Money pit but which is less? Own: Fostex R8, Akai MG614. Considering selling for: Tascam 488 MKii .

[Out2Lunch]

Hi all,

I currently use a slew of outboard gear for tracking into my daw. One is a large 24 ch mixer I love—but it’s too large—especially since I will be moving soon.

What do I want?:

A small footprint analog mixer—with direct outs, inserts and at least two auxs that will *also* give me a tape option should I want to use it.

I understand working with tape in general can turn into a money pit so I am trying to determine the trade off between build quality vs repairability (and of course features)

I have a Fostex R8 but I have had to have it repaired twice in a short span of owning it already. Great sound for my tastes, in and of itself, —and the tape isn’t too expensive but the unit as a whole feels cheaply made. I would be happy using it with a nice mixer but not if it’s gonna come apart at the seams every few months. Leading me to want to sell it. Cassettes are cheaper than 1/4” after all.

Speaking of

I also have an Akai MG614. Great sound in and of itself (though not as nice and rich as the R8) it also has been built much better. Don’t feel like a bunch of parts will fail (beyond tape transport which would be common with all of these options).

That being said, even if I *could* get it modded with six pre fader direct outs—it feels too limited both as a mixer (two band EQ, six channels) and as a recorder (four cassette tracks).

Leading me to consider a modded Tascam 488 MKii. With the direct outs added—this would give me at least two inserts, two auxs, and enough channels to use just as a front end. Plus more flexible EQ. As a recorder it would give me 8 cassette tracks. Though , like the R8, I worry about the build quality.



TLDR;

I want a small footprint analog mixer that gives me at least 8 channels, some inserts, direct outs (modded or not), and at least to auxs *with* a tape component.

Otherwise keeping the R8 and using a preferred 8 ch mixer.

I’m concerned the R8 and Tascams, while more popular and theoretically more repairable, will fail more often on me. The Akai’s (including the 1412) are superior in design but limited in feature set and possibly modification/repair resistant.

***I’m already sold on the tape thing so no need to tell me not to bother/stick to digital.

Thanks everyone!

O2L

 

[TalismanRich]

Ok, you're concerned that a 35 yr old tape deck that has needed two repairs recently is "cheaply made"? The Akai is more like like 40- 50 yrs old. Think about that for a bit. These machines are probably older than half of the people who log onto this forum. The Tascam is the baby at only about 30 yrs old.

I would expect all of them to occasionally need repair, especially the tape transport system. The rubber parts degrade and need to be replaced. Tape heads wear, electrical components can go bad (especially capacitors and pots). If they were really cheaply made, they wouldn't be working 30-50 yrs later.

The Fostex should have the best sound, being reel tape vs cassette. Wider tracks and faster tape speed should give better results for freq resp, crosstalk and S/N ratio. I never even considered going to cassette for multitrack recording. It was fine for copying albums for playing in the car.

If you want a mixer, something along the line of a Mackie ProFX16 will have 11 mic channels with inserts available on the first 8 channel, Inserts can be used as direct outs. 3 band EQ, Sub outs and main outs. The 1604VLZ has lots of routing options, plus 16 mic inputs. You have similar capabilities in something like a Soundcraft EPM12 . Stick that into your Fostex and go to town.

Personally I wouldnt consider any of them if I was starting out today. I long ago abandoned tape for anything other than recovering/preserving old stuff. But I understand the "romance" of tape. I just find that the reality is not as rosy as the romance.

 

[Out2Lunch]

Well put about about the “romance”—buying these old machines may be an impractical path towards that lush cloud and no doubt plugins these days can fool ya into thinking your hearing the real thing—but the workflow—when not breaking down—is quite conducive to actually getting a song done.

The reason I mention the Fostex being cheaply made is because I’ve heard it all day long—even, implicitly, from my repair tech.

/The romance is part science and part —My being 34, a mixture of analog and digital was the audio soup from whence I came.

Taking about age— the Fostex is older than me coming out in 1988 but the Akai (614) is only slightly older coming out in 1986. Hardly any meaningful difference in age. The Akai is often called the “Rolls Royce of 4 tracks” and damn it if there isn’t a reason for that?

