Tascam 388: Pre and EQ mods...

  • Thread starter Thread starter shedshrine
  • Start date Start date
shedshrine

shedshrine

Member
Yeah, I know, leave well enough alone. However, if anyone with the know how and experience has made any mods that they feel markedly improved or extended the performance of the pres and eq on these beasts, I'm (we're?) all ears.

The mixer sounds great already, and I have a standalone pre or two, I just like the whole idea of maxing out a peice of gear's potential. Is there anywhere in the 388 circuitry where the beancounters cut corners to meet their price point back in the 80's that can be "remedied"? Can't hurt to ask, eh? :)
 
all out 388 modification

In case you've ever wondered what it would be like to electronically trick one of these out, this guy did it...
(info from unit currently on ebay)

"Your one-time opportunity to own
a professionally (and intelligently) upgraded 388"

388_03_750w.jpg

"You pretty much know what a Tascam 388 is, if you're looking at this page. Eight analog tracks on affordable and available 1/4" tape; with a full mixer included.

There's a lot more to it than that. There are mic preamps on every channel. The three eq controls on each channel are ALL sweepable. You can plug in to the channel or straight to the bus (more about that later). You can come right out of the tape preamp if you want, evading another pass through the channels, for higher fi. You can sync two 388s together. You can return to zero or to a cue point. There's an effects bus, a selectable pre/post aux output, and a separate monitor mix. And more, plenty more. This is not just a big Portastudio -- it is a real comprehensive tool for real work in real production facilities.

So what makes this particular 388 better than the others?

It has been Pooged. Pooge is an expression devised by Walt Jung, the engineer who researched and publicly exposed BOTH of the two most significant bottlenecks in quality audio in the chip age: Slew Rate limits and Dilectric Absorption. In this 388, all the channel op amps have been upgraded to 5532s, which are a fine-sounding audio chip whose imperfections are, for an IC, remarkably tubelike. And every one of these 5532s have been bandlimited (~70 kHz) to maintain closed loop performance to the limits of the chip itself. With expensive mica capacitors. You'd be surprised how seldom this is done, and how often manufacturers allow op amps to go into open-loop operation, which sends all kinds of spurious trash down into the audio.

388_bd_bot_80p.jpg
388_bd_top_80p.jpg



Furthermore, each coupling capacitor position has been meticulously recalculated (considering every possible load on every output) so as not to have an unnecessarily large (and overly problematic) cap at that particular point. And each of those caps has been replaced by a Nichicon Muse high-fidelity cap (except a couple of positions where a mylar film capacitor would fit). AND, each of those new capacitors has been bypassed with a WIMA polypropylene capacitor, calculated to carry the majority of the signal, leaving only the bass to the Nichicons.

And by the way, those 388 preamps sound great, with fat and juice that (pardon me for saying it again) is almost tubelike.

And by the way, the local power supply capacitors on the cards have been significantly increased with larger high-quality Muse components as well.

And by the way, all this work had been done by an annoyingly meticulous tech who became a tech because nobody else could do work that was acceptable to him, him being me.

The 388 will come with an original owner's manual with all setup information, full schematics (with a couple of corrections by Yours Truly) and circuit board layouts.

AND....THERE IS MORE....

I'll also put in a couple of auxilliary boxes I made for this machine. One of them has a 1/4" phone jack and a bunch of output tails that plug into the bus inputs available at the back, so you can 100% bypass the channel and go right to the r/p cards. The switch selects which bus you want to connect to. The cables are unshielded, presuming that you are using solid-state (~150 ohm) sources like op amps). They are, if you care, 99.99% pure copper in polyethylene insulation.

The other box is a little oscillator that plugs into, and is powered by, the external control jack on the 388. It permits a wider range of speed adjustment than the narrow range provided on the front panel.
388_boxes.jpg

"Well, does that mean that I could crank the speed up to 11.25ips (between 7ips and 15ips), tweak the r/p trimpots to flatten out the frequency response, and get much better sound quality?"

My lips are sealed.

Happy Bidding!

PS I'm sorry to bloviate like this about this great machine but it really is a great machine.

