Is the Tascam 388 with my digital stuff gonna be an improvement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocket Boy
  • Start date Start date
R

Rocket Boy

New member
I'm thinking of combining a Tascam 388 with my current Delta 1010/Mackie 1604VlzPro setup. Like, recording analog and then dumping it all into the computer. Is this going to really improve my sound, or would it be better spent on just getting better pres/mics and is this the machine to go for, or is there another one that would give me better results for what I'm asking. Thanks.
 
Im going to have to disagree with Outlaw. The 388 is a great analog machine and sounds wonderful. 1/4 inch 8 tracks have been around for quite a while now. Units like the Fostex r8 and the tascam 388 all sound good.


I Will promise you this that if you get a 388 that is in good working condition
you will never be disapointed in its sound.
I have had 3 fostex r8,s that where 1/4 x 8 tracks and I have 3 tascam 388,s
I dont have 3 of them just because they are pretty.
Get one and you can say good buy to that cold harsh sound you are getting from your delta and mackie.

Your turn Reel
 
Last edited:
I don't recall Outlaw's analog pedigree,...

from which he can come out with such an authoritative sounding statement.
Refresh my memory, if you will, please? Otherwise, STFU!
 
the 388 does have 8 outs - right?

ya know, so i can get what we record into my computer... also, how do the tascam pre's compare to Mackie pre's? if the pre's are worse than those, i might consider not getting an all-in-one system and just using the pre's in that.

what's a good 1/2" 8 track without built in pre's to look at in the same approximate price range? or am i really even gonna hear a difference between a 1/4" 8 track and a 1/2" 8 track?
 
also!

how do the different brands compare? tascam, otari, fostex ... does it really matter?
 
Oh, yes, you'll hear a difference between 1/4" and 1/2"-8-tracks!!

However, there are no 1/2" 8-track all-in-one'ers, like the 1/4" 388. There are no 1/2" 8-tracks with built in pre's, at all, and the 388 is one of a kind.

Start there, as a baseline.

I don't know much, or have any affinity for a PC based digital DAW system, but I'd rather get the 388 on it's own merits, and use it as such.

I do get my 388's because they're pretty, very pretty, but also for the unequalled feature set and great sound quality of the 388.

YMMV.
 
A Reel Person said:
from which he can come out with such an authoritative sounding statement.
Refresh my memory, if you will, please? Otherwise, STFU!
Click to expand...


Oh thats right....."Mr. I record on cassette tapes" most of the time likes to think he knows quality.


The 388 is an 8 track 7 1/2 ips machine.

Mine is a 4 track at 7 1/2 ips and I wouldn't even think to use it as a general "warming" tool for digital.

Analog is good and has its place...but to just generalize that its always better than digital is just stupid.

A quarter inch tape machine with 8 tracks is nothing compared to the quality of most 24 bit digital gizmos available today.
 
Okay Bernston, nice reply.

First, I'm not trying to convert anyone to analog. He asked a specific question, and I gave a specific answer.

Second, that whole digital-better-than-analog-better-than-digital argument is stupid. I did not, for one second, enter into that argument with anyone.

I just said, I'd get and use the 388 on it's own merit, and I'd not go digital, no matter how many bits they flashed at me,... & YMMV.

Third, if you have a 4-track 7.5ips reel recorder, then I'm happy for you, and if you feel it's crappy, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

I don't buy the main bulk of your argument, Outlaws, so save it for someone who cares. Recording onto cassettes is still plenty viable in hifi terms, or any other terms, and I've heard plenty of digitally recorded pieces that did not impress me, in the least.

PS: Do not try to put analog "in it's place", or by inference, put me in my place. You & I have quite different views on these matters, it's obvious. I do record onto cassettes, and I do know quality. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Your preconcieved "place" for analog, and mine, are two totally different things.
 
Gosh! :eek:

It's becoming like the Microphone forum in here!! :D

Cheers! :)
 
A Reel Person said:
First, I'm not trying to convert anyone to analog. He asked a specific question, and I gave a specific answer.

Second, that whole digital-better-than-analog-better-than-digital argument is stupid. I did not, for one second, enter into that argument with anyone.

I just said, I'd get and use the 388 on it's own merit, and I'd not go digital, no matter how many bits they flashed at me,... & YMMV.

Third, if you have a 4-track 7.5ips reel recorder, then I'm happy for you, and if you feel it's crappy, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

I don't buy the main bulk of your argument, Outlaws, so save it for someone who cares. Recording onto cassettes is still plenty viable in hifi terms, or any other terms, and I've heard plenty of digitally recorded pieces that did not impress me, in the least.

PS: Do not try to put analog "in it's place", or by inference, put me in my place. You & I have quite different views on these matters, it's obvious. I do record onto cassettes, and I do know quality. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Your preconcieved "place" for analog, and mine, are two totally different things.
Click to expand...