1/4” is a better sound for my tastes but cassettes are cheaper in the end. If I’m going to have to sink some money into any and all of these I’d sacrifice fidelity for less problems down the road (I’d sooner be able to get somebody to refurb a Tascam 488 than an Akai…I would think based on internet discussion/popularity)

Speaking of Mackie (ART, TL Audio…)

Love the Mackie CR-1604. Many people (on the internet) like to tear on it and it kind of influenced me- I’m sorry to say. Ignorance is bliss until you wanna figure out a reliable way to reproduce a sound your chasing—then I’m suddenly drowning in transformer types, op amps, and mics. And the songs seem to get written in the cracks.

Anyways..:thanks for your input!

 

[TalismanRich]

Yeah, I see all the talk about preamps and transformers, changing capacitors and ICs, etc. I've heard gobs of comparisons of this, that and the other preamps including using 48/24 wave files. I can change or adjust a microphone and make 20 times more difference.

The two biggest items in terms of variation are, to me, the microphone and the speaker. Converting air pressure variations into electrical signals and vice versa involves mechanical processes which can be notoriously inconsistent. I've got 6 different LDC mics and they all sound different. I've got different monitor speakers and they sound different. I listened to quite a few 8" active monitors when I was shopping (Event, Samson, JBL, Behringer, Tannoy, KRK, Adam, Yamaha) They all sounded quite different. Which one was right? They can't all be right.

Look at the specs for most electronic components and you'll see specs of +/- 0.1 or 0.2dB 20-20K. Look at any mic or speaker and they don't even bother quoting a tolerance because they vary +/-3, 5, even 10dB. +5dB at 10k is common in mics. -10dB at 20Hz is common. With an SM57, you'll be down 10dB at 50 and 15k with a >+5dB at 6k. Yet it's a highly successful studio standard mic. Distortion spec? Let's talk 2 or3% distortion, not .001%.

The internet is plagued with the "flavor of the month" mentality. Yesterday's hot new item is next weeks dog. Don't get sucked in. Don't judge sound with your eyes or the price tag. There are good products out there that have lifespans of 10 or more years. If they were junk, they wouldn't be on the market that long.


As for workflow, I have NO issues with workflow into a computer. I find it to be quite straightforward. Winding tape back and forth trying to get a good take would drive me nuts There's a reason that the big studio machines have systems with counter/control units.

 

[TalismanRich]

I was watching a video the other day about the AD conversion process. The poster was trying to show how much variation do you get from different converters. To even get a real difference, the person went through about 200 round trips. Even then, the change was really minimal.

Yet there were respondents who were touting how much greater their high dollar AD/DA converters were compared to low a lowly Focusrite (which actually degraded the sound less!).

Can you imagine how much degradation you would get if you ran a track through a tape deck 200 times?

 

[sweetbeats]

The R8 is always going to sound better than cassette. It’s the same-ish track width as 4-track cassette, but 4x the tape speed than even high-speed cassette. If you stick with cassette and you’re set on 8-track I’d look for a Tascam 238. I don’t like the CR-1604…had one. It’s fine. But it is way less flexible and I think does not sound nearly as good as something like a Tascam M-308. If I was in your shoes I’d stick with the R8. Work through the bugs, it’ll get better as you go through the things that always need attention…I would pick the R8 and a decent outboard mixer all day long over the 488 series. They are impressive for what they are. A band I was in did a full-length album using only a 488mkII for multitracking and with careful attention to gain staging and creative use of some outboard gear and an external mixer it came out very very well…but I consider the 488 series and that same generation of 424 series machines to be relatively fragile, and have lower headroom…they are not built to last and are harder to service. The 238 is a completely different animal as far as the transport and signal path. But be prepared to deal with repair or replacement of the capstan servo assembly. If it hasn’t gone bad it will. Those are really the best options for analog tape 8-track machines in cassette and 1/4”. Fostex was the only company to offer a 1/4” 8-track at 15ips, and the Tascam 388 is the only other 1/4” 8-track…sounds good at its 7.5ips, but they are becoming increasingly unreliable and are a complex build…challenging to repair when things go sideways…those are some high-level thoughts and personal opinions within the boundaries of your ask. Oh and I would not entertain the Akai MG series at all…I’m not talking about the 614, but the 1212, 1214, 14D…too obscure for any kind of community support or parts, the tapes are practically hen’s teeth…etc. I had two 1212s at one time. Cool but too impractical.