PPS "We had this old Tascam from the Eighties with a reel-to-reel tape recorder inside the mixing board..." Billie Joe Armstrong talking about the Foxboro Hot Tubs album

PPS I forgot to mention that the chips in the r/p cards, the dbx, and the unbalanced output were upgraded as well. (I didn't use the balanced output.) I used some fancier chips in the areas that would see the whole mix. I forget exactly what's where. There are some 2134's, even a couple of 4562's (most recent design, relatively expensive, extremely clean) between the busses and the output."
 
388 questions!!?!?

hey, everybody

a couple questions!

does anyone have a HQ version of the manual because cant zoom in and see the value of a resistor on the headphone amp....that brings me to my next question

the resistor labeled R120 is completely fried its charred and grey and i have no idea what the hell happened it has an ! next to the part saying it needs the exact same part to replace it with...in the manual it says its (i think) 33ohms carbon nonflam? like non flammable?

what would cause this? should i be checking other parts?
it says its for safety and i guess someone was saved from something

and last does anyone know more about these mods? they look pretty cool!

ok thanks,
im kind of scatterbrained so if i missed aything tell me!

cheers
Cory
 
Well, I asked that same kind of question in this thread here and you can read some of the responses for yourself and maybe better form your opinion.

R120 is a 33ohm flameproof resistor. I'd have to pull out a 388 headphone amp PCB to see the wattage rating of it as the parts list is not clear in the manual, but if you replace it just get one that is the same physical size...

R120 limits the current seen by the 6V regulator that powers the headphone amp. I have no idea what would cause it to fry but I wouldn't be surprised if something else is cooked in the amp.

Does everything else work on your 388?

Any fuses blown?

If everything else works then I'd wager that your damage is limited to the headphone amp. Maybe somebody did the big no-no that applies to a number of Tascam's products from that era and plugged a mono plug into one of the stereo headphone jacks. That could cook things.

I say replace R120 and see if it works. If it doesn't, then we take it from there.

[EDIT]

BTW, I personally don't think it is worthwhile to go hog-wild on modding a 388...I believe Teac engineers knew their stuff and built solid performing relaible devices that, IMHO, sound better than anything you can get in even close the price range today...I'm talking about used Tascam product vs. new import mixer. Components were selected as a holistic system to work well together. There are many times where you can make gains by modifying electronics, but in general I don't feel Tascam stuff fits much into that category. Having clean power is a big deal both for noise-floor and protecting the longevity of all the components downstream and so I think it is a good idea to recap the power supplies with good quality 105-degree caps on this vintage of gear, but I've got first-hand experience upgrading opamps and it is that experience that has left me completely content with leaving such things alone in my 388. I'm recapping the whole thing with good quality caps, but I may or may not be able to hear the difference and its more of an insurance policy against damaging something with an old cap going bad. So, YMMV. Someday, since I have a parts 388 now, I may upgrade the opamps on it to see what kind of performance difference there is, but honestly it usually seems to work out, in my experience anyway, that the very thing I liked about something is gone after changing opamps...those slower, noisier and higher distortion opamps give it character. Notice that the modified 388 referenced above utilized a relatively slow opamp chip, the 5532. Still a very good chip but if you are just looking at numbers (noise, slew-rate, distortion, etc.), it is dated. They were used throught the 300-series mixers which sound great. So the person who did the modification stuck with a more classic chip anyway. Modding is neat and fun, but is in no way a guarantee of better results, and opens the door to irreparable damage.
 
Last edited:
RE:388 questions!!?!?

all right... all the fuses are good....
i replaced with a 33ohm 1/4 watt and it smoked up :eek:
i tried a 33ohm 1/2 and turned it on....so far so good i plugged in my head phones and i heard sound! :) but only on the right side and really distorted then i noticed some smoke....yup the 1/2 watt was smoking too. so i turned it off it made a laser like sound...i turned it back on and listened it went from left to both then to right....interesting:confused:...it still sounded really bad!

so ...any ideas???

thanks so far btw
 
Okay. if it cooked that then there is something wrong that is drawing more current than should be, and by putting the 1/2 watt in there you are risking frying other stuff that's being saved by the sacrifice of the 1/4 watt component.
 
