Tascam 238 Story #2…

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
sweetbeats

sweetbeats

Reel deep thoughts...
So this is a story about the third Tascam 238 I’ve owned. The title of the thread references “Story #2”, because I already have a “Tascam 238 Story…” thread, but the 238 in this thread is actually the third 238 I’ve owned…I sort of skipped over the first one because it was short-lived in the stable, acquired for a specific purpose.

That first 238 was purchased basically to test a theory. I had just finished engineering and producing a second full length project using a computer-based DAW setup…this was late 2006…the DAW setup worked really well, and by that point I was really comfortable using it…even enjoyed using it to a point…but I always felt I had to work hard to get good sounds and so it often felt laborious to record, and I was also hopelessly caught in the trap of trying to make things loud which really sucked the life out of the music, at least with the tools and skills I had at the time. So I want everybody to understand it’s more likely my digital gear and skill set that spurred my frustration than anything else…but what I knew at the time about how analog audio tape media and digital audio media captured signal led me to want to see if, at that point, with all the experience using the DAW, analog tape might possibly ease some of my frustration.

I grew up in the 70s and was around analog stuff long before digital. I believe I dive into some of that background elsewhere on this forum, so I’ll spare repeating it here. But there were lots of cassettes…still are…and open-reel experience too. And the first recording project I was a part of as a band member was tracked to analog. And my own first multitrack machine was a Teac 3340S. So after all the intervening years in the digital domain I just wanted to see if analog recording intrinsically addressed frustrations I was having with digital gear and workflow. So I bought that first 238, which was cheap back then…$75 or something like that? I figured it might not be a perfect specimen, but work well enough to test my theory.

I was right on both counts…it was not a perfect specimen…Track 8 had diminished signal…lots of dropping in and out…but I was also right the sound was easily much warmer than my digital rig…it was warmer and more forgiving. Is that just because of a more constrained bandwidth and higher distortion? Maybe. But really truly that didn’t matter to me because it was a treat to use sonically compared to the DAW in an off-the-cuff way. And anyway it was kind of fun too because 15 or so years earlier I used to drool over the 238 in the AMS and Interstate Music Supply mailer. So it was a novelty to have one in front of me. I remember being impressed with how the transport handled the cassette, the metering…and everything there in that one 3U package…8 tracks and dbx noise reduction…it was just…refreshing I guess.

Most the time when I’m testing a recorder I just throw down something using bass because it’s handy…print any effects during tracking which is usually some sort of delay effect….here is the 8-track test sketch I recorded to that first 238:

https://www.torridheatstudios.com/Audio/Personal Music Sampler/Tascam 238 Test 2006 10 30 (16 bit master).wav

Listening back on it I can hear the drop-outs, and I’m pretty sure I was over saturating the tape or maybe levels were too hot and the dbx was mis-tracking. So the recording has issues but there were so many facets I liked about the character of how the analog media captured the sound…and it bears mentioning, and I don’t know if this is contradictory or whatever, but the front-end was my Yamaha 01X I had at the time…so…a digital mixer…and digital effects. So the bass was preamplified by the onboard instrument preamp on the 01X, converted to digital, and an AUX buss used to send to one of the onboard effect engines. The return was internally summed to the dry signal, converted back to analog and an analog output was used to connect to tape inputs as I built the sketch. And all the while I used the 01X as a cue mixer during overdubs. Thinking back I think I actually did a combination of printing dry and printing wet, and applied some additional effects at mixdown, which was all accomplished by the 01X. I was never dissatisfied by the sound of the 01X itself. I think my frustrations and dissatisfactions were really related to the engineering and post-production processes in the box…something always seemed lost in the sound once it got in there, and additionally bells and whistles are really not a good thing for me. So the argument could be made that the reason I liked the sound of the sketch was not the 238, but the digital pathway and effects of the 01X. But I would refute that argument, because I’d done tons of mixing and monitoring with the 01X by that point, only using the computer-based DAW as my multitracker. Using the 238 was, again, so refreshing and much more easily lush to my ears in spite of the deficits particularly with that first machine, and the limitations of the format. But I just didn’t care. It was so much easier to get a sound I liked. Maybe I was just that thirsty. But it was easy to determine from the test I wanted to incorporate an analog multitracker to the recording rig, but not cassette. That test led me to bring home a minty pair of 1/2” 8-tracks, a 48-OB and a 58-OB…$250 total for the pair with manuals…oh how times have changed. Those machines and my stories with them are documented elsewhere here on this forum, as well as many other escapades with many other machines…back to the 238…

So I returned that first 238 because of the track 8 issue…it was listed as fully functional, returns accepted.

