Check @sweetbeats threads out for tech info. Personally I don’t know if that machine has belts or not. Not saying it does, not saying it don’t.
I’m a 100% certain I don’t know.
MSR-24 vs TSR-8 vs 238
- Thread starter pattarginkom
- Start date
I’m a 100% certain I don’t know.
pattarginkom
Member
HahaCheck @sweetbeats threads out for tech info. Personally I don’t know if that machine has belts or not. Not saying it does, not saying it don’t.
I’m a 100% certain I don’t know.
fair enough! Thank you for the resources and sound counsel 
I’ll look into that! Will be back here inevitably on my next step after acquiring the deck!
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Beware something is fishy if the 238 seller says the belt has been replaced. There are no belts on a 238. The capstan is direct drive and if it is the original servo it will go bad and good luck finding a replacement. The mechanism for raising and lowering the headblock assembly is gear-driven not belt-driven, and there’s no mechanical counter so no counter belt.
Cassette 8-track…it’s such a dichotomy for me. I’ve owned over the years, mainly as fix-and-flip machines, three 238s, all dbx models, a 488mkI, 488mkII and two 688s. My band did a full-length release on cassette in the early 90s that was tracked on a 488mkII. The 488mkII and one of the 688s mentioned above are currently sitting on the bench here, the 488mkII is mid detailing and repairs (capstan belt, inspect and lube or repair the headblock motion assembly), and the 688 is detailed and repaired and on the market. I’m mentioning all this because I believe I have some basis for my opinions about cassette 8-track. I also have a lot of time with cassette 4-track…had a 424mkII for years. Currently have four 244s in various states from train-wreck-parts-donor to mint-in-box-just-needs-new-rubber…I love the 244 enough I sprung for a new Athan poly pinch roller for it…I’ve also owned a couple 234s and a 134B. As far as I’m concerned, 4-track cassette is THE cassette multitrack format. The 8-track cassette format was originally introduced as a poor man’s 1/4” or 1/2” open reel 8-track alternative and that’s still the case today. Don’t get me wrong…on a properly running cassette 8-track machine, and with careful execution of levels to tape (keep it hot enough to maximize dynamic range from the noise floor, but not too hot to cause dbx tracking issues and crosstalk issues…but you’ll have to be happy with SOME crosstalk), you can get some results people wouldn’t believe are cassette 8-track. Really. If you do it right. But like I said you’ll have to deal with crosstalk, and here’s the other thing that irritates me with every cassette 8-track machine I’ve owned with some miles on it…the finicky edge tracks. Most the time either track 1 or track 8 have diminished level response and/or frequency range. Was it that way out of the box? I’m sure not. But, people, we’re dealing with super narrow tracks, and trying to fudge the head height, the bad track gets better and the good track gets worse. This is all with test tone and when you record actual source material to that affected track, especially if you’re choosy about what the source is, it’s essentially a non-issue, but the fact it’s a juggle to try and dial it in bugs me. There’s no wiggle room. Wider formats this is not so much an issue or an issue at all, and I’ve worked with 1/4”, 1/2” and 1” 8-track. 1/4” 8-track this is even an issue sometimes depending on the head design and wear pattern. Does the general population care about all this? No, because I think most people with a cassette 8-track are not checking play and record levels or frequency response with tones, or tracking tone ladders to see where the machine is at. But I do. Can’t help it. And if I’m working on a machine I want it to be right. And cassette 8-track is a bitch to get and keep right. Yes it is super-convenient, the Philips Compact Cassette format. I grew up with it. I’m a child of the very early 70s…had a good decade and a half of life before CD was even a thing. But the format was never intended for what Teac did with it. Amazing shit. But finicky. Now, that all being said, I think 8-track is my favorite analog multitrack track count. More tracks than 4 for some exponential creativity, but not so much you don’t have to deal with some boundaries. And it *can* sound nice. And it’s fantastic for the analog addict who wants a more forgiving sketch pad in terms of limitations compared to 4-track. And most of all?
