Tascam 238

  • Thread starter Thread starter David Benson
  • Start date Start date
D

David Benson

New member
Is anyone familiar with this model. Any suggestions for a reasonably priced mixing board since it does not have one like the Portastudios? Would there be a way to use my 4 track porta-studio as a mixer with this. I only record one track at a time. DB
 
Well, a Portastudio's mixer section could be used, but it would an odd mismatch,...

kind of depending on which 4-track Portastudio you were talking about. It would need to have 8 Line-ready inputs, for playback. Many 4-track Portastudios would suffice, under these terms, but it would pay to be specific. The 238 with a Portastudio as front end mixer would be a functional system, if you really needed it to be.

The base model Tascam mixer that would match with the 238 would be the M-30, which can be had for very reasonable bid prices. Next up would be possibly an M-308, M-312 or M-35. All these boards would be fine. Even the larger M-320 can be had at appreciably low bid prices, depending on the day.

There are other mixers,... many other vintage Tascam mixers that would suffice, but a lot of it depends on the scope of your input-side or live mixing demands, and the obvious factor of budget.

M-512, M-520, M-208, M-216, M-1508, M-1516, M-2600,... etc.
 
Mixer

A Reel Person said:
kind of depending on which 4-track Portastudio you were talking about. It would need to have 8 Line-ready inputs, for playback. Many 4-track Portastudios would suffice, under these terms, but it would pay to be specific. The 238 with a Portastudio as front end mixer would be a functional system, if you really needed it to be.

The base model Tascam mixer that would match with the 238 would be the M-30, which can be had for very reasonable bid prices. Next up would be possibly an M-308, M-312 or M-35. All these boards would be fine. Even the larger M-320 can be had at appreciably low bid prices, depending on the day.

There are other mixers,... many other vintage Tascam mixers that would suffice, but a lot of it depends on the scope of your input-side or live mixing demands, and the obvious factor of budget.

M-512, M-520, M-208, M-216, M-1508, M-1516, M-2600,... etc.
Click to expand...
I have the 424 MKIII I would be limited because there are no out ports for each track, and I would have to use the master out on the back of the studio which would mean I could only record one track at a time correct? Does the 238 record at a higher quality then a 488? I read a review which seem to think the 238 is much higher quality. DB
 
Okay, I've reconsidered your scheme, a bit.

There is a point where the 424mkIII would not cut it, with respect to the 238. That is, TAPE CUE function, of which you'd have none, in your proposed seteup.

IF you would like to use the 424mkIII as a front end mixer, it would oblige you to have a SEPARATE mixer for CUE, such as the Tascam M-1B, which can be had at very reasonable bid prices.

See, the 424mkIII is a 2-buss/8-input mixer, which would enable you to record 2 tracks at a time, the first pass onto the 238. THEN, on final mixdown, there would be 8-inputs, to accommodate an 8x2 stereo mixdown OFF the 238. HOWEVER, during the OVERDUB process, there's no facility for CUE, to listen back to previously recorded tracks, while you record the subsequent tracks.

THEREFORE, it would require you to have another separate mixer, either another Portastudio with 8 inputs for CUE (itself), or a smalller mixer that would enable you to feed the 238's inputs, while you simultaneously listened back on the 424mkIII.

SO, in summary, the SIMPLEST solution to your proposition of mating a 238 with a 424mkIII, would be the addition of an M-1B, as cue monitor.

The other avenue, would be to score the M-30, or above, as in my first post.
 
Thanks. I also talked with someone today who said that I could improve my sound on the MKIII by using better front-end equipment. He said I could bypass the mixer and preamps on the MKIII which are consumer grade and use a pro grade mixer in its place. He also said to turn the pitch contol up to speed up the tape while recording. Your thoughts on that? He thought I could get a new mixer for under 200.00 that would make a marked difference in my recordings. He works at Sam Ash Music.
 
I've heard in passing, that the 238 has higher fidelity than the 488.

However, this has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The 238 & 488 share the same record/reproduce head, but the transport and electronics are quite different. Plus, the 488 std has a built-in mixer of moderate quality, and the 238, being standalone, would enable you to pair it up with a much higher quality mixer. The 488mkII has a higher quality mixer than the 488 std, but nothing on par with the M-30, M-35/308/312, etc.

I have not read and compared the specs of the 238, vs the 488, nor have I done an A/B side-by-side comparison, but I'll do so, at my soonest convenience. When I do, I'll report on my findings.
 
Sure! I'll take that one on!

David Benson said:
Thanks. I also talked with someone today who said that I could improve my sound on the MKIII by using better front-end equipment. He said I could bypass the mixer and preamps on the MKIII which are consumer grade and use a pro grade mixer in its place. He also said to turn the pitch contol up to speed up the tape while recording. Your thoughts on that? He thought I could get a new mixer for under 200.00 that would make a marked difference in my recordings. He works at Sam Ash Music.
Click to expand...

Well, honestly, it sounds like another well placed, slick sales pitch, of a guy from Sam Ash.