238 #2 came along a number of years later in September of 2014. I have a thread on that one here:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/tascam-238-story.384207/

Advance apologies, as I’m re-reading that old thread, there’s some retelling of information in this new thread from that one. At least I’m consistent lol. IIRC I sold 238 #2 with the RC-88 for a reasonable price to somebody on this forum maybe sometime in 2017 or early 2018. I had decided at that point I just wasn’t likely to use cassette 8-track, had a baby on the way, needed space and money, etc., so off it went. I wasn’t thinking I’d end up with a 238 again, but when you come across one in this day and age for $50 WITH the RC-88, and it’s local, even with the presumption it needs work, you get it. Well, maybe not everybody does. But I do.

Which finally brings us to 2022, and 238 #3. The story starts in this thread here in post #15:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/what-is-it-that-compells-me….415149/#post-4670973

We leave that thread with 238 #3 running and driving, replete with a new capstan servo PCB installed, cleaned up, everything working except one of the edge tracks performing a little flakily, which has kind of been par for the course in my experience with cassette 8-tracks. And then it sat in various corners for months while we moved, and did various many other things.

To be continued…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
In the interim I bought an Audio Technica AT-RMX64 and went neck deep into that…related thread here:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/audio-technica-at-rmx64-story….419129/

I guess I’m still neck deep there. But a related sidetrack developed in the course of overhauling the AT-RMX64 transport…at first glance the pinch roller seemed fine. But on closer inspection I found it was not…and having bought an Athan pinch roller for one of my 244s, I decided to see if Athan had or could make one for the AT-RMX64. You can read the details in the AT-RMX64 thread, but I was able to get an Athan roller for the AT-RMX64. And because of my discoveries in that process I started wondering about the integrity of the 238 roller that was in the machine…was it possible that, even though the rubber was grippy and it appeared in serviceable condition, it was aged, misshapen and contributing to my edge track issue?…and also my 122B which is still in project status…could I and should I get an Athan roller for that? I went a bit deep on the whole cassette pinch roller thing…related thread here:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/cassette-pinch-roller-carnage….419339/

Anyway, back to the 238, if you read the Cassette Pinch Roller Carnage thread you’ll know I collaborated with Athan and they now make one of their incredible pinch rollers for the 238. It finally arrived the other day and I’m looking forward to installing that soon. I figured if I had things apart and I was replacing the pinch roller I may as well replace the reel table drive tire even though the transport functions, including the scrub function, were working fine…not perfect on the scrub function but good enough. I know…if it isn’t broken…But if you read my threads you know I do all sorts of stupid it-isn’t-really-terrifically-broken-let’s-fix-it-anyway-and-maybe-risk-actually-breaking-something stuff…I’ve learned to accept me…So I figured the reel table drive tire that was in there was original, and it’s a tiny thing in the 238. Like, look at it…it’s the smallest reel drive tire I’ve ever encountered in a cassette deck:

506B713E-7BDE-4DE9-9CC8-4B455F325973.webp


43042A2B-68C2-426C-B59B-ED997231FB0A.webp


So the hunt began to find a new one. Should be easy right? Well it would have been if I followed my own advice.