It
Is
Fun
My gosh how my pursuit of my dream setup has sucked the life out of opportunity to be creative and make music. Fixing stuff…wiring…and I’ve spent plenty of time working in digital. I’ve done multiple full-length projects all in the box. But a cassette portastudio you can plug it in, plug up some sources, pop in a cassette and just make some fucking music and if you have your head straight not worry about splitting all the hairs about how phat it is or how lo-fi or WHATEVER and just create something, without a buhjillion features and controls and waveforms and bells and whistles that you need a gihugic screen to see…twist some knobs and flip some switches and just have fun creating. And yes with some careful execution you can get results beyond what others think the format can achieve. I listen back to that tape release from my band in the early 90s and am surprised just how great it sounds. And on “high-speed” 4-track cassette? Now we get rid of the finicky…my opinion is 4-track is the true “home recording” track count…back in the day when home recordists were scrapping to pull together funds for a cassette 4-track, or an open reel 4-track on 1/4” tape…a 2340 series machine or if you were lucky a 3340…I’m going back a ways here. But people got creative with the limitations. And I’m telling you @famous beagle has some cassette 4-track stuff that he’s posted here over the years that sounds amazing. Using the sonic advantages of the format in the best way and capturing some great sounds. And bottom line it is FUN to have and use a cassette multitrack machine, but it does have limitations which may or may not matter to you. Don’t let anybody tell you what is “real” or “correct” for you, but also be cognizant of what your goal actually is and pursue the tape format that can accommodate that goal. It bugs me when people think any analog format can achieve “phat tape sat” results of the best of the analog era, music that many of us grew up with. But also don’t assume you can’t develop skills to maximize the results of any format and get good results. Just be reasonable in your expectations. This whole diatribe is a combination of stuff I wanted to say over in @RFR ‘s thread about how he hates his digital mixes and I just haven’t had time…but I read this thread and out it poured because, to the OP, you are considering three VASTLY different machines. I think you need to step back and FIRST decide how many tracks you need. You can sync the 688 with the 238 or the TSR-8…or the MSR-24, but get ready to go on a hunt for the hardware to chase-lock two tape machines together and then likely pay $300 just for the sync cables to be custom built. Unless you’re lucky and the exact cable you need is included or you can build them yourself. And I get you’re hesitant to outright sell some nice gear you have, but to me the clear winner is the TSR-8. For that you’ll need a minimum 8-channel console with inline monitoring, or if no inline monitoring a 16 channel console would be ideal. The MSR-24? Yep it’s 24 or more channels assuming there are monitoring faculties, and if not be thinking about something with 48 channels. If you need to grow the rig grow the rig but be mindful you don’t take such a step it twists your head off and you end up getting wrapped up in gear and not making music. Be okay with staying in a zone of gear you can actually maintain and operate.
I gotta close with this random bit…the 688 is a pretty amazing machine. The electronic source and assign switching matrix makes for noiseless switching and muting, and really powerful features in a small footprint. I’ve got a YouTube video I put up a couple three years ago presenting what the control surface would have to look like if all the electronic matrix functions were physical controls instead. But while I was grappling with whether or not to sell it, since it is really clean and original and 100%, this cheap 488mkII came up. I had to drive an hour to get it. $150. Needs work. I know. Not the best deal. But these things are getting STUPID pricey anymore. And it’s complete and original and will clean up really nice. And it’s not as fancy as the 688, but I feel like I can relate to it better. I feel like a good cassette portastudio forces you to get creative and the 488mkII has lots of cool possibilities. And I like real per-control switches and knobs. I bought it thinking I might fix and flip it. But I remember making that cassette release. And it was fun. And sounded good. The 244 is my favorite. I’ve got a bad feeling the 488mkII is going to stick around though.
