to judge for myself. I also understand why that happens. And someday, I may just take Studer up on one of those reissued A80's at $32,000 when they periodically do their nostalgia runs. But that'll be just for me. It won't impact my work one way or the other.

That being said, here's my own personal recommendation regarding what a newbie should get for a single analog recorder....

Get one multitrack machine. Record all you want but be sure to dump the tracks to computer for safekeeping and for mixdown. If you only buy an eight track, fill up 8 tracks and then dump to computer. Don't record six tracks and then submix those to the last two tracks on your machine. Someday, you'll be glad you have all those individual unmixed tracks to remix or for your kids to remix.

What brand and format of multitrack?

My personal preference is Tascam because imo, they have the deepest stock of parts. Which you will need. In comparing similar formats, the sonic quality of Otari, Fostex, and Tascam are about the same. By the mid 70's everyone was using basically the same technology for these machines. But again, I believe Tascam wins in parts availability.

Format?

The "biggest" ,more live sounding capture happens on the widest track format for any given tape. There was a post somewhere where a guy asked if he should mix his projects down to stereo by mixing onto a half inch 16 track ...stereo ..repeated over and over across all the various tracks...because the machine used half inch tape. That's kinda like saying, if I buy thirty 19" tvs at Sears and stack them all up in my living room, will I have a big screen tv.

For best sonics, I say go for the smallest number of tracks on the widest available tape.

For example, the TSR8 and MSR16 both use half inch tape. A tsr8, to me, sounds "bigger" on playback if you record say four tracks of the exact same drum part on both machines. Why? Because the actual width given to each track on that half inch tape is "bigger" on the tsr8 compared to the msr16.

Some folks and I actually tried this one afternoon on these two machines back in 1991 or so. Imo, there was more depth to what was coming out of the TSr8 as we switched back and forth between the two machines' playback on the console.

The next comparison we did was playing the same 4 drum tracks on the msr16 along with the same drum parts recorded onto one of the older 8516b's. Same thing. The 8516b reproduced a "bigger" sound at playback. In practice, the 8516b has 16 tracks on one inch tape which roughly correlates to the same track "width" as what the TSr8 does with eight tracks on half inch tape.

Of course, a 2" MCI was even bigger sounding than the 8516 during a different test at a different time, but I could easily see how track width affects sound. Frequency response, noise figures etc etc just don't matter with the major brands. They're all about the same. Imo, any given noticeable increase in perceived sound "quality" is going to be due to wider tape with fewest tracks. At 15ips by the way. I don't like 30ips at all.

Knowing what I knew about the differences in sound, it was a little unusual that I would buy an MSR24 as it represents extreme track "squashing" onto one inch tape. But at the time I bought it, the price was great, a small 24 track machine would be more flexible for various projects I had, and we were still in the days before great pc multitrack tools. And, despite however my msr24 may not be able to stand up to the sonics of wider tracks, it's still a great little machine. Which I still sometimes use.

Now...all of this is relatively minor stuff. You pick up on these differences if you're around this stuff all the time. You immediately hear it if you put a few Tascams/Fostex's/Otari small format machines next to a 2". Will Joe Blow hear the difference between a tsr8 and msr16? Or an Otari 5050 next to an 80-8. Will it prevent professional, commercial, releasable, competitive products from being created and released on it?

Nope.

 

[FALKEN]

There was a post somewhere where a guy asked if he should mix his projects down to stereo by mixing onto a half inch 16 track ...stereo ..repeated over and over across all the various tracks...because the machine used half inch tape. That's kinda like saying, if I buy thirty 19" tvs at Sears and stack them all up in my living room, will I have a big screen tv.

that was ME!

hahahaha


thanks for the info dude. unfortunately; we're discussing half-tracks. good stuff, though.

 

[cjacek]

Shit, some really great and informative posts!

Thanks!

~Daniel

 

[A Reel Person]

...

The track width on the MSR-24 is wider than the MSR-16.

 

[mixmkr]

Here's some general info based on my experience...

First of all, I still periodically use an 8516b, TSR8, MSR24 for tracking..sometimes..for tracking some things. Sometimes for convenience, sometimes when I need a fast capture method for a remote setup, sometimes because I get a sound I'm not getting directly into Nuendo. I also still do this occasionally with a stack of 3 synchronized D-90's which are only 16 bit, but also give a very appropriate sound in some cases.

What I create with all the above makes it onto finished commercial cd's, dvd's and in several cases, onto the air on tv. Several of these things are due to make it onto indie film projects, although who knows what "indie" ever ends up meaning. I make my living, a very good living, with all this stuff...it all works.

In my book, that makes all these tools professional.

Long gone are the days of anyone coming in here and looking around to see whether the tape formats are 2", 1", half inch or otherwise. Of course, no one even looks to see if tape is here and most of my clients wouldn't have a clue what tape does. Computers they know. Tape they don't.

