Tascam 32 vs 22

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jillchaw
  • Start date Start date
upside down 32

It also looks like one of the reel hubs is sticking way the hell out. I still kinda want to buy it though. When i see old beaten shit i want to take it in and love it.
 
A Reel Person said:
What's the point of having 3-heads with independend Record Function and Monitor Select, if not for sync/overdubbing?
Click to expand...

welllllll... Ghost gave you one reason (which I told you over and over again!!) :D :D ...or for overdubbing non critical sync stuff...like narration w/background music. I believe the mono issue was probably the main reason.. Like I had said, mono playback was NOT THAT far back in history.

3 heads?? you outta know this stuff man !! :p :) :)

because the playback head offered better reproduction than the record head. VERY typical and basically THE reason why pro decks had three heads. Only in later years did companies like Tascam start touting the quality of their record heads for playback also.
However, check a "big boy" machine, and you will NEVER find an instance where someone like Ampex, MCI, etc... said you don't need a playback head because the quality was just as good as the record head. Never.. The electronics, gap setting...and all that stuff I don't really know what I am talking about, needed to be different between the two heads for optimum performance. Otherwise, why didn't you ever see two head pro decks capable of multitracking?? To my knowledge, they didn't exist.
 
btw...why the heck would you want a "stereo" machine for overdubbing? Seems kinda odd... unless some radio station was too cheap and did their jingles on them..etc. They at least would have had a 4 track.
 
Ummm,...

mixmkr said:
btw...why the heck would you want a "stereo" machine for overdubbing? Seems kinda odd... unless some radio station was too cheap and did their jingles on them..etc. They at least would have had a 4 track.
Click to expand...
For fun and the simplest of basic 2-track (sketch- or pre-) production.;)
 
Last edited:
mixmkr said:
welllllll... Ghost gave you one reason (which I told you over and over again!!) :D :D ...or for overdubbing non critical sync stuff...like narration w/background music. I believe the mono issue was probably the main reason.. Like I had said, mono playback was NOT THAT far back in history.
Click to expand...
Dude, don't patronize me! Of course I remember, as I cited that discsussion, above. Pls see my previous comments. It's when Beck offered his statement, above, I was just seeking further clarification. So sorry if mxmkr is not my single go-to source for infallible truth! I understand what you're saying, so c'mon!!


mixmkr said:
3 heads?? you outta know this stuff man !! :p :) :)
Click to expand...
Please see my previous statement, above.



mixmkr said:
because the playback head offered better reproduction than the record head. VERY typical and basically THE reason why pro decks had three heads. Only in later years did companies like Tascam start touting the quality of their record heads for playback also.
Click to expand...
Uhuh,... uhuh,...


mixmkr said:
However, check a "big boy" machine, and you will NEVER find an instance where someone like Ampex, MCI, etc... said you don't need a playback head because the quality was just as good as the record head. Never.. The electronics, gap setting...and all that stuff I don't really know what I am talking about, needed to be different between the two heads for optimum performance. Otherwise, why didn't you ever see two head pro decks capable of multitracking?? To my knowledge, they didn't exist.[
Click to expand...
Ah, the Big Kahuna of Mixdom has spoken!

PS: I like my Tascam 32, Fostex Model 20 & E2, as well as my Tascam 124AV 2-track (halftrack) overdubbing decks, just fine. If 2-track sync/overdubbing machines are not "sensible" to the pro's,.... oh well! There's probably not a 22-2 or any of those bigger decks in my future, but thanx for the further clarification, anyway.
 
Reel...I have NO intention of rousing you. I like you and you are an asset to these threads. I am sorry if my previous post sounded as a jab. NOT my intention. I thought I had put my "smileys' in the right place.

Please accept my apology if you felt I was rude. I am only trying to help in my lousy, typed internet fashion.

rock on!

btw.... sketch pads are for artists who draw pics... not musicians!! :D :D
 
Yes… that’s right about no sync on the 22-2. The tracks operate independently, but the record head does not rec/play simultaneously for sync mode.

It is 3-head. You can monitor the source or recorded signal during mixdown.

The 22-2 is primarily for stereo 2-track mixdown. It’s not meant for much else. But they did put separate record enable and monitor buttons, which are useful during calibration and for some A/V and broadcast situations where unsynced dialog was recorded with a mono track of background music, and for recording mono on one track, then flipping the tape and recording in the other direction. None of these things are really important to me except the calibration factor.

Sync was invented for multitracking. The 22 was made for mastering, and I’ve never missed not having syncability or other features. The front panel is refreshingly uncluttered, and the machine is easy to calibrate and maintain.

There’s nothing wrong with the Fostex Model 20 or E-2 and they have a lot of features. The 22-2 just has great sound in spades.

When TASCAM introduced the 22-2 the objective was to get the best sound possible at a lower cost than was available before… thus, no bells and whistles.

That’s part of the fun being in the 22-2 brotherhood. It was one of the lowest cost 15 ips half-tracks of all time, but it sounds as good and better than models 2-3 times it’s price.

Something the 22 does have are separate mic/line inputs and level controls, so you don’t necessarily need a mixer for location recording. It’s also very light… put it under one arm and it goes anywhere.

Sync? We don’t need no stinking sync!
 