This is totally not what I'd do because I couldn't stand it not being right, but do you have an external headphone amp you can use? It is possible that somebody at some point plugged a mono plug into one of those headphone jacks which the manual clearly states is a no-no and now a transistor or one of the IC's is cooked or maybe even a current limiting resistor. The reality is that the headphone amp in most of the vintage Tascam gear is little more than adequate. IMO it is fine for functional monitoring but not for real critical listening or mixing via headphones (which is a last resort anyway AFAIC...I've done plenty of it but it is not a replacement for using monitor speakers to mix...) Anyway, my point is that it gets complicated now with that headphone amp and unless you are a stickler for things being original or "right" just because, it might be a good plan just to forget that onboard headphone amp and get a good quality external amp and connect it to one of the stereo out jacks...

Do the MONITOR OUT jacks work as well as the monitor source select switches and the monitor level control when using the MONITOR OUT jacks??

Outside of that I'd start by getting a magnifying glass and a good LED flashlight and looking real close at everything on that PCB that is in the headphone amp section...looking for broken connections, possible short curcuits, other fried components...anything. In particular I'd look at U104 which regulates the power that powers the opamps U101 and U201. U104 makes sure that U101 and U201 only see 6V. I'd also look closely at U101 and U201 themselves, and R106 and R206 which I think limit the output of U101 and U201. You could desolder one leg each of R106 and R206 and measure their resistance. If it is inifinite the component is cooked. If it is far off the 1ohm spec it would be good to put new parts in. I'm no engineer...just a hack with enough knowledge to be dangerous but that's where I'd start. I would also disconnect J102 (the plug that goes to the actual headphone jacks) and then measure to make sure there isn't any short between the left and right channels or with the ground conductor. This would be easy to do by plugging any good TRS cable into one of the headphone jacks and then setting your multimeter to continuity or resistance and checking between each of those three conductors on the tip of your TRS cable. As long as J102 is disconnected from the headphone amp PCB there should be no continuity between any of the three conductors. If everything checked out there as far as I could tell without powering the amp section then I'd try replacing R120 again with a fresh 1/4W 33ohm resistor and then isolate the headphone/monitor amp PCB...that means disconnecting all possible external connections to audio, jacks, etc. SO...pull J101 (connects to the monitor switch and monitor level controls), J102 (connects to the headphone jacks), and J103 (connects to the monitor out jacks). Now the headphone and monitor amp section is only connected to power. To get really fancy desolder the output terminal of U104. It might be good to check the output voltage of U104 and if you desolder the output terminal from the PCB then current has nowhere to go and R120 should stay intact so you can ensure that U104 is putting out right around 6 volts. Set your multimeter to DC volts, one probe to ground and the other to that output terminal of U104 and turn on the 388. Does R120 smoke? Is U104 putting out 6 volts? If R120 smoked or if U104 is outputting something other than 6 volts I'd start by replacing that. If R120 stays intact and U104 is behaving to spec then shut the 388 down, resolder the output leg of U104 and then power it back on. Does R120 smoke? If not, then without more sophisticated test equipment the next thing I'd do is connect J103. This shouldn't make any difference because it is driven by a different section of the PCB, but worth checking. If R120 still lives then I'd plug in J101. If R120 smokes then I don't know what but something would then likely be funny with the little PCB that has the monitor source select switches on it or further upstream. If R120 is still good then go ahead and plug in J102 with the headphone jacks, assuming the jacks tested okay above...if R120 then cooks there is some kind of short or something in the headphone jacks that didn't get picked up in your cntinuity test of the jacks...bang your head against the wall.

So, some crude ideas, but something to do. Hey, you like that burnt electronics smell right?

Try out whatever is comfortable for you, ask any questions of anything that didn't make sense, and let us know what happens. Good luck.
 
Modding is neat and fun, but is in no way a guarantee of better results, and opens the door to irreparable damage.

Just thinking out loud here with hypotheticals, and trying to get the facts straight as far as what would be required for running high bias modern tape on the 388.

Thin 1800 foot tape would be out because of the higher output and print through issues, so a thicker backing would be needed.

Thicker, stiffer tape would be harder on the motors and heads. However, 456 is used by many on their 388 without issue. How much thicker and stiffer is high performance tape like GP9? Any high bias 1/4" formulas known for their supple transport travel?