(in response to the bolded part)
Is that why you just typed a fairly good lenth reply?
 
Thanx Outlaws.

You haven't seen lengthy, man. :eek:
 
1/4" 8 track is fine for making really good sounding demos. Some even sounds like it could be released. It doesnt sound as good as 2" 16 track. But if you wanna make a really good sounding reference of songs you write it sounds great, and people always ask me "wow what'd you record this on?"
 
Tascam 388

I think the Tascam 388 is the best machine in its class. However, you have to record with the DBX on. The noise reduction on this system is what gives it a major advantage over other tape machines, particuarly in this price range of tape machines. I've used cassette machines and never bothered with the noise reduction because I never heard any improvements over the sound. But, whoever designed the DBX on the 388 really knew what they were doing and it sounds drastically better without any hiss (unless you don't hit the tape hard enough, of course).

The frequency response is better than any digital equipment at this price range, and for that alone I think the machine is worth it. If you want to hear a song my band Night Stalker has done on my 388, check out www.nightstalkermusic.com, go to the MP3's page and listen to "Heart of Stone." The other songs on that page were recorded on a 2 inch, 24 track tape machine. In all instances, all of these songs were mixed to a digital hard-drive. Although you'll be comparing MP3's, there really isn't a huge difference in quality between the 388 and the 2 incher.

I really think the 388 helps soften the blow when going to digital. I wouldn't necessarily transfer track to track to digital, because I think there are a lot of mixing options on the 388, but anything can work of course.

-MD
 
Last edited:
Techically,...

the 388 is the only one in it's class, being a Portastudio format, all-in-one'er,... but if you want to lump all other Fostex 1/4"-8-track R/R recorders with the 388, then I won't split hairs over that issue.

The dbx is an integral part of the 388 system, and adds a lot to the overall fidelity.

Mixing options? Dude, for that alone, the 388 is "best" in it's class,... and I'm now comparing the 388 to every other all-in-one-8-tracker with that statement, the rest of the "competition" in the field being digital.

Hey, if someone wants to live & die by digital recording, that's their business, but for self-contained, all-in-one 8-trackers, the 388 is tops, and can't be beaten..

Stay up late, or work overtime trying to think of a single, self-contained 8-track recording & mixing package that'll beat the 388, but you're wasting your time. Get the 388 on it's own merits, and say goodnight.

That's apart from the digital/analog sync question, of the original post, or any other sort of analog vs. digital rhetoric. I'm not trying to convert anyone to analog, and I'm not necessarily concerned how a 388 would mesh with, or add to the scope of a digital recording system. The 388 stands on it's own, as a top choice piece of gear, for sound and features alike.

Fostex 1/4" 8-track R/R's hardly compare to the 388, but they have their own appeal, on a somewhat different level. I hardly ever lump the 388 with the Fostex line of 1/4" 8-tracks, but it's a legitimate, if uneven comparison.
 
Outlaws said:
Oh thats right....."Mr. I record on cassette tapes" most of the time likes to think he knows quality.


The 388 is an 8 track 7 1/2 ips machine.

Mine is a 4 track at 7 1/2 ips and I wouldn't even think to use it as a general "warming" tool for digital.

Analog is good and has its place...but to just generalize that its always better than digital is just stupid.

A quarter inch tape machine with 8 tracks is nothing compared to the quality of most 24 bit digital gizmos available today.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I just sold my Tascam 2488 which was two and half months old to a friend and bought an old 388 .... My friend kept the 2488 for three weeks, then after hearing my recordings sold it to buy a 388 he found for $200 at a pawn shop. There is no comparing, the 388 gives you a much more professional sound in every way shape and form. I have yet to hear anything on the digital front in the mid-priced range that even comes close.
 
I have yet to hear anything on the digital front in the mid-priced range that even comes close.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to soil the purity of the analog waters here, I must confess to hearing a number of recording made on the 2488 and was shamefully impressed with the quality! :eek:

Perhaps, in the end, all equipment, analog or digital, is only as good as the artisans who use them to create their works much like the concept of different paint, brushes and canvases to the painter.

Cheers! :)
 
Rocket Boy said:
I'm thinking of combining a Tascam 388 with my current Delta 1010/Mackie 1604VlzPro setup. Like, recording analog and then dumping it all into the computer. Is this going to really improve my sound, or would it be better spent on just getting better pres/mics and is this the machine to go for, or is there another one that would give me better results for what I'm asking. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Seems like that would be really flexible. Improving the sound? I dunno, but editing would be pretty cool.

Ya know as I read this thread, I am inspired to offer this recording:

www.prayerfurnace.org/magicfingers.asf

This was done on a 388 back long before pro tools, etc. I think it sounds pretty damn good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top