 

[sweetbeats]

On the other hand…

If you’re thinking you could be happy with cassette 4-track, and you want something more than the MG-614, which I agree is a robust build, but if you want something better in terms of sonics and build quality/reliability, look no further than the Audio Technica AT-RMX64. Yes it’s a more obscure machine, but I think less so than the MG-614, and it sounds amazing…just the nicer alone. And I absolutely love the multifunction EQ and the fact it has swept HPF capability…it’s the king of 4-track cassette mixer/recorders in every way. And I’m speaking from hands-on experience with a vast array of Tascam machines…in fact almost every 4-track Tascam machine…and Yamaha…the Audio Technica is a gem…the only one where the mixer really sounds exciting.

 

[Out2Lunch]

Yeah, I see all the talk about preamps and transformers, changing capacitors and ICs, etc. I've heard gobs of comparisons of this, that and the other preamps including using 48/24 wave files. I can change or adjust a microphone and make 20 times more difference.

The two biggest items in terms of variation are, to me, the microphone and the speaker. Converting air pressure variations into electrical signals and vice versa involves mechanical processes which can be notoriously inconsistent. I've got 6 different LDC mics and they all sound different. I've got different monitor speakers and they sound different. I listened to quite a few 8" active monitors when I was shopping (Event, Samson, JBL, Behringer, Tannoy, KRK, Adam, Yamaha) They all sounded quite different. Which one was right? They can't all be right.

Look at the specs for most electronic components and you'll see specs of +/- 0.1 or 0.2dB 20-20K. Look at any mic or speaker and they don't even bother quoting a tolerance because they vary +/-3, 5, even 10dB. +5dB at 10k is common in mics. -10dB at 20Hz is common. With an SM57, you'll be down 10dB at 50 and 15k with a >+5dB at 6k. Yet it's a highly successful studio standard mic. Distortion spec? Let's talk 2 or3% distortion, not .001%.

The internet is plagued with the "flavor of the month" mentality. Yesterday's hot new item is next weeks dog. Don't get sucked in. Don't judge sound with your eyes or the price tag. There are good products out there that have lifespans of 10 or more years. If they were junk, they wouldn't be on the market that long.


As for workflow, I have NO issues with workflow into a computer. I find it to be quite straightforward. Winding tape back and forth trying to get a good take would drive me nuts There's a reason that the big studio machines have systems with counter/control units.

Thanks for this. I agree, just using a different mic—regardless of input transformers, tubes, op amps etc does, to my ears, make enough of a difference. Not that those components don’t matter but—especially for someone like me who is about at an intermediate level with this stuff—trusting my ears is the only sane (and financially responsible) solution.

I love Ableton, I love the convenience,
layout and reliability. But I find with it I have far too many options (plugins, track count) that now we’ve replaced worrying about transformers and analog warmth with “does this song actually need a reverse field sample of a firework?”…

Microphones…easy to love, fun to use.

 

[Out2Lunch]

The R8 is always going to sound better than cassette. It’s the same-ish track width as 4-track cassette, but 4x the tape speed than even high-speed cassette. If you stick with cassette and you’re set on 8-track I’d look for a Tascam 238. I don’t like the CR-1604…had one. It’s fine. But it is way less flexible and I think does not sound nearly as good as something like a Tascam M-308. If I was in your shoes I’d stick with the R8. Work through the bugs, it’ll get better as you go through the things that always need attention…I would pick the R8 and a decent outboard mixer all day long over the 488 series. They are impressive for what they are. A band I was in did a full-length album using only a 488mkII for multitracking and with careful attention to gain staging and creative use of some outboard gear and an external mixer it came out very very well…but I consider the 488 series and that same generation of 424 series machines to be relatively fragile, and have lower headroom…they are not built to last and are harder to service. The 238 is a completely different animal as far as the transport and signal path. But be prepared to deal with repair or replacement of the capstan servo assembly. If it hasn’t gone bad it will. Those are really the best options for analog tape 8-track machines in cassette and 1/4”. Fostex was the only company to offer a 1/4” 8-track at 15ips, and the Tascam 388 is the only other 1/4” 8-track…sounds good at its 7.5ips, but they are becoming increasingly unreliable and are a complex build…challenging to repair when things go sideways…those are some high-level thoughts and personal opinions within the boundaries of your ask. Oh and I would not entertain the Akai MG series at all…I’m not talking about the 614, but the 1212, 1214, 14D…too obscure for any kind of community support or parts, the tapes are practically hen’s teeth…etc. I had two 1212s at one time. Cool but too impractical.