Cassette 8-track…it’s such a dichotomy for me. I’ve owned over the years, mainly as fix-and-flip machines, three 238s, all dbx models, a 488mkI, 488mkII and two 688s. My band did a full-length release on cassette in the early 90s that was tracked on a 488mkII. The 488mkII and one of the 688s mentioned above are currently sitting on the bench here, the 488mkII is mid detailing and repairs (capstan belt, inspect and lube or repair the headblock motion assembly), and the 688 is detailed and repaired and on the market. I’m mentioning all this because I believe I have some basis for my opinions about cassette 8-track. I also have a lot of time with cassette 4-track…had a 424mkII for years. Currently have four 244s in various states from train-wreck-parts-donor to mint-in-box-just-needs-new-rubber…I love the 244 enough I sprung for a new Athan poly pinch roller for it…I’ve also owned a couple 234s and a 134B. As far as I’m concerned, 4-track cassette is THE cassette multitrack format. The 8-track cassette format was originally introduced as a poor man’s 1/4” or 1/2” open reel 8-track alternative and that’s still the case today. Don’t get me wrong…on a properly running cassette 8-track machine, and with careful execution of levels to tape (keep it hot enough to maximize dynamic range from the noise floor, but not too hot to cause dbx tracking issues and crosstalk issues…but you’ll have to be happy with SOME crosstalk), you can get some results people wouldn’t believe are cassette 8-track. Really. If you do it right. But like I said you’ll have to deal with crosstalk, and here’s the other thing that irritates me with every cassette 8-track machine I’ve owned with some miles on it…the finicky edge tracks. Most the time either track 1 or track 8 have diminished level response and/or frequency range. Was it that way out of the box? I’m sure not. But, people, we’re dealing with super narrow tracks, and trying to fudge the head height, the bad track gets better and the good track gets worse. This is all with test tone and when you record actual source material to that affected track, especially if you’re choosy about what the source is, it’s essentially a non-issue, but the fact it’s a juggle to try and dial it in bugs me. There’s no wiggle room. Wider formats this is not so much an issue or an issue at all, and I’ve worked with 1/4”, 1/2” and 1” 8-track. 1/4” 8-track this is even an issue sometimes depending on the head design and wear pattern. Does the general population care about all this? No, because I think most people with a cassette 8-track are not checking play and record levels or frequency response with tones, or tracking tone ladders to see where the machine is at. But I do. Can’t help it. And if I’m working on a machine I want it to be right. And cassette 8-track is a bitch to get and keep right. Yes it is super-convenient, the Philips Compact Cassette format. I grew up with it. I’m a child of the very early 70s…had a good decade and a half of life before CD was even a thing. But the format was never intended for what Teac did with it. Amazing shit. But finicky. Now, that all being said, I think 8-track is my favorite analog multitrack track count. More tracks than 4 for some exponential creativity, but not so much you don’t have to deal with some boundaries. And it *can* sound nice. And it’s fantastic for the analog addict who wants a more forgiving sketch pad in terms of limitations compared to 4-track. And most of all?