There is a grain of truth to what he says, of course, but the M-30 mixer, used at about $75, would set you FAR ahead of anything they could sell you for $200 at Sam Ash.

Any 4-buss mixer could be used as a suitable front end mixer to the 424mkIII. As to whether it will gain you a tangible boost in hifi sound quality, is not as easy as 1+1=2. There are more variables to consider, but yes, a 4-buss mixer could be used as a suitable front end to the 424mkIII.

To be fair, a Mackie 4-buss mixer (1604VLZ), or Yamaha mixer (MG 12/4) would suffice as a functional front end to the 424mkIII, but I make absolutely no claims as to what kind of hifi you'd achieve by using them.

ALSO, there's STILL NO FACILITY FOR CUE TRACKS, to/from the 238, when using the Mackie or Yamaha mixers, in this example, above. IMO, you're still not "there yet". Although the Mackie and Yamaha mixers have their supporters, I'm not necessarily one of them.

I keep falling back on the Tascam M-30, because it's such a great mixer, going at such a great bid price, these days,... almost like "sleeper" gear, selling for as little as $65, on some days. There's hardly any beating that deal, price for price, feature for feature.

The M-30 has 8-Inputs, 4-Busses, a Monitor AND SUBMIX section, which is more than adequate for this "CUE" function I keep alluding to.

Also, I have [4] Tascam M-30's, & have used them since the early 80's. I know their full capabilities go further than would first meet the eye, on first glance. I know first hand the M-30's to adequately support the 238, or any other 4- or 8-track recorder, and I CAN vouch for the suitable hifi audio that can be achieved on the M-30. That's why I'd highly recommend "cutting to the chase", and getting the M-30,... which could be adequately adapted to the 424mkIII, while you're at it.

I'll get off my soap box now, because I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

/DA
 
David Benson said:
... He also said to turn the pitch contol up to speed up the tape while recording. Your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

This bit, specifically is basically true, but the transport PITCH function was not meant to be used this way. PITCH, in general, was meant to facilitate "pitch matching" of the tape drive to other hard to tune instruments, like piano or brass.

IF you cranked up the PITCH control all the way to the right, CW, then you'd get a small boost in high frequency response, but your facility to use the PITCH control for actual "pitch matching" would be lost, because you've used up all your Clockwise rotational travel that the control permits.

It's a small consideration, but I'd rather have the FULL control of the PITCH function, to use it how it was intended to be used, than to crank it all the way to the right, and get the minor HF response boost that you'd get by doing this.

See, I've NEEDED to use the PITCH function, in real world situations of pitch matching, but I've never considered the 424mkIII's frequency response to be inadequate.

This is another point that's a bit more subjective than it seems, at first, & YMMV. :eek:

Rule of thumb, believe ME, the unattached experienced stranger, and the recommendations I've made out of my 22+ years of home recording, above the "advice" (pitch) of a Sam Ash sales rep, who has a WHOLE SET of different guidelines and motivations, and may not even be 22 years of age, at all.
 
Listen to ARP (A Reel Person). He KNOWS his stuff TONS better than some "sales guy".

Alrighty then .. :D

Daniel :)
 
238/m-30, M-1508

Hi guys,

thank you for the input. I accidently deleted the post, trying to remove the repeated question, since I did not see your replies before reposting. I wanted to refer to your input, but erased it by mistake. Sorry. I am a little confused. The M-30 is capable, simpler to use (more reliable too?), built in power supply, less mixing capabilities, etc. The M-1508 has separate power supply (quieter performance), double mixing capabilities? Does the effects loop differ on the M-30? Or does the M-30 not have a master loop, and only inserts per each channel? So many questions..... There is a M-30 on auction for about $50+, and I was emailed from an unknown that watches ebay, who offered me a M-1508 in good working order other than missing a few colored plastic knob tops (comon form what I seen), He offered it to me shipped for $176.00 What do you think? I was trying to get a M-1508 from a guy that had his listed in a classified section for $150 in excellent cond, but after emailing, calling a few times and even offering him gas money to get of his ass to ship it, he said he still uses it for his drums! That pissed me off! Why the hell put the damn thing in the classifieds then? (BASTUD,haha!). I don't want to get too complicated, (another reason why I don't like the digital world at this time), but I want something that I won' outgrow too soon either. I like good sound but not too many options so that I can focus on the music. I like the simpler layout of the M-30, but I also want to be able to mix effects in a loop of sorts without having to rerout cables from record to playback. THe M-1508 seems to go fast at auctions and in the nieborhood of $150-$200. The M-30 of course is a more affordable for about $50- $100 from what I am seeing. I record mostly my Ensoniq SD-1 tracks my guitar (blues/jazz/rock/country/etc.), vocals, Bass etc. So with all your experiences I am weighing it all out. Any other thoughts greatly appreciated, and I will try not to delete my post by accident,haha! THis is an awesome site, thank you for being here! BTW, was there a preference on noise reduction? DBX vs. Dolby S? This is on the 238 deck.