To be continued…
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
So I was already ordering a bunch of rubber parts for the 122-B, 244 and AT-RMX64 from a certain vendor through a proxy…a proxy because the proprietor won’t do business with me because he’s still cheesed off nearly 15 years later that I called him out for double-crossing me for marketing and selling high quality scans of many manuals I shared with him with the understanding we were just sharing our technical libraries. Well that’s not what he had in mind I guess even though he told me he wouldn’t sell them. But he’s still selling them. So I shared publicly what he did and he’s butt-hurt I guess. Anyway, proxy friend asked proprietor if he had 238 reel table drive tires and he said he did. So I ordered some. He sent these:

D994E94F-F9AB-4CEA-8B4C-D3EDF307C34F.webp


The black is the original. The orangey ones are what he sent. They can spin on the hub…ID is way too big, OD is considerably bigger than factory…the cross section is rounded on the outer surface so the context patch will be less than the factory tire…he was surprised and said he’d never had anybody point any of this out to him. He claims he’s sold them to satisfied customers and I’m not going to refute that, but maybe those customers aren’t as particular as me. I dunno…I figure it’s a very small tire and the scrub function goes from naught to 3 3/4ips and all points in between and I want it to work like factory. So there was some back-and-forth and honestly to his credit it was clear he was interested in gathering information and trying to make it right…searched for alternatives, sent one of them at my request, but when it got here it was evident it was just too small. So, I returned them and decided to move on to the next vendor option. But he did try to make it right, and all the rest of the parts for the 122-B and 244 appear to be spot-on, and the AT-RMX64 drive tire is installed and works flawlessly. And the prices were very right. And I’m a decent fella so I recommend his products as far as belts and tires, etc: Dynamic Technology Group. Just don’t get a 238 drive tire. Read on.

So Vendor #2 was West Coast Belts. They have a part on their website labeled as the 238 tire. More expensive than vendor #1. I ordered two…I always order two. I don’t know why. I guess I figure I’ll have another one to repair someday and I won’t be able to get the part. “what compels me…” Anyway, this is what arrived:

FB89C093-31AE-4EE2-97AF-50F7480B398E.webp


E7E1B450-0535-4BCE-8626-03A853969D47.webp


Factory tire is on the left…what they sent is on the right. I reached out to them wondering if they sent the wrong part. They claim there are different drive assemblies in the 238, and they sent the correct tire for one of the types. First of all there’s only one type of reel table drive assembly in a 238…according to Teac. I suppose they would know. But West Coast Belts insists there are different types. We went back and forth, me sending measurements, asking if they had something, during the exchange they increased the price of the part on the website and changed the picture. I asked for dimensions of the part pictured on the website. They wouldn’t respond to that. They said I could send the wrong parts back for a full refund. I’m still waiting for the refund. I had to pay the return shipping. In my personal opinion and experience they were frustrating to work with, have terrible customer service and aren’t straight-forward. I can’t recommend them. That’s my opinion based on my own experience. On to the next vendor.

So there’s a guy on Reverb out of Canada who sells tape machine rubber parts, Daniel’s Gear Emporium. I’ve never actually ended up buying anything from the guy, but I’ve reached out a couple different times asking questions and gathering information. His prices for parts are nominal, but the shipping from Canada to the US is expensive, naturally…but he’s always really responsive and helpful even though he hasn’t ended up actually landing a sale with me. I’m sure he’s all like “oh it’s you again”, but he’s always as helpful as he can be. So I want to mention him because he’s somebody I think I would buy from, it’s just the timing wasn’t right or I identified something else at a better price considering the shipping. If you’re in Canada he might be a really good option. Anyway he did some digging and found an option for the 238 tire, but I think it’s the same as the last small one I got from vendor #1. Daniel had some data to support it should work and be dimensionally correct when stretched onto the hub, which I appreciate, but me being all unconscionably picky that just didn’t seem “right”. But note he has lots of other “right” products…I think the 238 drive tire is just a tough nut to crack. So…after I originally messaged him I had an epiphany…and reached out to vendor #4 while awaiting Daniel’s response. And I struck little tiny tape machine part gold…