Thanks very much for the input! You’ve certainly got me considering a 238 over a 488. I already have a good idea about what mixers I like, desert island outboard and all of that—so stripping the mixer away and just heading the cassette 8 track would allow a little more portability and better integration—I should think.

Anything else about the 238 you could share?

And the R8 may just stay—it *is* a lot of fun when it works!

Cheers

O2L

 

[sweetbeats]

The 238 requires an outboard mixing console.

 

[Out2Lunch]

The 238 requires an outboard mixing console.

Right, I mean that’s obvious.

When you mentioned it having a completely different transport path and signal path compared to the 488–you were, presumably, using that to make a point in its favor. In other words they meaningfully differ in both build and sound quality. I wanted you to expand more on that.

In other words is the “all in one” factor the only thing the 488 has over the 288?

 

[sweetbeats]

It wasn’t clear to me you understood the external mixer was necessary with the 238 by your statement “…so stripping the mixer away and just heading the cassette 8 track would allow a little more portability and better integration…”

Yes. I was making the point the 238 has better performance specs over the 488 series because of the design and build quality.

I suppose it’s a fair statement the all-in-one form factor is the only thing the 488 series has over the 238.

 

[RFR]

It wasn’t clear to me you understood the external mixer was necessary with the 238 by your statement “…so stripping the mixer away and just heading the cassette 8 track would allow a little more portability and better integration…”

Yes. I was making the point the 238 has better performance specs over the 488 series because of the design and build quality.

I suppose it’s a fair statement the all-in-one form factor is the only thing the 488 series has over the 238.

From my experience ‘all in one’ units comprise on the quality. You're better off with discrete components.

The 238 with a good mixer is pretty top notch as far as cassette 8tracks go.

 

[sweetbeats]

I want to be clear though…if it was me I’d be sticking with the R8. Is novel as the 238 is, you’re likely to drop several hundred dollars in capstan servo repair/replace right off the bat if it hasn’t been done yet, and will likely need to replace the reel idler drive tire for proper function, and maybe Tascam still has the parts or maybe not…I think I still have a new one laying about here…and I highly, highly recommend getting an Athan replacement pinch roller, because, and this leads me to one of the main reasons I’d stick with the R8, the cassette 8-track format is finicky…one or more edge tracks usually have diminished performance, sometimes so diminished they are unusable. The Athan roller really helps to mitigate this issue. But, overall, it’s just, understandably, not as stable as 1/4”, during calibration, in performance…everything. And your top end is still limited to about 14kHz…and there’s far less headroom and more crosstalk. So if it was my daily driver, I’d want the R8. Hats off and no disrespect to people who DO use cassette 8-track as their primary recording medium…I’m not saying it’s bad or I don’t like it, I’m just expressing my opinions based on experience.

 

[RFR]

Never had an R8. Went straight from the 238 to the MSR16
With that and an M52O mixer I did a lot of recording. Been more than pleased with both.
But I’ve known people that have/ and are happily using the R8

 

[Out2Lunch]

It wasn’t clear to me you understood the external mixer was necessary with the 238 by your statement “…so stripping the mixer away and just heading the cassette 8 track would allow a little more portability and better integration…”

Yes. I was making the point the 238 has better performance specs over the 488 series because of the design and build quality.

I suppose it’s a fair statement the all-in-one form factor is the only thing the 488 series has over the 238.

