(More!) TASCAM 388 "Testing! Testing!" ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter gentlejohn
  • Start date Start date
gentlejohn

gentlejohn

New member
As part of my ongoing bonding sessions with my newly acquired TASCAM 388 today I'm currently mid-session doing dry A/B comparisons between:

A) Recording with 'DBX: ON' and

B) Yes, you've guessed it, with 'DBX: OFF'

Thoughts so far? OK, so there more tape hiss recording without the noise reduction (obviously!) but to my ears Option B.) is actually winning out at this stage. There just seems to be more 'clarity' to the sound - taped signals don't sound as squashed or processed on playback as they do with the DBX on. That's my 2 cents 'for what it's worth' anyway!

Like I say, I'm mid-sessions but I just thought I'd share my findings at this stage - of course it's all subjective! You say: 'Tom-ae-toe', I say: 'Tom-ar-toe'! I'm now back out to try recording (again with the DBX off) but this time with the pitch wheel fully-clockwise. I think I'm right in saying that, set to it's default (ie: pitch wheel in the mid position) the TASCAM 388 records @ 7.5"ips. I'm guessing that setting the pitch wheel fully clockwise should by rights enable the 1/4" tape to pass across the record head at 11.25"ips then yes? That's not that far off the 'Pro' speed of 15"ips so should allow for better sound reproduction right?

I'd be very interested to hear other folks thoughts on this very matter in fact! I'm really just thinking off the top of my head here (remember, I've yet to try this!) If I'm right and therefore decide to continue recording at this higher speed, will I need to change/adjust anything mechanically? Will the 388 be able to cope with this extra 'stress' (if any?) if I continue to record at this speed & w/o DBX on fairly a regular basis? Just thoughts at this stage really as, like I say, I'm still very much just trying to 'find my way this end'!

PS: I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank all the good people on here for their regular posts and invaluable insights! It's such a great reference resource and a fantastic online community we have here. Give yourself a pat on the back (yes, each and everyone of you!) Here's to a VERY happy (and musical!) new year. All the best folks!
 
gentlejohn said:
I'm guessing that setting the pitch wheel fully clockwise should by rights enable the 1/4" tape to pass across the record head at 11.25"ips then yes? That's not that far off the 'Pro' speed of 15"ips so should allow for better sound reproduction right?
Click to expand...

I used to do that with cassette portastudios and I felt it improved things, but I don't know if you'd hear an audible difference on the 388. You could test the frequency response and see. If properly set up, 7.5 ips is more than adequate for the upper frequencies. The only game-changing benefit to higher tape speeds (above 7.5) in my opinion is the lesser chance of dropouts.

If 7.5 ips has a dull top end to you, then calibrate the deck.
 
leddy said:
If 7.5 ips has a dull top end to you, then calibrate the deck.
Click to expand...

Hmm ... I have no reference point as to whether the top end on this machine is dull or even as good as it gets. It sounds alright but, if you don't know for sure, there's always that thing isn't there ie: What if my machine isn't running at optimum performance levels and it actually has the potential to sound & function better?

It would be great to start from a clean slate and, since I'm practically starting out from scratch here (again!), I'm am giving serious thought to looking into getting my machine professionally serviced if I can. I'd just like to have the peace of mind to be safe in the knowledge that everything's functioning as it should be in order to be able to just dive in and concentrate on music making from the get go.

So far I'm aware the RTZ button's stopping approx. 30 seconds off the Zero counter mark and the STC doesn't seem to hit anywhere near the CUE. Also I've been having quite a few annoying drop-outs (but that could be down to dodgy tape - I have some NOS tape on order) plus the RWD function needs a helping hand especially when working on a composition that starts near the beginning of a tape. As you can see, no major problems so far (I don' think!) nothing a basic service couldn't sort I'd imagine but annoying niggles nonetheless. Trouble is, I'm really not very technical I have to admit - I don't trust myself and definitely have more Muso leanings than Techy! It would be cool to just be able to make music straight away with this without any technical hassle.