Also, would the stock cards be adjustable enough to handle the signal? Are the 388’s electronics capable of being set to accept the levels and biasing for such high performance tape?

These things I ponder -M
 
Last edited:
456 is used by many on their 388 without issue. Is it the same thickness and stiffness as high performance tape like GP9?

GP9 is about 0.2mil thicker (456 = 1.93mil total, GP9 2.13mil)

would the stock cards be adjustable enough to handle the signal? Are the 388’s electronics capable of being set to accept the levels and biasing for such high performance tape?

Ultimately you'd have to try it out, but here is what I am pretty sure you will find:

  • That the bias amps are either not robust enough to pump the bias level, or at the very least you'd need to mod the bias cards to allow more current which is what is necessary in the likes of the 58 and MS16 systems...not sure about later decks. I would be really surprised if the 388 bias amps had enough headroom to bias "+9" tape, and if they do there is always the question as to whether or not you are going to damage something by running it at that constantly. Think of a car...yeah the tach in my old Subaru says I can wind the engine up to over 6,000rpm, but we all know if I drove it around like that all the time it would most certainly (and I believe drastically) reduce the life of the engine.
  • Even if you could get the bias issue resolved (assuming there IS one), I betcha the R/P amps would be stretched before being able to take advantage of the headroom on +9 tape. I bet it would work, but there may be sonic artifacts that leave you going "was this worth it?" Remember, program peaks, especially on things like percussion, are WAYYY over the nominal level...that's why you see the peak LED's flickering and the VU needle is hardly pushing 0...those peak LED's typically light at +10 or +12. Now let's say you cal the deck using a 355nWb/m standard, now those same peaks will be at around +13~+15 maybe? That's getting up there. Not sure at what level the 388 R/P amps clip. The amps in my Ampex MM-1000 aren't rated to clip until +28 or +29 and I'm pretty sure the 388 amps aren't up in that range. If the goal is to get tape saturation then you want to leave enough headroom in the setup so you stay far away from overdriving the electronics.

YMMVyadayadablahblah.

I realize you are just thinking "out-loud" so I don't want to sound like I'm over-reacting to your musings, but the reality is that whatever discussions we have had on this forum over using +9 tape on any number of 1/2" 8-track decks from Tascam would certainly be more acute with the 388 since it is a transport very explicitly designed for "1.0mil" +6 tape. I just don't see the benefit of "going-there".

Somebody tell me if I've got it wrong...the only substantial reason to use "hotter" tape is to increase headroom to create greater sonic distance between the program level on tape and the noise floor...right? Tape formulations on +9 tapes may elicit a different or specific "flavor" but the whole hoo-hah about higher and higher output tapes is NOT because the tape in and of itself is "hotter" or "phatter" or "louder" or "dripping with tape 'compression'" or whatever...its just simply this:

The higher the tape rating (the consumer +3, +6, +9 figure), the more signal the tape can handle before presenting a industry standard distortion rating of 3%.

This means that the recorded material can be tracked "hotter" on that tape than a lower output level tape and still be "clean" and since the tape noise does not increase with a "hotter" tape you've just gained more distance between your program material and the tape noise.

So if low noise is an issue (i.e. tape hiss), then maybe +9 or greater tape is the solution. If you want crunchy-yummy tape distortion on a 388 then maybe 407 is the answer...print-through is an issue on thinner tape. 407 is a 1.0mil +3 tape which means you'll be able to drive the tape into distortion (hopefully nice yummy third-order harmonic distortion) while being more kind to your R/P amps AND while keeping print-through from being as much of an issue. YES you are closer to the tape noise floor but my guess is that if you (not YOU specifically , shed, but whoever is reading this) are wanting to push/saturate the tape you aren't tracking solo acoustic guitar...it is probably something with drums and electric instruments and I challenge you to hear the tape noise on properly biased 407 as the cymbals rage and the guitars crunch. Yes there are all levels of dynamics and tones in the music style I'm hinting at but I'm just trying make a point with that example.