Attachments

  • madre.webp
    madre.webp
    21.1 KB · Views: 109
Aaaaggghhh!!! So sorry I popped a breaker on'ya!!!

I've been reset and I feel better now.;) Yes, I saw the smilies. No need to apologize, in fact, I apologize instead.

I like the 22-2, despite the features that I'd consider only "halfway there", but considering I already have a 32, Model 20 and E2, it's a moot point (for me, at least). However, new users need to know these intricate details, and it's good so many of you old salts are gum-flappin' on this board. It's a deep and valuable resource of knowledge, and "almost-knowledge" in certain cases,... heh, heh.

It's amazing how flame wars can start over practically nothing. Where's MCIx0x0??? This is too fun, & I think he wouldn't wanna miss it!!:eek:

Okay? Friends?

........................... :eek: ;)
 
I think there's good reason to use a 32 for sync overdubbing when, say, you're doing one instrument (piano) and vocal and wish to have the best possible signal printed to tape with hardly any hiss. It's keeps it simple too and all you'd need is an exteral mixer to mix the 2 tracks down to somethin' interesting. ;) You could actually do more overdubs later being more creative with the 32 or a couple of them ;) . I don't know about you but me thinks having to work with a wider track format (comparable to 4 track 1/2" or 8 track 1"), benefitting from its superior S/N ratio (but arguably less hiss than the multitracks), while keeping the 1/4 inch format (cheap) is pretty cool. ;)
 
I like to do 2-track sync productions, & make believe I'm Phil Spector or Berry Gordy

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: ;)
 
You need the third head for analog tape delay/echo effect. That's what the third-heads are for !!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :p :D ... LOL

speaking of "pro-quality" in respect to play-head vs. record-had-as-play-head:
Beck's signature said:
If you can’t make a hit record with a Tascam or a Fostex,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a Studer or Otari !
-David Mellor
Click to expand...
.... If you can’t do multitracking to make a hit record with a two-head multi-track machine (ie tsr-8/msr-16, e-16 and such),
then you’re not going to be able to do it with a three-headed Studer or Otari...or ATR or what have you!

**********
Speaking' of "missing" sinc function on two-track machine, I have a question here: "When you sketch, do you produce?" ;) :p

/respects
 
Dr ZEE said:
You need the third head for analog tape delay/echo effect. That's what the third-heads are for !!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :p :D ... LOL

speaking of "pro-quality" in respect to play-head vs. record-had-as-play-head:

.... If you can’t do multitracking to make a hit record with a two-head multi-track machine (ie tsr-8/msr-16, e-16 and such),
then you’re not going to be able to do it with a three-headed Studer or Otari...or ATR or what have you!

**********
Speaking' of "missing" sinc function on two-track machine, I have a question here: "When you sketch, do you produce?" ;) :p

/respects
Click to expand...


I won't rehash the Teac/Tascam VS Studer being "prosumer" or not again. But, I think that even though the narrow format stuff is quite capable of fine reproduction, in my past experiences, I hear a solid difference between the $5000 analog multitrackers and the $50,000 versions. On a Sony/MCI machine, (as an example) there was no attempt at using dual headstacks as a route. The record head provided quite an adequate sound for monitoring purposes, but on playback (using the playback head) you heard the "stunning" results... the "smack you in the face bass"...the smooth top end...the mild compression..etc, etc. I can't help but to think that Tacam would agree that there was a compromise in using a dual purpose head, while what I call the "big boy" machines (companies), didn't even consider it. I also want to think Studer (etc...) wanted that last 1% by using separate heads optimized for their own separate tasks.

Btw...I think if you tallied up the $$ made on the "big boy" machines VS the Tascam/Fostex/Dokorder/Otari(cheap stuff)/..... even in ratio... the Ampex/MCI/Skully/Studer/... will win without even flinching.

sorry..to get off track... just slipped!! :p
 
I think no one is disputing the fine built quality of the MCI, Studer, Ampex and other designated "pro" machines ;)
 
cjacek said:
I think no one is disputing the fine built quality of the MCI, Studer, Ampex and other designated "pro" machines ;)
Click to expand...
You're thinking wrong ;) ... heh heh :D
 
mixmkr said:
... I hear a solid difference between the $5000 analog multitrackers and the $50,000 versions.
Click to expand...

I don't. Nor ever will.... simply because I've got to the point when any car is just another car for me. It runs and it takes me from point A to point B. It used to be different in the past, ... stunningly different, that is ;) :D

/respects
 
Dr ZEE said:
I don't. Nor ever will.... simply because I've got to the point when any car is just another car for me. It runs and it takes me from point A to point B. It used to be different in the past, ... stunningly different, that is ;) :D

/respects
Click to expand...

I would potentially count yourself lucky in some regards. I play a Roland ready Mexican Strat which I love. Great guitar and use it professionally.


btw... I hate cars that belch out incredible amounts of toxis fumes and gases or have improper lighting that dangers others on the road. :D :D :D
 
mixmkr said:
I play a Roland ready Mexican Strat which I love. ...:D :D :D
Click to expand...
heh heh :cool:
...that's better, than still using some Windows-95 ready applications and loving it :D
...speaking of "which" ... my three-headed AMPEX 1250 tube machine is coming via USPS soon :p ! and...if it comes in one piece - I'm gonna convert it into tube-tape delay/preamp unit. This ain't gonna be a just another car :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top