Thing is, I don't know of anyone qualified to do a proper full service on such a unit in the country I live in (Scotland, UK). I would imagine any Tascam service centres left are all in Japan and, even if there was one locally, this thing ways a ton and they probably wouldn't entertain servicing such a vintage unit - it'll be decades out of warranty for starters! If anyone could shed any light on this for me that would be much appreciated. I guess I'll just have to learn how to tinker with this thing myself eh? Yikes!!! You've not seen my DIY around the house. Frank Spencer springs to mind!
I have even contemplated looking If there If need be how would you go about calibrating exactly? I know absolutely nothing about that area.
 
gentlejohn said:
Hmm ... I have no reference point as to whether the top end on this machine is dull or even as good as it gets. It sounds alright but, if you don't know for sure, there's always that thing isn't there ie: What if my machine isn't running at optimum performance levels and it actually has the potential to sound & function better?
Click to expand...

Just compare it to the original source. Record a CD or something to tape and flip between the source and tape. Does the signal coming off the tape sound like the original source? It may sound the same, better, or worse. Same or better is good. Worse means you have some work to do on the deck. Simple.
 
Leddy that is a straight-talking, excellent reply my friend! (why didn't I think of that?!) It's the simple stuff eh?! I shall report back ...
 
Due to cramming 8 tracks on 1/4" tape,a stock 388 tops out 15-16KHZ with virtually nothing at 20K.
 
I was expecting a sample audio file to hear the comparison. Was there supposed to be one?
 
wkrbee said:
Due to cramming 8 tracks on 1/4" tape,a stock 388 tops out 15-16KHZ with virtually nothing at 20K.
Click to expand...

Wow thats about the same frequency response of a good cassette multitracker. I always felt the 7.5 in speed combined with DBX equaled less than pro sound but thats just my opinion. To my ears dolby c had a more open natural sound. For some reason though the 388 has risen to some sort of classic , cult status. I recorded on one often in the late 80s but didnt consider it especially pro sounding. As I recall mixing it with some sequenced midi gear turned out some good sounding recordings. I remember my 38 being pretty noise prone without DBX so I can imagine a 388 without DBX is very hissey. Good luck with the no noise reduction experiment.
 
You have good ideas and obviously are gaining a good understanding of the factors that come into play. (No pun) ;) But a few things to keep in mind:

1) at that speed, maxing out the vari-speed isn't going to do much, and may be a bit worse because the deck is calibrated (or should be) to 7.5 ips.

2) the phenomenon of tape hiss making things sound more airy is well known, even when the measurable frequency response is the same with or without NR, but the more tracks you record and replay the more that's going to be perceived as distracting.

3) dbx in particular does more than just reduce tape noise. It reduces crosstalk, tape print through and intermodulation distortion, and increases headroom.

4) It's true what wkrbee mentioned about the frequency response. but important to keep in mind what 16kHz top end means in practical terms. Most music has little to no content above 15kHz, not even cymbals, and most adults above 25 years of age can't even hear much above 16kHz, if that and sensitivity to those frequencies is reduced even if they can be detected. 20 kHz is generally thought to be an upper limit for human hearing, but not necessarily important when talking about music for human consumption. If the instruments can't produce it and the listener couldn't hear it even if the instruments could, it's not an issue. 10 to 12 kHz is where to adjust EQ for sizzle and brightness.

Generally speaking, noise reduction made narrow track machines possible and it isn't really an option to disengage as normal recording practice, even though you can. Those switches are primarily to bypass dbx NR for calibration purposes and to use track 8 for sync code. dbx can tend to sound dark and constrained due to increase in head-bump (low) frequencies from the broadband 2:1 companding process and that builds with ping-ponging tracks. A little trick that we often used was to put a BBE Sonic Maximizer or Alesis Micro Enhancer between the 388 (or Akai MG1212) and the mixdown deck to bring high frequencies back into balance without increasing noise. I'm a big fan of the Alesis Micro Enhancer for cassette and reel-to-reel using dbx.
 
Totally agree especially with the exciter suggestion. I remember using both the aphex and bbe models when I used to mix to tape. Now days I often mix to digital and dont use them as much. They can really help adding some sizzle to DBX tracks though. And just like Beck said I would shy away from using a 388 without the DBX.
 
Perfect timing Harv (and plug away all you like Sir!) I'll go check those links out with great interest and report back. CHEERS!
 