I’m a dummy. How many times have I told people right here on this forum “Just call Teac/Tascam.” Yes…vendor #4 SHOULD have been vendor #1…and I’m telling you don’t do the chicken thing and email. They have a phone. They have a nice knowledgeable lady in the parts department who will actually answer the phone. Just call. You’re messing with an old-school tape machine anyway…just keep it real and order parts the old-school way. So first I opened the Service Manual and got the part number for the “Idler Assy.” It’s listed on page 27 which references the exploded view on page 26, line item 23, part number 5800430302. I dial the number, nice lady answers, I tell her what I’m looking for, she tickity-ticks on her keyboard and then asks me to hold for a moment…comes back and says they have it in stock, only there’s an updated part number, which is V00101900A, $8.18 each…I ask if there’s any way to know how old the parts are and she responds within seconds they received the parts from the manufacturer in 2021…which is amazing she had ready access to that information, and was willing to share it. I don’t take that for granted since I’m currently working through a quagmire with Audio Technica Japan trying to get service documentation for the AT-RMX64. They’re like Fort Knox. Teac is, like, here ya go. So anyway the idlers are essentially new current stock. I order 2. Shipping was at cost, really cheap. But with the updated part number, and me not being exactly sure of what I’m getting since it is the “idler assembly”, I was holding my breath. It only took a couple days. This is what I got:

11FA863C-B954-4818-95A8-118D2EA005B5.webp


8C1F5EFC-3B5C-4B13-884B-DD418EBE303C.webp


Yes. New is on the left, the original is on the right…it is the exact correct part.

Just…

Call…

Tascam Parts first.

Okay. Thanks for reading. That brings us up-to-date. The 238 is teetering on the top of a pile all half disassembled…I mentioned we moved some months ago but settling into my home office/music space is, by necessity, low priority. So it’s a scary mess in here. Not to mention it doesn’t help I keep opening up cassette machines on the operating tables I don’t have. But it shouldn’t take too much work to put the 238 back together with the brand new factory reel table drive assembly, and upgraded new pinch roller, and see if I end up having the best functioning cassette 8-track I’ve ever owned.

To be continued…
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Well, 238 #3 is finally all back together. There was some delay because I had to work through a little issue with the pinch roller…nothing wrong per se with Athan’s product…the carrier for the pinch roller in a 238 is a little wider than most. The factory roller has some little protrusions on each side to take up the gap…you can see them in this pic of the original roller:

EFA0EC21-1710-4901-ACD5-B1B989C320AA.webp


Oh and a quick aside…I think I mentioned the whole reason I was going all out and replacing the roller in the first place was because I discovered on another machine I have here that, even though the roller looks alright, is still appropriately soft and has grip to it, the diameter is not uniform from one side to the next of the roller. This is bad. I noticed it with my naked eye one day and measured with a dial caliper to be sure. So I figured maybe I should replace the 238 roller too. Can you see in the picture above the diameter reduces toward the left? You can see, looking at the upper border of the roller between the black roller and white background, it slopes down slightly toward the bottom of the picture as you get to the left edge. And I measured and verified what my eye is seeing is true. So…bye-bye factory roller. But Athan’s tooling doesn’t allow for a roller assembly over 8mm wide. The 238 carrier is 9mm. So I talked to George on the phone about it…he forewarned me before he made the roller this was the case, so I was expecting all this, and he suggested we talk once I got it here to discuss whether or not the 1mm gap was a concern. The fact there is 1mm of play is not the issue…once under pressure the roller won’t wander. But what was a concern is if the brass core of the Athan roller would contact the inner wall of the carrier if it drifted all the way to one side…and that would create mechanical noise that could infiltrate the signal path…only the inner race of the roller bearing should contact the walls of the carrier, but the edges of the brass core are ever so slightly wider than the center of the roller bearings. George and I agreed on the issue. I offered I should be able to find miniature washers locally…he offered to make something…I thought it would be easier and cheaper and less time consuming for all if I just went to the hardware store…walking distance…they had exactly what I needed…M1.6 flat washers. They had to be less than 0.5mm thick, have an ID no less than 1.5mm, and an OD no greater than 5mm. What I found are 0.3mm thick, 1.6mm ID and 4mm OD. Perfect. A little play is okay. Again, the goal of adding the washers is to add what is essentially a thrust spacer to ensure the brass core can’t contact the inner wall of the carrier. To George’s credit he encouraged me to call him with any issues or concerns, that he’d make it right. Here are the parts:

C404E224-0B09-4704-A4B0-A17D6F8B8059.webp


And here is the roller assembled:

38113E01-7B25-4CD1-BAC6-CE2629B675E5.webp


F3D0B2AB-C6DF-4F1F-B821-4AD774868D84.webp


Annnd installed:

IMG_7817.webp


I’ve not taken things completely through their paces yet, but everything is functioning correctly. I’m particularly curious of the new pinch roller helps to mitigate poor edge track performance, but that will have to be answered in a future post.
 