Ah I understand how my words were a little confusing there. I just meant that, in terms of moving house+shipping , having a rack option would not only be more economical cost and space wise, but I would be able to use just about any mixer of my choice. The 488 mixer would be redundant and take up precious space.

Thanks for all the info

 

[RFR]

Here’s a studio in LA using one. Keep in mind this is a ‘real’ studio, not someone’s bedroom set up.

Good enough for them? Should be good enough for you.

 

[Out2Lunch]

I want to be clear though…if it was me I’d be sticking with the R8. Is novel as the 238 is, you’re likely to drop several hundred dollars in capstan servo repair/replace right off the bat if it hasn’t been done yet, and will likely need to replace the reel idler drive tire for proper function, and maybe Tascam still has the parts or maybe not…I think I still have a new one laying about here…and I highly, highly recommend getting an Athan replacement pinch roller, because, and this leads me to one of the main reasons I’d stick with the R8, the cassette 8-track format is finicky…one or more edge tracks usually have diminished performance, sometimes so diminished they are unusable. The Athan roller really helps to mitigate this issue. But, overall, it’s just, understandably, not as stable as 1/4”, during calibration, in performance…everything. And your top end is still limited to about 14kHz…and there’s far less headroom and more crosstalk. So if it was my daily driver, I’d want the R8. Hats off and no disrespect to people who DO use cassette 8-track as their primary recording medium…I’m not saying it’s bad or I don’t like it, I’m just expressing my opinions based on experience.

Thank you for your input again. Im lucky to be living in an area currently where all of these machines can be serviced but that may not be the case in…6 months time or so.

My thinking is that, since cassettes are cheaper in bulk than the 1/4” inch tape and also, as someone who has more experience with the format rather than open reel—with the outboard I have—I feel like I could get something satisfying off of a cassette track. But of course I won’t know until I try!

I’ve decided to keep the R8 but still may go for the 238 as an alternative. I also have a three head stereo cassette (Luxman) that I’ve used as aux effect for just drum machine for example. So I’m not strictly going to only make music on tape as it were. But the option is nice! Would want a higher quality unit and you’ve given me cause to think about two (one I already have as well).

 

[Out2Lunch]

Here’s a studio in LA using one. Keep in mind this is a ‘real’ studio, not someone’s bedroom set up.

Good enough for them? Should be good enough for you.

Well I fall squarely into the literal bedroom. I’d like to think if I do my due diligence—I can better integrate tape without too many headaches. If a couple of choice machines edge out the competition due to fidelity (but most importantly build quality and reliability) then those are the ones for me. I know how to get a mixer, compressor, mic etc I’m gonna love.

Cheers

 

[sweetbeats]

I think, as far as the recorder, ultimately you should do what works best for you. You know my opinion…I would almost consider the R8 more portable than a 238 because it takes up a much smaller footprint than a 238 in a rack…even has a carry handle…I/O conveniently located on the top…detachable integrated full function control panel…it’s a really smart design. But I do understand your points about media cost. But, for me, the better performance and stable functionality outweigh this. A good condition 238 with a new reel table drive tire and Athan pinch roller can perform with stability, it’s just more “on the edge” trying to obtain and maintain that stability across all 8 tracks compared to something like the Fostex.