No matter what, ANY machine and tape selection is going to be a process of compromises but if you are clear on what you are going for it should be obvious what tape to use and how to use the machine within its scope, and for most stuff I'm thinking LPR35/457 is ideal for the 388 and if it was high energy stuff I might even try using a LOWER output tape like 407.

Am I discouraging you from trying? I hope not. You might love the result and if that's the case more power to you...I'm just trying to make the point that the desired performance or result from the machine may be achieved in a much better way that seems backwards by being mindful of the tape selection and understanding what the numbers really mean. You might try GP9 and compare to to 407 and like the latter better because the deck itself isn't running at "7,000rpm" or even "5,000rpm" and the results you hear are the tape being pushed rather than the electronics.

Am I knocking folks who mod their decks to properly bias and drive higher output tape? Certainly not! I just know after going through all kinds of thoughts about "I wonder if..." and "I wonder what..." I came to realize that most of the time it wasn't worth the hassle when I considered all the unknown variables and when I came to understand the drivers behind the super-high output tapes, and when I came to understand what the numbers mean and how to use operating level to my advantage.

Know and understand your goal and the purpose behind it. Then choose the path to get there.

I'll use evm1024 as an example...he's modding/modded the bias circuit on his Tascam 58 R/P cards to properly bias super-high output tape. This is a known solution to a known issue with those amp cards when using +9 tape...the bias amps can handle it but the (Ethan, correct me if I'm wrong here) feedback loop in the stock bias trimmer circuit provides for a trim window that, at best, just barely biases +9 tapes. In most cases it doesn't quite get there. The mod adjusts that window by raising the ceiling on the feedback loop so that the bias level trimmer can dial in more gain. This also means that that "window" may now be to high for lower output tapes because the low end of the trim range may now not be low enough, sending too much bias to low-output tapes. That's the compromise. But outside of that we know (by field-tested results and educated analysis that people like Ethan possess) that the bias amps are safe to produce that level on a routine basis. And WHY did he do it? Ethan has a focus on tracking acoustic instrumentation...classical compositions...he likes pipe organs too. These are sensitive sources that often leave tape noise exposed and can be problematic with nosie reduction. Higher output tape is the natural solution. The bottom line is that he's got a specific need to use hgher output tape and is educated and experienced in the area of electronics to be able to design the circuit level solutions.

Getting off the box now. And I CERTAINLY hope this doesn't feel like I'm lecturing you, shedshrine...What I'm saying is (hopefully) for the good of the order and I'm just sharing things that have come to settle in my mind as a result of the same kinds of thoughts and questions you are pondering and posting. So thanks for the question. I feel it is a really, really good and important topic.
 
when I came to understand the drivers behind the super-high output tapes, and when I came to understand what the numbers mean and how to use operating level to my advantage.

Know and understand your goal and the purpose behind it. Then choose the path to get there.

Fantastic response and info Cory, and much appreciated. That clears up a big gap in my knowledge, and I’m sure helped out many others. I can remember Daniel Cjacek touting the thrills and joys of 407 all along, and I still went ahead and grabbed 15 reels of 457 upon Quantegy’s demise, because, hey man, it was the “hotter” tape. Now I finally realize, in the case of the Tascam 388, it’s all about pushing +3 tape for maximizing tape compression, if that’s what you’re after, while minimizing any stress the 388’s electronics, and 457 for maximizing a clean signal before distortion. Many thanks!
 
Last edited:
I think none of this matters too much 'cause the 388 is narrow track and pretty hissy without dbx (so you wanna have it engaged) and that in turn, the way this noise reduction works, makes the case for using high output tapes pointless. That and not to mention the fore mentioned points about greater strain on the transport, capstan motor, heads and asking whether it can be biased, not to forget electronics being able to handle the tape's hotness. ;) I think, tho, that 456 (or its equivalents) are the absolute max I'd run on the 388, if a lower op tape is not available or that's all you've got.
 
Sometimes I wonder if people using 456 in the 388 is one of the reasons we have so many of them with torn up transports, including burned up reel motors. They are getting harder to find in good working condition, and many are in pieces being parted out. So we can’t really say that using 1.5 mil tape hasn’t harmed them. We can’t say for sure that it has either, as it would be nearly impossible to know the use history of a given machine.