Now, I know for a fact that a 2" Studer 24 track or an old 2" MCI sound "bigger" than the analog tracks I make. I've heard it with my own ears in specific occasions to judge for myself. I also understand why that happens. And someday, I may just take Studer up on one of those reissued A80's at $32,000 when they periodically do their nostalgia runs. But that'll be just for me. It won't impact my work one way or the other.

That being said, here's my own personal recommendation regarding what a newbie should get for a single analog recorder....

Get one multitrack machine. Record all you want but be sure to dump the tracks to computer for safekeeping and for mixdown. If you only buy an eight track, fill up 8 tracks and then dump to computer. Don't record six tracks and then submix those to the last two tracks on your machine. Someday, you'll be glad you have all those individual unmixed tracks to remix or for your kids to remix.

What brand and format of multitrack?

My personal preference is Tascam because imo, they have the deepest stock of parts. Which you will need. In comparing similar formats, the sonic quality of Otari, Fostex, and Tascam are about the same. By the mid 70's everyone was using basically the same technology for these machines. But again, I believe Tascam wins in parts availability.

Format?

The "biggest" ,more live sounding capture happens on the widest track format for any given tape. There was a post somewhere where a guy asked if he should mix his projects down to stereo by mixing onto a half inch 16 track ...stereo ..repeated over and over across all the various tracks...because the machine used half inch tape. That's kinda like saying, if I buy thirty 19" tvs at Sears and stack them all up in my living room, will I have a big screen tv.

For best sonics, I say go for the smallest number of tracks on the widest available tape.

For example, the TSR8 and MSR16 both use half inch tape. A tsr8, to me, sounds "bigger" on playback if you record say four tracks of the exact same drum part on both machines. Why? Because the actual width given to each track on that half inch tape is "bigger" on the tsr8 compared to the msr16.

Some folks and I actually tried this one afternoon on these two machines back in 1991 or so. Imo, there was more depth to what was coming out of the TSr8 as we switched back and forth between the two machines' playback on the console.

The next comparison we did was playing the same 4 drum tracks on the msr16 along with the same drum parts recorded onto one of the older 8516b's. Same thing. The 8516b reproduced a "bigger" sound at playback. In practice, the 8516b has 16 tracks on one inch tape which roughly correlates to the same track "width" as what the TSr8 does with eight tracks on half inch tape.

Of course, a 2" MCI was even bigger sounding than the 8516 during a different test at a different time, but I could easily see how track width affects sound. Frequency response, noise figures etc etc just don't matter with the major brands. They're all about the same. Imo, any given noticeable increase in perceived sound "quality" is going to be due to wider tape with fewest tracks. At 15ips by the way. I don't like 30ips at all.

Knowing what I knew about the differences in sound, it was a little unusual that I would buy an MSR24 as it represents extreme track "squashing" onto one inch tape. But at the time I bought it, the price was great, a small 24 track machine would be more flexible for various projects I had, and we were still in the days before great pc multitrack tools. And, despite however my msr24 may not be able to stand up to the sonics of wider tracks, it's still a great little machine. Which I still sometimes use.

Now...all of this is relatively minor stuff. You pick up on these differences if you're around this stuff all the time. You immediately hear it if you put a few Tascams/Fostex's/Otari small format machines next to a 2". Will Joe Blow hear the difference between a tsr8 and msr16? Or an Otari 5050 next to an 80-8. Will it prevent professional, commercial, releasable, competitive products from being created and released on it?

Nope.

Great post, and I pretty much agree with most of it. There are some extremely talanted people making some extreme quality product on what I would call "semi-pro"... there are always exceptions. However, like you said, there is a noticeable difference with the wider guage formats.... enough so that I think it makes a big difference in the final product. Kinda the same argument the digital folks say to track in 24 bits even though it ends up on a 16 bit CD.

That said, I wore out an 80-8 and put some good use on a Tascam 38. Great machines. But the 2 inch machines I used back when blew them out of the water on stuff like drums and bass.

Another note... don't expect to sync up some of those older machines to your computer to dump tracks....unless you dump ALL the tracks in one pass. As you already probably know, many of the lower priced models won't chase a time code, and aren't accurate enough to "nudge" them in the computer as they will end up to be different lengths (in time)...usually quite noticeable over a minute or so....and useless when you hit the 3 minute mark.


btw...you see those good ole 'washing machines' on Ebay...as someone was wondering... in the under $5000 mark for GOOD machines. Pick up a board for the same, you'll have that $100,000 studio (of the 80's) for a 1/10th the price or less.

 

[Beck]

All good points -- no doubt the practice of working in higher resolution digital or in analog before going to digital is "best practices" for that technology.

There are some similarities in analog to a degree, but for different reasons. In the analog realm if we are comparing say, 1" 8-track to 1/2" 8-track we are talking about the wider width having more of something rather than something different all together.

So the analogy goes like this:

The end product is a consumer CD, which is an 8-ounce cup. The 1" 8-track format is a 32-ounce container filled to the top. The 1/2" 8-track format is a 16-ounce container filled to the top.