Back to the mixer…there are lots of contemporary options that would work fine from Yamaha, Mackie, Allen & Heath…I like the early generation MixWizard consoles…vertical per-channel PCBs, plenty of AUX busses, 4-band EQ with swept mid bands, etc…lots of good features and even a 16 channel console still fits in a 19” rack if you want it in one. The WZ20:8:2 is the one to get for multitrack recording if you can find one, but they are rare. I don’t like the value-engineering that is part and parcel to most contemporary offerings. The SMT circuitry including caps I think impacts the sound. Now I sound like a snob. They’re also harder to work on. The monoplanar PCB designs and tiny pots and switches don’t last…so that’s one reason I like something a little older and the 80s Tascam stuff is easy enough to find and checks a lot of the boxes for me, but not all the 80s Tascam stuff checks the same boxes. For smaller format I’m really talking about the M-300 series…in a little bit bigger size the M-2600-16 is actually a really unique board as far as the audio power rails and signal path. The M-500 series have a lot of unique features too but physically are so much larger. But never underestimate the value of a device constructed of all through-hole components like all of the above for ease of troubleshooting and repair…SO much easier than SMT stuff. And, again, I think it sounds better. For compact 8-track setups I really like the Tascam M-308. The inline monitoring and routing flexibility are something that is lacking in most any small format “budget” console over the past 20-25 years and is still highly practical for analog setups...hybrid too. I also like that it is based around the 5532 opamp, which I also think sounds good. What I *don’t* like about the M-300 series, and it’s not specific to that line or brand, really…extremely common in all sorts of more budget bracket products from a wide range of manufacturers, is the use of phenolic resin PCBs vs glass fiber, and the use of buss PCBs to connect all the channel PCBs together…this combination results in repairs needed over the years because of failed solder joints. It’s harder to service because, in order to remove a channel PCB, you have to remove the whole buss PCB…and every time you pull it apart it weakens the solder joints, and this is exacerbated as a result of the weaker phenolic resin PCB material. Enter a relatively obscure offering that was contemporary to the M-300 series made by BiAmp. I think they are pretty under-the-rader…but also that’s because there weren’t as many made. But the first analog console I ever really worked on or operated was a BiAmp 12-28. This was a 12-channel 8-buss console with 3-band mid-sweep EQ, long throw faders, a comprehensive monitor section, inline monitoring, etc…well-suited for FOH and recording applications…all made in the USA. At the time I didn’t know or appreciate the details about these consoles and in the last couple years got myself up-to-speed. They are also “budget” consoles, but knowing what I know now I think they are worth considering if one is looking for a “vintage” budget-friendly console and one comes across one. I found an 8-24 a couple years ago for really cheap, and made the nostalgia-driven decision to bring it home. The 8-24 is in the same series as the 12-28 I used decades ago. Like the Tascam M-308, the 8-24 is an 8-channel 4-buss console with dedicated master buss as well as mono sum buss. What I didn’t realize in the past, but learned after opening it up and also getting ahold of the schematics, is it is also 5532-based, all the PCBs are thick glass fiber type, the PCB interconnection is by relatively large pin Molex ribbon cables…these can require a little work…exercising the connections, reseating the punch-in wire connections, but I’d take these any day over a phenolic resin buss PCB. And you can get an individual PCB out without having to disconnect everything. The 8-24 also has a pretty beefy power supply compared to the Tascam…like, the main transformer is huge. AND…the audio rails are +/-18V vs the more garden-variety +/-15V on the Tascam, so significantly higher headroom on the BiAmp. They properly biased the signal path so no polar coupling were able to be used, which is more expensive and sonically better. There’s just a lot of evidence of greater attention to sonically and build-quality in the 8-24 compared to the M-308. The 8-24 has some very useful global mode switching, along with the aforementioned individual inline monitoring, and unlike the Tascam there is zero logic switching…all very straight-forward circuitry. A number of 80s vintage Tascam stuff is starting to experience logic IC failures, but the BiAmp consoles have no logic switching ICs. I also think this is better for sound in cases where signal actually passes through the logic circuitry like in the Tascam. I like the analog VU meters on the Tascam, though the VF meters on the BiAmp look cool too. But the Tascam metering is better. But my overall assessment of the BiAmp is it is a much more robust build than the Tascam, has better headroom, more flexible monitoring options, is made in the USA (not too far from me actually), and overall has a better feature set. I also like that the hi and lo EQ bands are shelving on the BiAmp. One down-side to the BiAmp is the form factor of the push switches is smaller than the Tascam. They don’t last as long. Fortunately nearly all of the switches are identical, and they are pretty cheap brand new when purchased in the quantity needed, so if one has to replace them it’s not terribly expensive. Neither the Tascam or the BiAmp have phase inversion or HPF functions, which is unfortunate. But they are both still great vintage mixers. On top of it all the BiAmp just looks cool:

Here’s a view of the guts exposed…you can see the glass fiber PCBs, ribbon cable interconnects, and the power supply is at the top…huge power transformer and heat sink for the regulators:

Anyway, it’s another option you likely don’t know about.