Last edited:
Well…almost a year it’s been since I asked the question at the end of my last post. At least I’ve circled back around to follow up, yes? I’m back on this project because I’ve pulled the 238 out to prep it for sale, and part of that prep is to verify it electronically performs to spec…and I expected a calibration would answer the question as to whether or not, with the new Athan pinch roller, the finicky edge-track performance was mitigated. The answer is a resounding yes. It’s a little hard to believe because, as I detail in this thread, out of the seven Tascam 8-track cassette multitrack machines I’ve owned and worked on, this is the first one I’ve had with solid, reliable performance to factory spec across all 8 tracks…ever. It is really solid…and performs to spec. Amazing. Here is the 315Hz reference tone reproducing from the cal tape and then after record level calibration from a blank tape at 0dB:

IMG_0531.webp


IMG_0535.webp


I got out my Teac test tape with the 63Hz to 14kHz tone ladder, did the frequency response calibration, which went fine, and similar results…absolutely solid performance within spec across all tracks…no finicky edge tracks. It’s awesome. So I *highly* recommend the Athan pinch roller…

IMG_0539.webp


And with the factory fresh reel table drive tire, fast wind, locate point shuttling and scrub functions are all working beautifully. And then I did a test with program material and all tracks sound great and consistent. What cool machine. All these years I’ve just assumed one had to put up with some performance issues on at least one edge track. Nope. If this is what you’re dealing with on your 8-track multitrack machine, I’d get a good quality replacement pinch roller…basically an instant fix.
 
@sweetbeats I always enjoyed the 234 Syncaset - I never went for a 238 - 8 tracks on a 1/2" tape width just seemed to me to pushing it - I did demo one early on - and it sounded fine - not as good as the 234 - but still fine - that is until you tried bouncing tracks down - that's when it got untenable - loads of noise even when carefully EQing everything - your 238 looks amazingly clean BTW - and good job on the Roller.
 
Yeah, thanks. Super clean. This is the one I picked up for $50 with remote. It was dusty but you could tell it was clean underneath.

IMG_5748.webp


I had fingers crossed it would function okay but also fully expected it would not. Capstan servo was shot. Replaced the PCB assembly with new and that’s when I was able to fully determine the reel table drive tire needed replaced as well as the pinch roller. Ready to rock now.

And yes I’ve had several 234s and I really like that machine…and it would naturally have some better fidelity especially with projects requiring multiple generations. But of course the trade-off is 4 vs 8 tracks, and the 238 has chase-lock capability if you’re into that sort of thing…full function remote, onboard 2-point auto-locator with auto-punch and rehearse…and the scrub function. Each is well-suited for specific objectives and scenarios. I like ‘em both. :)
 
Lucky find... I wish I could find just the remote for that much. I'd love to attempt reverse engineering the rc-88, and come up with a DIY solution for all the 238 owners who don't have one.
 
Holy sh*t, what an incredible thread Cory. :thumbs up:
Thanks, Daniel! It was a good machine, now with a happy new owner. It was a worthwhile build to get the experience replacing the servo assembly and learning what I learned about the pinch roller’s impact on edge track performance, and, as always, glad I could share my findings here!
 
I'm curious... the 238 is joined by the 488 and 688 as the other 8-tracks-on-cassette that Tascam made. Do you know if the transports are the same in all (3) machines? Frankly the transport in your photos of the 238 seem quite a bit more robust than what I remember seeing in the 488 and 688, though I'm just going by memory and not really sure. If they are, that makes the 488 and 688 more attractive to me. If not, then I think that makes the 238 more attractive. I say this because, 8 tracks on a cassette is really pushing the limits of cassette technology, and in such a scenario you want the most robust transport you can get, particularly in regards to capstan stability and general tape handling and speed consistency. Your pics of the 238 make it seem up to the task.

I just went to the Athan website to see if the pinch roller you mentioned was also being offered for the 488 and 688 (which would suggest they are the same part, which would then go toward suggesting they are possibly using the same transports...), but Athan makes no mention of the 488 or 688.
 