Everything wears out eventually, but a machine used within design parameters is going to fair better than one that isn’t.

One good argument against using even thicker higher output tape like GP9 is that it could not be used to its potential. The narrow track spacing of the 388 head wouldn’t tolerate the higher flux without crazy crosstalk levels, and if you’re using the dbx then higher output is a waste.

One thing I wish Tascam would have done is to spec the 388 for actual “High bias” tape like Maxell XLII 35-90 EE, which is the same formulation as high bias CR02 cassette. Since the 388 was based on the cassette portastudio design this would have been a logical direction. Back then the tape was available and not much more expensive than normal bias reel-to-reel. Now of course EE tape is rare and has some mythical collector status in the audiophile community.

Speaking of which, if audiophiles would all just go away tape prices in general would come down. I really wish they would find something else to do... some other interest. They’ve turned the NOS tape market into something resembling coin collecting. To them the tape is the treasure, but to us the music recorded to the tape is the treasure (hopefully). We just want to record.

The recommend tape in the original spec for the 388 is Maxell UD 35-90. UD 50-60 was available but not mentioned as an option, so from the beginning the 388 was intended to be used with 1-mil tape. Also note they came from the factory zeroed at 185 nWb/m flux level. The service manual contains instructions for either 185 or 250 nWb/m. Either way Ampex/Quantegy 407 is nearly ideal for factory setting... or 457, which may give you a cleaner sound depending on how you record.
 
+100 to what Sweetbeats said about the +9 tape!This isn't a drag race and hotter tape isn't like adding more horsepower to a car engine. There really isn't any need to put hotter levels onto a multitrack - you are going to mix down later anyway. Pushin gear beyond it's design limits is likely going to accomplish two things: Damaging the gear, and distroted, noisy tracks. Just my two cents!


AK
 
Wow, you guys...this is great. I totally forgot about the crosstalk factor. That is huge with the format of the 388 and you're right...it pretty much makes the whole idea pointless (using and trying to push +9 tape).

And, Beck, great point about the flux standard on the 388...its almost like Tascam knew people would be using +6 because it was available but it was designed around a 185 standard...both are mentioned but in the specs the 185 standard is highlighted.

This all caused me to think about my choice of tape I'm going to use with the MM-1000...All I've got is 996 and 499...now that's partially because I got good deals on the stuff, but I'll have to see if that works out. Most of the stuff I'll record on that machine will be harder stuff...I DO NOT want to use noise reduction so that is an argument FOR those flavors of tape...I KNOW the electronics can push those levels without clipping. My understanding is that the bias amps will accommodate but, depending on where I zero the electronics (and I'm thinking trying 355 to start) there may be depth of erasure issues. So we'll see. I think the main proponent of using the +9 tape for me is that I won't be using noise reduction, and the format should deal well with the levels (i.e. with regard to cross-talk and such...1" 8-track, 15ips...)

Thanks again for thinking "out-loud", shedshrine...good discussion.
 
my goodness... i've been looking for someone to help me understand this tascam 388

is there anyway we can talk on the phone, i wonder if we live near by... i'd love to pay you for a lesson...
i'm trying to figure out how to use the tascam 388 for the preamps today... it's been over a month now of trying to figure it out and i'm completely exhausted... i'm a percussionist, always working with accoustic instruments, which puts me so far away from computers and machines which makes my learning curve painful. lol

i'm trying to use the 8 tracks (with mics) from the tascam 388 for the best quality, then pass them into an 8 track interface so i can mix the drumset levels on the computer... (should i set the eq for all individual tascam tracks to flat? or play with them) so far i am only able to use the left and right output stereo mix, which gives me only two tracks :( i'd like to understand how to get the most highest quality from the tascam into the computer. and if using the individual 8 tracks will lesson the quality, then i'd probably just use it as a two track machine.

and finially how to minimize the white noise that seems to be prominent in most tascam 388 mixes... although i have heard a few mixes without the white noise.... so i know it's possible. i've heard a few amazing mixes using the tascam 388 for preamps. i just don't know how to do it, while maximizing professional quality.

please help... you seem to know lots about this machine and much more...

i hope to read from you super soon...
sending the best vibes i can send to you...

xoxoxo,
Alvaro

email : schubertmusic@yahoo.com
i'd be happy to give you my cell number too after i read anything from you, thanks for being the amazing you!