Pitch

The Pitch control is +/- 15%, so maxing it out to the right would produce a tape speed of 8.625 IPS. The high frequency response improvement from that speed bump would likely be minimal. It also limits your pitch matching capability by half, (the upper half), if at any time you run into pitch problems.
:spank::eek:;)
 
Hey Mr Harv!

RE: Your two song examples ie: one without DBX and one with.

Hmm ...it's a difficult call to make as each recording certainly has its own merits (although it really isn't helping matters that I'm having to listen through crappy PC speakers at this end!) I'm guessing 'our job' here would be made far easier were this Control Test to feature two separate recordings of the SAME song (first recorded without DBX and then with the DBX engaged).

Are you up for the challenge? I might also be tempted to give this a go with my machine then place my meagre sonic offerings up on here too for critical dissection by the masses! Who knows? We might learn summat about both our recordings AND the 'weapon of choice' console with which we record on!
 
gentlejohn said:
Are you up for the challenge? I might also be tempted to give this a go with my machine then place my meagre sonic offerings up on here too for critical dissection by the masses! Who knows? We might learn summat about both our recordings AND the 'weapon of choice' console with which we record on!
Click to expand...

And while you're at it you guys should also compare how the machines sound while recording with the 388 submerged in a bathtub full of water compared to not in a bathtub full of water! :) :p Or just pick some other random whim. :D (all in good fun... keep smiling!)
 
j.harv said:
Not trying to plug my messy sounding music by any means,but while were on topic of 388 dbx vs no dbx, Im gonna put up 2
songs I have done on the 388.
The first one is recorded with no dbx at all.Its the only song I have done without dbx so far.
It does sound a lot "hotter" to me.More so the drum sound.....

https://soundcloud.com/jasonharvey/trippin-on-you-jason-harvey

And the next song,how I usually record,with dbx.....

https://soundcloud.com/jasonharvey/shes-coming-jason-harvey
Click to expand...

Cool stuff! I liked the sound of "She's coming" better, but I really don't know if it has to do with DBX at all. I think I just preferred the tones you captured there better - especially on the bass and drums. Or possibly it was the arrangement or mix as compared to "Tripping on You," which I didn't like as much.

Anyway, I really liked the sound of "She's Coming" quite a bit. Good work! :)
 
gentlejohn said:
Hey Mr Harv!

RE: Your two song examples ie: one without DBX and one with.

Hmm ...it's a difficult call to make as each recording certainly has its own merits (although it really isn't helping matters that I'm having to listen through crappy PC speakers at this end!)
Click to expand...

Can you plug in a pair of headphones or earbuds??? You'll probably hear things a bit better. I find that my crappy speakers for my laptop sound lime shit,but when listening to the same material through earbuds sounds a lot better.
Now...as for your challenge....well, I have always wanted to re-record alot of my songs but that always slows thing down for me while Im trying to write new tunes. But I might just give it a go with the song 'She's coming' because its a pretty simple song.
 
Beck said:
And while you're at it you guys should also compare how the machines sound while recording with the 388 submerged in a bathtub full of water compared to not in a bathtub full of water! :) :p Or just pick some other random whim. :D (all in good fun... keep smiling!)
Click to expand...

:laughings:
Hilarious!!!! Might just give that go.;)
 
famous beagle said:
Cool stuff! I liked the sound of "She's coming" better, but I really don't know if it has to do with DBX at all. I think I just preferred the tones you captured there better - especially on the bass and drums. Or possibly it was the arrangement or mix as compared to "Tripping on You," which I didn't like as much.

Anyway, I really liked the sound of "She's Coming" quite a bit. Good work! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Beagle!
I like that song better also.
 
When I started out there were a handfull of pro studios in NY that had DBX pro units and even stacks of the consumer units on 16 and 24track machines.
Dolby won that battle, but I always thought the DBX sessions sounded pretty good. The simpler approach to noise reduction seemed to make it a little less prone to some of the issues people had with Dolby, which was loss of high frequency air. Since DBX wasn't effecting the frequency response of the audio but using a compression expansion sceme. As well DBX bragged that is was less effected by tape machine alignment issues and the compression even gave a little more headroom. (I would expect with the tape size-speed-format it could be a real plus).
An interesting note some early eventide digital gear had DBX built in because of the limited dynamic range of the early digital processors.
Brad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top