I'm curious... the 238 is joined by the 488 and 688 as the other 8-tracks-on-cassette that Tascam made. Do you know if the transports are the same in all (3) machines? Frankly the transport in your photos of the 238 seem quite a bit more robust than what I remember seeing in the 488 and 688, though I'm just going by memory and not really sure. If they are, that makes the 488 and 688 more attractive to me. If not, then I think that makes the 238 more attractive. I say this because, 8 tracks on a cassette is really pushing the limits of cassette technology, and in such a scenario you want the most robust transport you can get, particularly in regards to capstan stability and general tape handling and speed consistency. Your pics of the 238 make it seem up to the task.

I just went to the Athan website to see if the pinch roller you mentioned was also being offered for the 488 and 688 (which would suggest they are the same part, which would then go toward suggesting they are possibly using the same transports...), but Athan makes no mention of the 488 or 688.
The transport in the 238 is distinct from the 488 series and the 688. The 488 series and 688 share the same transport, however. The 238 transport is very similar to the 122mkIII.

Honestly after working on many cassette transport in many formats, I wouldn’t consider the 238 more robust compared to the 488 series and 688. I think they are all pretty similar abs perform and handle tape similarly. Your decision might better be based on flexibility around the signal path because, obviously you’re committed to the mixing section on a 488, as well as being limited to maximum 4-track simultaneous record capability with the 488 series. It doesn’t have the scrub/shuttle function like the 238 and 688 have which is nice for some. The overall build of the 238 is more robust than either the 488 series or 688…just generally speaking considering the chassis, plug in amp cards in the 238, etc. But if you want the integrated mixing facilities then the 688 is your machine and plus it does allow for use of an external mixer because there are buss in jacks and tape out jacks for each of the 8 record busses and tape tracks and minimal signal path in between each…more than the 238 but still minimal, essentially bypassing the mixing console. The dichotomy is, I actually think the 488 series’ mixer sounds better than the 688. My theory is this has to do with the electronic switching/signal routing on the 688. Better for noise and surely is a powerful feature, but the sound doesn’t have as much life to it. I’ve experienced this with the 644 as well compared to the 424 series. Anyway, though it’s not as convenient, if I was dead-set on a cassette 8-track it would be the 238 with an external mixing console.

Contact George Athan and ask about the 488/688 roller. It should be the same as the 424 series.
 
The transport in the 238 is distinct from the 488 series and the 688. The 488 series and 688 share the same transport, however. The 238 transport is very similar to the 122mkIII.

Honestly after working on many cassette transport in many formats, I wouldn’t consider the 238 more robust compared to the 488 series and 688. I think they are all pretty similar abs perform and handle tape similarly. Your decision might better be based on flexibility around the signal path because, obviously you’re committed to the mixing section on a 488, as well as being limited to maximum 4-track simultaneous record capability with the 488 series. It doesn’t have the scrub/shuttle function like the 238 and 688 have which is nice for some. The overall build of the 238 is more robust than either the 488 series or 688…just generally speaking considering the chassis, plug in amp cards in the 238, etc. But if you want the integrated mixing facilities then the 688 is your machine and plus it does allow for use of an external mixer because there are buss in jacks and tape out jacks for each of the 8 record busses and tape tracks and minimal signal path in between each…more than the 238 but still minimal, essentially bypassing the mixing console. The dichotomy is, I actually think the 488 series’ mixer sounds better than the 688. My theory is this has to do with the electronic switching/signal routing on the 688. Better for noise and surely is a powerful feature, but the sound doesn’t have as much life to it. I’ve experienced this with the 644 as well compared to the 424 series. Anyway, though it’s not as convenient, if I was dead-set on a cassette 8-track it would be the 238 with an external mixing console.