--------------------------

In case you've ever wondered what it would be like to electronically trick one of these out, this guy did it...
(info from unit currently on ebay)

"Your one-time opportunity to own
a professionally (and intelligently) upgraded 388"

388_03_750w.jpg

"You pretty much know what a Tascam 388 is, if you're looking at this page. Eight analog tracks on affordable and available 1/4" tape; with a full mixer included.

There's a lot more to it than that. There are mic preamps on every channel. The three eq controls on each channel are ALL sweepable. You can plug in to the channel or straight to the bus (more about that later). You can come right out of the tape preamp if you want, evading another pass through the channels, for higher fi. You can sync two 388s together. You can return to zero or to a cue point. There's an effects bus, a selectable pre/post aux output, and a separate monitor mix. And more, plenty more. This is not just a big Portastudio -- it is a real comprehensive tool for real work in real production facilities.

So what makes this particular 388 better than the others?

It has been Pooged. Pooge is an expression devised by Walt Jung, the engineer who researched and publicly exposed BOTH of the two most significant bottlenecks in quality audio in the chip age: Slew Rate limits and Dilectric Absorption. In this 388, all the channel op amps have been upgraded to 5532s, which are a fine-sounding audio chip whose imperfections are, for an IC, remarkably tubelike. And every one of these 5532s have been bandlimited (~70 kHz) to maintain closed loop performance to the limits of the chip itself. With expensive mica capacitors. You'd be surprised how seldom this is done, and how often manufacturers allow op amps to go into open-loop operation, which sends all kinds of spurious trash down into the audio.

388_bd_bot_80p.jpg
388_bd_top_80p.jpg



Furthermore, each coupling capacitor position has been meticulously recalculated (considering every possible load on every output) so as not to have an unnecessarily large (and overly problematic) cap at that particular point. And each of those caps has been replaced by a Nichicon Muse high-fidelity cap (except a couple of positions where a mylar film capacitor would fit). AND, each of those new capacitors has been bypassed with a WIMA polypropylene capacitor, calculated to carry the majority of the signal, leaving only the bass to the Nichicons.

And by the way, those 388 preamps sound great, with fat and juice that (pardon me for saying it again) is almost tubelike.

And by the way, the local power supply capacitors on the cards have been significantly increased with larger high-quality Muse components as well.

And by the way, all this work had been done by an annoyingly meticulous tech who became a tech because nobody else could do work that was acceptable to him, him being me.

The 388 will come with an original owner's manual with all setup information, full schematics (with a couple of corrections by Yours Truly) and circuit board layouts.

AND....THERE IS MORE....

I'll also put in a couple of auxilliary boxes I made for this machine. One of them has a 1/4" phone jack and a bunch of output tails that plug into the bus inputs available at the back, so you can 100% bypass the channel and go right to the r/p cards. The switch selects which bus you want to connect to. The cables are unshielded, presuming that you are using solid-state (~150 ohm) sources like op amps). They are, if you care, 99.99% pure copper in polyethylene insulation.

The other box is a little oscillator that plugs into, and is powered by, the external control jack on the 388. It permits a wider range of speed adjustment than the narrow range provided on the front panel.
388_boxes.jpg

"Well, does that mean that I could crank the speed up to 11.25ips (between 7ips and 15ips), tweak the r/p trimpots to flatten out the frequency response, and get much better sound quality?"

My lips are sealed.

Happy Bidding!

PS I'm sorry to bloviate like this about this great machine but it really is a great machine.

PPS "We had this old Tascam from the Eighties with a reel-to-reel tape recorder inside the mixing board..." Billie Joe Armstrong talking about the Foxboro Hot Tubs album

PPS I forgot to mention that the chips in the r/p cards, the dbx, and the unbalanced output were upgraded as well. (I didn't use the balanced output.) I used some fancier chips in the areas that would see the whole mix. I forget exactly what's where. There are some 2134's, even a couple of 4562's (most recent design, relatively expensive, extremely clean) between the busses and the output."
 
Back
Top