thank you
Edge
 
238, M-30, M-1508

Hi again, sorry to bring it up again, but in my previous post about the M-30 vs. M-1508, I was asking your takes on both, and when I came back to follow up, I missed the message box, I am new here. I deleted the posts by accident. I seen that after I posted the second time, there were replies to my 1st post, so I went to delete the repetative post and deleted all of the postings you (ARP) and Herm had left. I am sorry about that, again I am a newbie here, and won't do that again..... Would you or can you repost your opnions on the 2 mixers, please.
Thanks
edge59
 
ok, found it finally

I am starting to get used to how to get around here, sorry bout that. I was watching a M30 on ebay for -+ $50 at this time of post, but I have been trying to get more info on a couple 1508's that are available. I hoped to get more info on the M30 (effects patching in a master loop section or inserts only), but I am not sure at this time if I should splurge on it. If it goes for $50-$75 there is also a $40 shipping on top, where One of the 1508's I am inquiring on would be shipped for $176, if its still available.... gotta weigh it all out but at this time only 3 min on the M30...

any thoughts?
thanks
Edge59
 
Well Its gone, did you get it???

:eek: :( ;) :p :) Well the M30 went quick. I thought maybe ARP might have snagged it at that price, haha. I kept bidding but for some reason my sign-in kept coming up, keeping me from bidding on time... Dratts, oh well theres a couple 1508's that I am inquiring on.
 
M30 or M1508 ???

My basic response is that the M30 is a very basic mixer, with good sound, relatively simple architecture, and adequate I/O patch points. The M30's design is so simple, that many of it's higher capabilities are overlooked on first glance, but depend on strategic switching and patching. Alternately, the M1508 is a much newer and more sophisticated design, that's comparable to many "modern" or current mixers you'll find.

Herm's basic response was that the M1508 was more mixer than the M30 in practically every category or feature, (other than they're both 8-input/4-buss), and he'd stick with the M1508,... & that you can hardly go wrong with the M1508.

;)
 
...

Hi,

First, $176 for shipping of an M1508 seems excessive.

Next, the M1508 has more "modern" features that you'd expect from an "average" mixer. Things such as Eff-Sends and Rcv's is standard.

The M30 is such an older design, that it doesn't have many features that are common on newer mixers. There is no dedicated Aux-Send/Rcv section, but the alternative is to use the "Monitor" section as an effects send, PLUS there is an ACCESS-SND/RCV patch point on every channel and every buss,... which makes up for not having a dedicated "Aux" section with knobs. If you know a little about mixers and patching, you'll be able to implement the Access-Snd/Rcv patch points as effects loops. So, the capability is there, but it's implemented differently than on other modern mixers.

/DA
 
Somthing I forgot to mention to add to the confusion here is that the m30 does have a little bit better eq cause it has mid sweep and low sweep.
To where the 1508 only has mid sweep.
It sounds like you just need to flip a coin ;) If you get a m30 you will have enough money left over to buy a phantom power unit or maybe a cheap effects unit for it is one way of looking at it and the vintage thing is always cool.
Good luck with your decision.
 
mixers

Hi guys,
thank you both for your honest opinions! I have a couple leads on the 1508 one for $173 shipped, without the sides??? Hummm, the other is in perfect shape for $200 plus shipping, humagain. I am thinking about what you both said about the M30 having what I basically need. THere is another unit on ebay that has two VU lamps out, but thats all they indicated, last I checked it was about $50. Ill check again. I am getting a 238S Tascam with remote in excellent cond, and I need a mixer, thinking about some kind of CD recorder for mixdown (Alesis ML9600 or? these are expensive), and hear much about TC finalizers>>>> getting confused with all the techie stuff, I just want to make the best home baesd recordings of my music possible on a budget, so I am limited to all the luxuries of equipment. I am starting to like the idea of the M-30 now, I am thinkin on it now. If you have anymore input, i'm all ears ;^)@@
thank you
Ed
 
Thanks for the additional info on the M-30. I have 2 leads on the 1508. One is $173 shipped, but it is missing the plastic sides... the other is mint for $200 plus shipping. THere is a M-30 for bid that looks good 2 VU meters lamps are not coming on, but the other 2 do when powering up... I will think about what you said. I would like to get some kind of CD recorder for mixdown (Alesis is pricey but cool), I also hear a lot of the Aphex 204 and the TC Finalizer as excellent mastering tools, but is it really nesesary? any more info is really appreciated!
thank you both!
Ed ;^)
 
Whats the scoop on the TEAC 3?

I just ran across a TEAC 3 that looks like its in good shape, its clean and just been gone through. I read somewhere here in your post Dave, that the TEAC 3 is the pre-runner of the M30, right? Is there any advantage of the 3 comapred to the M30? Does the 3 sound comparable and have the same ins/outs like the m30 or is it a lesser machine? The M30 up for bid is about $50, they want another $45 ship and 2 of the VU lamps are out, no one knows if the rest of that mixer is working, but it looks clean..

thanks
Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top