You will fill the 8-ounce cup to the top and overflowing with the contents of the 16-ounce container. You can't fill the 8-ounce cup any more full with the contents of the 20-ounce container. The excess just spills over the sides.

In keeping with the original theme of the thread the same analogy holds water when comparing 1/4" half-track and 1/2" half-track.

Now if we could just find some real talent worth recording these days this discussion of what to record with would be more than academic.

 

[cjacek]

CD's are simply not cabable of storing the mega resolution sound images of the many analog tape recorders, so I'm with Tim on this.

I feel that anything beyond the track width of a TASCAM 34, 38 or similar is just gonna be lost when transferred to CD, especially the lows.

The one recorder which pretty much matches, imho, what the CD can capture in its whole, not less not more, is the 388 (with dbx ON). Take a listen to ARP's Love Me Do or any of the 388 tunes on Dave's site and I'm sure you'll agree. Wonderful Hi-Fi sound, tho the track width is that of what you'd find on a cassette portastudio. The big 388 difference, however, is in the superior electronics, dbx 1 NR, 7 1/2 ips and, of course, the talented musician.

Indeed, the topic of "pro" track widths is mostly academic and doesn't really apply to 99.9% of us home recording enthusiasts. Interesting read tho.

~Daniel

 

[FALKEN]

Indeed, the topic of "pro" track widths is mostly academic and doesn't really apply to 99.9% of us home recording enthusiasts. Interesting read tho.

~Daniel

I still believe that I can make better than radio-quality stuff with my 1/2" 16 track and PC. Not that I have; that I can. rather; will. Didn't the stones record on 1/2" 16 track?

 

[acorec]

We interrupt this rant for a special announcement (with no malice or offence intended toward mixmkr).

While I agree that Tascam, Fostex and Otari machines were marketed to a budget minded clientele, I have to respectfully disagree with some things here based upon how a lot of these machines were ultimately used.

I've known too many people over the years with working studios (including myself) that have produced entirely professional recordings with machines like the Tascam 388, 38, TSR-8, Fostex B/E/G 16, etc. This really took off in the 80's to the shock and horror of traditional studios using "real" equipment costing 10 times as much.

When I say professional I'm talking about objective things like frequency response, S/N, crosstalk, THD and wow & flutter, as well as a few intangibles. Tascam for one managed to exceed the specs of some of the older big boys with major advances in head design. And when Akai came out with their proprietary MG1212/1214 12-track it made the skin crawl of many a studio owner that had more invested in their 2-inch 24-tracks than they did their homes.

The terms consumer, semi-pro, and pro are rather ambiguous. In one respect when we talk about pro level and semi-pro level we are literally talking about signal level not quality level. Pro level is nominally +4 dBv and semi-pro is nominally -10 dBv for compatibility reasons.

There is often little or no difference in signal-to-noise between some machines regardless of their operating level or list price. I wouldn't call a s/n ratio of 68 dB w/out noise reduction (NR) horrible. That's what you can expect with the Tascam 32 and 22 series and was pretty standard at the time. The Otari MX5050 around 70 dB and the Tascam BR-20 is a hair better than that at 72 dB (79 dB wtd) -- no significant difference among the lot, considering that many of the biggest studios in the country used some kind of NR anyway. It's almost a moot point.

Having lived through and been a part of the home studio revolution from the beginning this is my 2-cents. Someone with excellent credentials and different experience may disagree-- that's ok. I'm still having the time of my life making exceptional recordings with my hotrod "semi-pro" gear.

-Tim

I agree that these home-recording machines were and are great sounding machines fully capable of producing professional-sounding recordings.

I have had the Tascam 80-8, I have the Fostex E-16 and have had the Otari MX5050 8. All great machines in their own right.

However.

They are definately not pro machines by any stretch.

I also have an late model MCI JH24-24 2" deck made only a few years before the Fostex E-16.

The MCI will outlive all three of these machines if they are used in series!

The MCI sounds *far better* than any of these machines and have so many sound qualities that cannot be attained by any of the 1/2" machines without a ton of work or outboard devices.

Pro machines are pro because they are built to run 24/7 and to pile-up the hours on the heads.

The 1/2" machines are great for the home studio. I still love 'em. But they don'tlast in a pro working environment.

My Tascam 80-8 literally wore out so badly that there were just about no good spare parts to be salvaged.

The same thing with my old Otari.

The only reason my Fostex is still in mint condition is because of my MCI.

Oh well, enough babbling on............

 

[FALKEN]

I agree that these home-recording machines were and are great sounding machines fully capable of producing professional-sounding recordings.

I have had the Tascam 80-8, I have the Fostec E-16 and have had the Otari MX5050 8. All great machines in their own right.

how did your E-16 compare to the 80-8 or the 5050?
(I have an E-16 and am thinking about getting one of those 2 to get a better quality sound; if indeed it is worth the difference).


...Didn't AKAI invent some sort of heads that don't wear out?