It
Is
Fun
My gosh how my pursuit of my dream setup has sucked the life out of opportunity to be creative and make music. Fixing stuff…wiring…and I’ve spent plenty of time working in digital. I’ve done multiple full-length projects all in the box. But a cassette portastudio you can plug it in, plug up some sources, pop in a cassette and just make some fucking music and if you have your head straight not worry about splitting all the hairs about how phat it is or how lo-fi or WHATEVER and just create something, without a buhjillion features and controls and waveforms and bells and whistles that you need a gihugic screen to see…twist some knobs and flip some switches and just have fun creating. And yes with some careful execution you can get results beyond what others think the format can achieve. I listen back to that tape release from my band in the early 90s and am surprised just how great it sounds. And on “high-speed” 4-track cassette? Now we get rid of the finicky…my opinion is 4-track is the true “home recording” track count…back in the day when home recordists were scrapping to pull together funds for a cassette 4-track, or an open reel 4-track on 1/4” tape…a 2340 series machine or if you were lucky a 3340…I’m going back a ways here. But people got creative with the limitations. And I’m telling you @famous beagle has some cassette 4-track stuff that he’s posted here over the years that sounds amazing. Using the sonic advantages of the format in the best way and capturing some great sounds. And bottom line it is FUN to have and use a cassette multitrack machine, but it does have limitations which may or may not matter to you. Don’t let anybody tell you what is “real” or “correct” for you, but also be cognizant of what your goal actually is and pursue the tape format that can accommodate that goal. It bugs me when people think any analog format can achieve “phat tape sat” results of the best of the analog era, music that many of us grew up with. But also don’t assume you can’t develop skills to maximize the results of any format and get good results. Just be reasonable in your expectations. This whole diatribe is a combination of stuff I wanted to say over in @RFR ‘s thread about how he hates his digital mixes and I just haven’t had time…but I read this thread and out it poured because, to the OP, you are considering three VASTLY different machines. I think you need to step back and FIRST decide how many tracks you need. You can sync the 688 with the 238 or the TSR-8…or the MSR-24, but get ready to go on a hunt for the hardware to chase-lock two tape machines together and then likely pay $300 just for the sync cables to be custom built. Unless you’re lucky and the exact cable you need is included or you can build them yourself. And I get you’re hesitant to outright sell some nice gear you have, but to me the clear winner is the TSR-8. For that you’ll need a minimum 8-channel console with inline monitoring, or if no inline monitoring a 16 channel console would be ideal. The MSR-24? Yep it’s 24 or more channels assuming there are monitoring faculties, and if not be thinking about something with 48 channels. If you need to grow the rig grow the rig but be mindful you don’t take such a step it twists your head off and you end up getting wrapped up in gear and not making music. Be okay with staying in a zone of gear you can actually maintain and operate.
I gotta close with this random bit…the 688 is a pretty amazing machine. The electronic source and assign switching matrix makes for noiseless switching and muting, and really powerful features in a small footprint. I’ve got a YouTube video I put up a couple three years ago presenting what the control surface would have to look like if all the electronic matrix functions were physical controls instead. But while I was grappling with whether or not to sell it, since it is really clean and original and 100%, this cheap 488mkII came up. I had to drive an hour to get it. $150. Needs work. I know. Not the best deal. But these things are getting STUPID pricey anymore. And it’s complete and original and will clean up really nice. And it’s not as fancy as the 688, but I feel like I can relate to it better. I feel like a good cassette portastudio forces you to get creative and the 488mkII has lots of cool possibilities. And I like real per-control switches and knobs. I bought it thinking I might fix and flip it. But I remember making that cassette release. And it was fun. And sounded good. The 244 is my favorite. I’ve got a bad feeling the 488mkII is going to stick around though.
Last edited:
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
I believe the MSR-24 is direct drive, I know the TSR-8 is belt drive. I just put up a long post and now I gotta run…no time to open up my MSR series manual set.Check @sweetbeats threads out for tech info. Personally I don’t know if that machine has belts or not. Not saying it does, not saying it don’t.
I’m a 100% certain I don’t know.
I think he was talking about the TRS
I knew the MSR 24 was direct drive and I ‘think’ my MSR 16 is as well.
But the TSR is what’s up for question
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Well, now that we all have armed him with some knowledge.......
And by the way your post was quite detailed.
All he has to do now is to make the deal happen.
We shall see where it goes.
Good luck
pattarginkom
Member
Managed to work a deal out for the TSR-8! Got a bit of a road til I use it for my intended purpose.. basically 688 synced up with it with the midi-izer communicating between the two!
My 688 needs some service too. Most likely won’t have this rig set up for a few months. But I got a 488 Mkii and a tascam 32-2 to keep me busy til then.
Very exciting stuff tho
My 688 needs some service too. Most likely won’t have this rig set up for a few months. But I got a 488 Mkii and a tascam 32-2 to keep me busy til then.
