Thanks @sweetbeats for that nice overview and bringing it into perspective! I think pointing out the grade of sophistication of both the units really plays into the decision process, as well as feature and maintneance.
I think I would be ok with the less feature set of the Tascam setup, if the better sonic behavior is a significant step up from the Akai. If it’s just a marginally effect you would only hear in A-B, I properly don’t take it in consideration so much. Is the Tascam with a wider, and deeper, richer and more controlled sound-image over the Akai? Or is it just small increments that you only hear with very critical listening? Maybe the Akai is still more on the cassette-side, where as the Tascam shifts more to the sound of those bigger machines like 1“ ?
From a pure size-PoV, I would consider the Tascam more, but only if it brings a deeper more musical quality to the recordings. What do you think?
So you’re using and thinking in a lot of subjective terms and concepts. And there’s no way anybody can definitively answer your questions for you, and there’s no way you’re going to get those answers from spec sheets either. Spec sheets really just show a number of snapshot data points that can then be used to compare those specific performance snapshots between devices…sort of…because specs can be skewed or more specifically critical test parameters can be redacted so while you think you are comparing apples to apples data points you’re really not. For instance two devices might list 45Hz to 21kHz frequency response, but one lists that bandwidth as varying “+1 to -2dB”, which is relatively flat and means it really can get to the extreme ends of the range, while the other doesn’t share that specificity and maybe it was +/-3dB…the later does not perform as well as the former even though the listed range is the same.
So anyway…the ONLY way you could ever get the true answer to your question for you is to try the Tascam and the Akai side-by-side. And even then you would likely be swayed by your own unconscious bias.
And also to help you out, to scale you back from the mindset of “…wider, and deeper, richer and more controlled sound-image…”, the sound of a tape machine isn’t just about the format. Very much not the case. Generally-speaking increasing the track width will improve crosstalk and signal-to-noise ratio. Increasing the tape speed will generally “improve” the frequency response of a given tape machine, which can take better advantage of wider track width. Generally-speaking faster tape speed affords better HF response. So what you watch out for on a machine with a more narrow format and slower speed is a diminished frequency response, signal-to-noise ratio, and increased crosstalk. But all of these things also depend on the head design…gap size, coil profile, etc. And one of the greatest contributors to sound is in the amplifier signal path of the tape machine. There are lots of, for instance, 1” 8-track machines in the world that were made, okay? Same format. Do they sound the same? Hard no. Why? Different signal path electronics. The design of the reproduce amplifier is a substantially underrated driver in the quality and character of a tape machine. And you won’t find specs on that. You might find mention of something innovative in a brochure or something, but the marketing people had their hands all over that, so you have to keep that in mind. So the only way to sort that out is to experience, first-hand, different devices and then from there you can study their circuit design and maybe draw parallels across multiple devices.
If you’ve read this far, thanks. I’m only spewing this because it is an important preface to what follows below of my subjective opinion…you need to understand it’s my opinion, I’ve never compared a Tascam 38 to an Akai MG1212 side-by-side, and in fact my experience with either device individually is very limited. But I’ve experienced a lot of different devices and formats and studied a lot of spec sheets and schematics and so forth.
The Tascam 38 signal electronics are based around the 4558 opamp…very garden-variety. I’m not shaming the 4558…it was used everywhere, it was a huge improvement over the 741, it’s fine. But I think of it as utilitarian. It gets the job done and gets it done well, and it was used in some good-sounding equipment, because, remember, the sound of a signal path is more about the overall design and components used than the design of the opamp or the active device used (if it’s an IC opamp “chip”), but the overall design of the 38 signal path is also nothing remarkable. There is a transformer coming right off the reproduce head source (sync or repro) which probably helps with noise and sonically may be good or bad. I’m not one that’s impressed by the transformers used in this era of Teac equipment. That’s a whole other subject, transformers are very much not created equal. Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with the 38 signal path, there’s just nothing about it that makes me go “oh wow okay…” about it. The heads were a next generation design that came about during the development of the 38 and 58, and were good enough to be used in machines all the way through into the 90s including the 48, ATR60-8 and TSR-8. It is the last 1/2” 8-track head design put to market by Teac. So it was cutting-edge tech for Teac at the time of the 38. So the 38 is a good sounding tape machine. It doesn’t have a particular “mojo” to it, though if you’re used to digital and wanting something not so digital it’s going to sound different and likely in a pleasing way if you’re looking for something not so digital. But that’s true of most tape machines one might try if they’d not tried tape before and were looking for something different. Does that make sense? That’s not a dis, that’s just an attempt at drawing the distinction between a classic wide-format machine with discrete class A or class A/B electronics like an old Ampex or something. The Tascam is not that. But it’s tape and it sounds good.
The Akai on the other hand is interesting…the circuit design itself is not really remarkable, kind of like the Tascam that way, but they did use Mitsubishi 5200 series opamps throughout, which were definitely leading-edge at the time (M5218 and M5220), and in my experience lend themselves to a good sounding signal path. And as I mentioned earlier the heads were also leading-edge glass heads for long-life…however they did it, they were able to achieve nearly the same frequency response, crosstalk, and signal-to-noise specs as the Tascam, but with nearly double the track count and half the tape speed.
The Tascam is rated at 40Hz to 20kHz +/-3dB, the Akai is 50Hz to 20kHz +/-3dB…impressive considering the slower tape speed of the Akai. And the crosstalk spec is actually maybe a little better on the Akai on paper (55dB) compared to the Tascam (“better than 50dB”). The trick though is the Tascam spec sheet does a much better job of listing the test parameters, and that’s “better than 50dB” at 0dB 1kHz, whereas Akai conveniently left out the test parameters. If the test condition was -10dB 1kHz or something then that’s not really fair. I’d be surprised if, under the same test conditions, the Akai actually outperformed the Tascam, but worst case it’s probably close. And then both machines are about the same signal-to-noise ratio performance, 90-92dB using noise reduction (dbx Type I in both cases). And interestingly enough the Akai performs better than the Tascam in both wow & flutter and THD…I was surprised to see that, but both spec sheets list some good test parameters and I’m confident to say the Akai tests better. So on paper the two are neck-and-neck IMO, and the Akai signal path looks more interesting to me than the 38 as well as what’s in an M-30 (garden-variety signal path based around the 072 and 4556 opamps, which are perfectly fine)…the M-30 does have the transformers on mic inputs 1-6 so there’s that…I know some people really like those Tamara transformers but I’ve been spoiled…but overall the Akai, *on paper* looks like something I would expect to sound better to my ears. And indeed it’s been used on some well-known well-respected big label releases decades ago. The Achilles Heels are the robustness of certain elements of its engineering and the transport design/reliability, the availability of tape (though I know people have released the cassettes with 456/SM911 variant +6 class tape and this works, though may not be correct compared to the original mystery tape…), and some limitations in the flexibility of the mixing section, which isn’t to be critical…it was designed to support the tape section and it does that just fine. So I think I lean toward this: if the sophistication of the transport features on the Akai are of use to you, and you are having success getting the MG going with some reliability, and the all-in-one package is preferred, if it was me I think I’d stick with the Akai. I think the sonic differences between the Akai and the Tascam would very much be incremental, and in fact, overall, the Akai might have an edge in the area of clarity. The Akai does have the more limited headroom as a result of the +/-12V audio power rails compared to the Tascam’s +/-15V rails, but you are likely to be using the noise reduction with the Akai’s narrow track format anyway, and would need to be conservative with pushing levels as a result, and so likely would not be testing the headroom limits anyway.
I hope this is all helpful in some way.