Contact George Athan and ask about the 488/688 roller. It should be the same as the 424 series.
Thanks for the comments. I have (and had) a few cassette machines at this point, and for some reason I find the transport reliability and robustness as the thing I worry about the most. I've been shocked how much the capstan speed drifted in some machines I spent a lot of time tuning and calibrating... enough that guitars recorded one day were audibly out of tune (maybe 10 cents up or down?) when I'd come back the next day. Your comments about the Athan pinch roller really piqued my interest. That 238 seems like the machine to beat if you're interested in 8 track cassette. Honestly I do not need another tape machine, but unfortunately that hasn't stop me from acquiring additional machines yet...
 
This is a great story. I have refurbished a couple of these (all have had the capstan capacitor problem that I fixed). I LOVE this machine. I have sold the ones I refurbished but am keeping one for myself. I have also done the 234, and a couple of 134Bs (which are pretty damn nice too, if you're ok with Dolby). I had no idea that Tascam was selling parts. That is great news. We'll see if they have the idler gear (the piece on the other side of that spring from the idler tire), that actually broke on one I was working on. Fixed it by 3d printing something and gluing it on. It's been holding up fine but would love to get the original part. Anyway, Thanks for sharing the story. These are fantastic machines.
 
Hi, just recapped my servo board and cleaned/greased the mechanism.

There's a rubbing noise while in play mode and the left reel is quite chokey not revolving around smoothly, I can see the tape being unwinded jumping around a bit. My idler tire is good.

The reel tables inner rings were cleaned and greased back onto their shafts.

Wondering where the problem is coming from as the only contact point I'm aware of on the reels is their shaft.

Has anyone experienced this on their unit?
 
Are you using a TDK MA-XG with original metal tape inside or refilled with chrome tape ?
That’s an MA-XG shell loaded with TDK SM Pro tape. I never use Type IV tape on a cassette multitrack…I don’t think exist for which Type IV tape was specified. Good question and catch. I find the MA-XG shell provides for just a little more stable and consistent tape transport, which is helpful when calibrating especially the 8-track cassette multitrack machines, so that’s why I made up the custom “shop tape” with the Cr02 tape in the MA-XG shell.

What mechanism did you clean/grease when you recapped the servo board? Can you clarify?

Can you clarify what “chokey” means or maybe post a link to a video of what’s happening?

How do you know your reel table drive tire is “good”?

Did you adjust the brakes or at least verify they are in correct adjustment and aren’t contacting the reel table when they’re not supposed to?

Does the playback sound correct and it’s only a mechanical issue with the supply reel, or does the playback sound incorrect also?

A video would really help.

Does the scrub/shuttle function work correctly?
 
That’s an MA-XG shell loaded with TDK SM Pro tape. I never use Type IV tape on a cassette multitrack…I don’t think exist for which Type IV tape was specified. Good question and catch. I find the MA-XG shell provides for just a little more stable and consistent tape transport, which is helpful when calibrating especially the 8-track cassette multitrack machines, so that’s why I made up the custom “shop tape” with the Cr02 tape in the MA-XG shell.

What mechanism did you clean/grease when you recapped the servo board? Can you clarify?

Can you clarify what “chokey” means or maybe post a link to a video of what’s happening?

How do you know your reel table drive tire is “good”?

Did you adjust the brakes or at least verify they are in correct adjustment and aren’t contacting the reel table when they’re not supposed to?

Does the playback sound correct and it’s only a mechanical issue with the supply reel, or does the playback sound incorrect also?

A video would really help.

Does the scrub/shuttle function work correctly?

Thanks for commenting. I use an MA-XG shell sometimes with SA-X60 tape.

Parts of the mechanism cleaned/regreased are the reels, capstan bearing, brake levers. Original grease on the head plate is good for now.

Chokey as in irregular rotation, with some scrubbing heard.

Secondary motor was pulled out and idler inspected, fairly fresh tire measured 10mm at outer diameter.

The brakes are not making contact in play mode, as far as I can tell there is no adjustment needed as they're positioned according to the pin guide on their arm and the spring, unless you are talking about motor servo controller assisted braking which I haven't modified.

Playback sounds correct even when the left reel is choking reaching the end of the spool.

Shuttle function works fine.

Wondering if other components on the controller board are bad - I didn't have the replacement bipolar caps so left the old ones in, other ceramic caps there seem to be involved in the play control too.

The scrubbing seems strange and mechanically related but there's a probability of the controller needing more work.





 
Back
Top