Very exciting stuff tho
Attachments
pattarginkom
Member
pattarginkom
Member
I just got that mts-1000 in the mail today tho!
pattarginkom
Member
In theory it should. I’ll find out when I get there. The TSR-8 among other later tascam machines like the 238, MSR-16/32, 688 all have a sync option where one machine is the master and the other is the slave. You can use an ATS-500 (May be messing up the model name) or a MTS-1000 to sync the machines. And the motor of the slave machine is controlled through voltage if I’m not mistaken. Using SMPTE time code you can sync decks as well as implement some midi features.
pattarginkom
Member
I don’t have the cables made up yet so it’ll be after acquiring the TSR-8 that I attempt this feat haha
pattarginkom
Member
Haha yup! I’m in it now. I’ve wanted to do this for years so here’s my shotGotcha! So at this point you’re crossing your fingers and ‘hoping’
The plus is both units have low hours on them. But because they’re older they both need service. So that’s the next step! I have faith. I’ve heard a lot of good things about the MTS and very few failed attempts. So fingers crossed? Hahaha. I’ll definitely update the forum with my progress. Maybe under a new thread! But I’ll be back with photos of the TSR-8! 
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I'm a little bit late to this, but I do have experience with both machines.
The TSR-8 is still one of my workhorse machines. The MSR-24 is nice, but the narrower tracks make it more sensitive to tape dropouts or the tape wandering slightly up and down the path. You can also use the TSR-8 without noise reduction, whereas it's not really viable on the MSR-24.
At one point I had the two locked together, I think the TSR-8 was master.
Space-wise, You can get relatively compact mixing desks with 20 channels which will work at a pinch if you ignore tracks 1-2 and 23-24 for audio. If you want to use timecode on an MSR-24 you're best leaving track 23 clear anyway to avoid crosstalk.
I used the Soundcraft MFXi-20 at first and later graduated to an A&H GL2400-24 which I'm still using on the Otari. They're not massive units and about the same width as a 61-key keyboard.
The MSR-24 is direct drive, the TSR-8 has a capstan belt.
I used the MSR on 4 albums before getting a 2" deck, and I still have the thing both to play back 1" tapes, and also as an emergency backup in case the 2" deck fails on me.
The TSR-8 is still one of my workhorse machines. The MSR-24 is nice, but the narrower tracks make it more sensitive to tape dropouts or the tape wandering slightly up and down the path. You can also use the TSR-8 without noise reduction, whereas it's not really viable on the MSR-24.
At one point I had the two locked together, I think the TSR-8 was master.
Space-wise, You can get relatively compact mixing desks with 20 channels which will work at a pinch if you ignore tracks 1-2 and 23-24 for audio. If you want to use timecode on an MSR-24 you're best leaving track 23 clear anyway to avoid crosstalk.
I used the Soundcraft MFXi-20 at first and later graduated to an A&H GL2400-24 which I'm still using on the Otari. They're not massive units and about the same width as a 61-key keyboard.
The MSR-24 is direct drive, the TSR-8 has a capstan belt.
I used the MSR on 4 albums before getting a 2" deck, and I still have the thing both to play back 1" tapes, and also as an emergency backup in case the 2" deck fails on me.
pattarginkom
Member
That is good insight! I’m thinking I want more of the wide tape width as I’ll be pairing with another tape machine through the MTS-1000. This gives me wider tape to play with for drums, or a beefy synth tone or whatever. Going to experiment. On the other hand it still puts me in a place of limitation which I have grown to love when using tape machines.
I think the 24 may just blow my limitations and need to sync out of the water, as well as give a similar level of fidelity as my 688 due to track width. Well I’m not sure on that but that’s kinda how I see it.
If I were to abandon my other machines and get a console this would make more sense, but I really like recording onto cassette and I have amassed a bunch of blank ones.
Settling on the TSR-8 and hopefully picking up next week!
A lot of my favorite bands used the Otati MX 5050 which seems to be a little bit of a higher grade machine from the TSR-8 but they are comparable and the TSR-8 just fits right into my current tascam set up with the Midi-izer at the center.
Next step is finding the right board for this machine. I’m thinking I’ll go with a rack unit, so my research continues! But I’m in no rush at this point just gonna enjoy the ride