looking for info on a Tascam 688

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hi_Flyer
  • Start date Start date
Aaaaggghghhh!

I think it would be worth it to get it fixed, no matter how many people you call. TEAC in Montebello won't say that. Tascam fixes their own gear, even older gear. You'd have to ship it to 'em. :eek:
 
I don't know about that, but...

it was my mistake. The 688 has a belt drive. I was mistaking it for the 238 DD. ;)

Eh,... belts & other wear may be service issues, but I'd not worry too much about it unless I had audible problems, like wow & flutter, lack of gain or high freq response. On the other hand, having a checkout and service w/calibration never hurt, either.

DIY on calibration is a real commitment. That's why tech time goes at a price.

It would be worth finding a tech, IMO. Again, YMMV. {Your Mileage May Vary}

Pls catch my edit, above!;)
 
Hi Flyer, how are things progressing with your 688? I have had my 688 since October 1990, and recorded extensively with it. Of course a cassette will never have the sound quality of a reel-based recorder, such as the 388. That said, the 688 remains my favorite Tascam Portastudio product, ever, period. I am fully aware of all of their products from the 144 forward, as I really wanted a 144 in 1980 when I was 17! I finally got a Porta One in 1988 and used it heavily until I got my 688 in 1990. I also got a 424 in 1992, which I still have and use to this day. Last summer, I picked up a Tascam 564, and I have begun working with the MD format lately. Given that I live in an apartment that is crammed with gear and over 30 computers (!), and my band has a small (10 x 20) rehearsal room, the Portastudios really work well for me. Someday, I'd like to have the room for a 388 or something larger, but over the past 17 years the Tascam Portastudios have served my creative needs well. Everyone has their preferences, abilities and opinions, but all that really matters is what works for you, and what you enjoy using. That said, please let us know how your 688 is working out for you. Even veteran 688 users, such as myself, can learn something from someone new to the machine. Everyone's perspective is relevant.
:cool: Heather
 
Sexy Heather said:
Hi Flyer, how are things progressing with your 688? I have had my 688 since October 1990, and recorded extensively with it. Of course a cassette will never have the sound quality of a reel-based recorder, such as the 388. That said, the 688 remains my favorite Tascam Portastudio product, ever, period. I am fully aware of all of their products from the 144 forward, as I really wanted a 144 in 1980 when I was 17! I finally got a Porta One in 1988 and used it heavily until I got my 688 in 1990. I also got a 424 in 1992, which I still have and use to this day. Last summer, I picked up a Tascam 564, and I have begun working with the MD format lately. Given that I live in an apartment that is crammed with gear and over 30 computers (!), and my band has a small (10 x 20) rehearsal room, the Portastudios really work well for me. Someday, I'd like to have the room for a 388 or something larger, but over the past 17 years the Tascam Portastudios have served my creative needs well. Everyone has their preferences, abilities and opinions, but all that really matters is what works for you, and what you enjoy using. That said, please let us know how your 688 is working out for you. Even veteran 688 users, such as myself, can learn something from someone new to the machine. Everyone's perspective is relevant.
:cool: Heather
Click to expand...
Wow...time flies, eh...:(
 
the 688 is working out OK. Its not actually mine, but it belongs to a friend although we have been working on some recording projects together.

We have been recording on the 688 and then bouncing the tracks to my PC to mix, so I don't think I can offer any kind of fresh insight or approaches to the 688, as my use has been limited to tracking... But its obviously a pretty powerful mixer, and if I had some decent outboard gear I would like to try mixing directly from the 688 instead of going into DAW first... Right now, its just easier (and cheaper) to mix on a PC.

The cassette format sounded better than I thought it would, but I still want to step up to a reel-to-reel someday. We haven't taken the unit to a tech for head alignment or calibration or anything like that, but we've been cleaning and degaussing the heads and tape path on a regular basis. I'd be interested to see if it would sound any better if we had it serviced by a real tech. What kind of maintenance have you long time 688 users had performed on your machines? Have you ever had the heads aligned or calibrated it for the kind of tape you use? I'm just wondering if that is a little bit excessive for this class of machine...

I'll try to post a few mp3s of some of the stuff we have been working on.
 
OK, so here are the long-awaited mp3s of the stuff I've been working on...


This one is my band. Its a live recording of us rocking the hell out of this bar just outside of Pittsburgh... recorded live to a Tascam 688 and mixed in n-Track.


This one is a project I've been working on for a friend's band. The instruments were recorded to a 688, and the vocals were overdubbed on the computer, and mixed in n-Track.
 
Wow!

Hi_Flyer said:
OK, so here are the long-awaited mp3s of the stuff I've been working on...


This one is my band. Its a live recording of us rocking the hell out of this bar just outside of Pittsburgh... recorded live to a Tascam 688 and mixed in n-Track....
Click to expand...
That recording Rocked!

I don't know how anyone could criticize the audio performance of the 688 after hearing that! It sounded good, clear, and robust to me!..................;)
 
1-2-3-4!.....That one jammed!

Hi_Flyer said:
OK,...

This one is a project I've been working on for a friend's band. The instruments were recorded to a 688, and the vocals were overdubbed on the computer, and mixed in n-Track.
Click to expand...

I'll be a monkey's uncle if that wasn't a rave up rocker in the style of the Ramones! Had I not known it was home recording, I'd have sworn it was a Ramones recording! This recording thoroughly rocked!

There's no one in their right mind who could condemn the sound of the 688 after hearing that!! I'm sold!! I'm going out & buying a 688 right now!! Oh wait, I already have one! Aw heck, that justifies getting TWO! ;)
 
Most reviews concerning small tape (cassette 8 track) versus big tape (2” 24 track) favor the big tape, usually saying you can’t get the “big” sound on small tape. I still believe it’s how and what’s used to get the sound on either small or big tape. I believe this because I have loads of commercial cassette tapes, as well as cassette tapes I’ve recorded from the radio, that sound as “big” as any tape could possibly sound, including vinyl records. Years ago we used to use a regular old standard speed 2-track cassette deck to record with. The only way those recordings could have been any better would have been better mics, mixers, and other peripheral gear other than the deck itself. My very humblest of opinions.
 
Yeah, Hi Flyer, the tracks sound great. Lemme ask this. What is the general opinion of the pre's in the 388? I'm gonna own one real soon and was just curious how many of you go straight into it as opposed to external pre's.
 
I use the built in pre's on the 388.

I'm sure that is no surprise.;)
 
monty said:
Most reviews concerning small tape (cassette 8 track) versus big tape (2” 24 track) favor the big tape, usually saying you can’t get the “big” sound on small tape. I still believe it’s how and what’s used to get the sound on either small or big tape.
Click to expand...

hmm... well, I have very limited personal experience with much else other than the cassette-based formats so take my opinion for what its worth... however I imagine that even though I'm getting decent results with the cassette-based recorder, I would get much better results using something like 1/2" tape.

One thing I've noticed about the 688 is that it sounds pretty dull. I have to boost the high end on the drum overheads to get them to sound "lively" enough. Maybe this is an issue with this machine and it needs service (head alignment?), maybe its just a limitation of the format, I don't know. I've heard some stuff that some local guys are doing with a 2" Otari deck, and even though their mixes suck, there is just something bigger about the sound of their tracks. Its kind of hard to put into words without using the cliches like "fatter", but thats pretty much what it sounds like to my ears...

I can hear a pretty big difference between low and high speed on a Tascam 424.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top