Tascam 388 Track Width?

[sweetbeats]

Anybody know what it is for certain?

I got curious what the 388's track width is compared to Teac's 4-track cassette based units like my 234 and 424 mkII are 0.5mm...looked in a downloaded 388 manual and I couldn't find the track specs in there anywhere!

 

[lo.fi.love]

Hey Cory,

There's a fairly pristine-looking Syncaset 234 on the SF Bay Area craigslist right now. Just thought I'd mention this...

 

[sweetbeats]

Yeah, okay, but can the seller tell me what the track width is on a 388?

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Skinnier then Karen Carpenter!

Sorry, don't know.

Cheers!

 

[sweetbeats]

Well, well...you guys are sure a lot of help...

Maybe I'll just call up Teac and ask.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I actually did make the effort to look at the manual and an original glossy 12 page brochure I have on the 388 to look for the info as well as did a Google search and couldn't find it anywhere!

I know I have seen this info on line somewhere in the past but can't remember where I saw it? I vaguely remember it being in an article related to tape more-so then an article specifically on the 388 but beyond that, my mind is still drawing a blank.

It's fun to grow old and slowly lose your mind!

Cheers!

 

[zorf]

uh...

Am I missing something here?

Width divided by the number of tracks?

 

[The Ghost of FM]

uh...

Am I missing something here?

Width divided by the number of tracks?

Yes, you're missing the guard band spacing in-between the tracks and in many cases, the guard banding can be almost as wide as the track width so unfortunately, the formula isn't as simple as you believed.

Cheers!

 

[Beck]

My educated guess is about 0.020 inch per track.

Unfortunately, neither Tascam nor Fostex list track width in the specs for their ¼” 8-tracks. But Tascam 4-track on cassette lists 0.020 inch and the old home hi-fi 8-track cartridge (using ¼” tape) was 0.022 inch per track. Also the old Quad-8 on 1/4" from the 70's had 0.021 inch tracks.

I think we can safely say around 0.020 inch, give or take for the 388, but still not 100% sure exactly what.

I have an original hard copy of the owners and service manual for the 388, but nothing in there either.

 

[leddy]

Is there much difference between any two different decks when it's the same track count on the same tape width?

I always saw the 388 as the same width as cassette (8 tracks on 1/4" = 4 tracks on 1/8"), it just runs thicker tape at higher speed...no?

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Is there much difference between any two different decks when it's the same track count on the same tape width?

I always saw the 388 as the same width as cassette (8 tracks on 1/4" = 4 tracks on 1/8"), it just runs thicker tape at higher speed...no?

Yes, there is a difference and it lays in the head designs and the amps that support it for tracking and playback. And in those respects, there can be a world of difference in sound quality both perceived in listening and on the spec sheet. The added faster speed will also help out the specs and sound quality too.

Also, cassette tape is not 1/4". Its 3/16th; essentially only 75% of the width of 1/4" tape.

Cheers!

 

[shedshrine]

Anybody got a micrometer?

 

[shedshrine]

Say, I don't have it with me, but the manual for the Tascam 424 mkII has a great diagram page with various layouts of track widths on tape comparisons. I can't remember if 1/4" is referenced in there..(?)

Edit: just looked 424 manual up online. Only stereo cassette and multitrack track width diagrams included. Darn.

 

[sweetbeats]

I sincerely appreciate the effort, guys.

I've got a dial caliper, but I'm not about to touch those sharp stainless calipers to a head.

And anyway, I think Beck's guesstimation would be closer than my eyeballing it with dial calipers.

I'll give Teac a call today and ask, that way the information will be here for scads of future generations.

 

[leddy]

Yes, there is a difference and it lays in the head designs and the amps that support it for tracking and playback. And in those respects, there can be a world of difference in sound quality both perceived in listening and on the spec sheet. The added faster speed will also help out the specs and sound quality too.

Also, cassette tape is not 1/4". Its 3/16th; essentially only 75% of the width of 1/4" tape.

Cheers!

I was only referring to track width. I know the differences in electronics and such can be huge.

I though cassettes were considered 1/8" - I didn't say 1/4", but thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tim Gillett]

My info from a TDK book is that cassette tape is 0.15" or 3.81mm wide, so wider than 1/8".

The standard 4 track stereo cassette track width is 0.236" or 0.60mm.

I guess there wouldnt be a lot of difference between the 388 8 track width and the 4 cassette tracks. The main thing is, they're both very narrow! A doubling of track width only gives you a few more db's reduction in noise.

I doubt the electronics make much if any difference here, so long as they are good quality.
Most of the noise and distortion comes from the the fact it is recorded by analog means. A narrow track and slow speed just accentuate that.

 

[cjacek]

I certainly agree (as was pointed out earlier) that heads / electronics make a significant difference, in sound quality, even if everything stays the same. As an extreme example, I have a couple of cassette decks, one of them being a very rare JVC deck, their flagship product of the early 80's and while it shares track width / speed of my other decks, it behaves more like a wider / faster open reel deck, in terms of recorded / reproduced sound. Yeah, heads / electronics matter and do so a lot, meaning that two recorders of similar track width / speed can sound vastly different.

 

[sweetbeats]

I concur with cjacek...

Head design is a huge factor in the response, and amp circuitry equally so.

Case in point, My Ampex 440-8 1" 8-track is a 'B' version. When Ampex introduced the 'C' version the repro head had thinner laminations and some differences on the repro amp PWA. The result? Significantly better HF response. Essentially the same transport and same format. I'm putting 'C' heads on mine.

Hey I just talked to Jimmy in analog support at Teac in Cali. He said the engineering docs are MIA on the 388 and that's the only place where the track width would be found for the 388. He says they purposely didn't put it in the manual because it was a proprietary head design...different than the Fostex 1/4" 8-track. They aren't compatible (at least not completely).

He gave me an email address where I could send the info request and he'd forward it to the folks in Japan as they may have the info somewhere.

Stay tuned.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I certainly agree (as was pointed out earlier) that heads / electronics make a significant difference, in sound quality, even if everything stays the same. As an extreme example, I have a couple of cassette decks, one of them being a very rare JVC deck, their flagship product of the early 80's and while it shares track width / speed of my other decks, it behaves more like a wider / faster open reel deck, in terms of recorded / reproduced sound. Yeah, heads / electronics matter and do so a lot, meaning that two recorders of similar track width / speed can sound vastly different.

Daniel, I find it hard to believe your early 80's flagship JVC cassette machine would sound significantly better than the best of that time. If the model really did have a significant sonic edge over its competitors I suspect it would have gotten itself a reputation amongst audiophiles around the world. In fact wouldnt you expect it to have gained legendary status by now?

Which model are we talking about?

Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

I concur with cjacek...

Head design is a huge factor in the response, and amp circuitry equally so.

Case in point, My Ampex 440-8 1" 8-track is a 'B' version. When Ampex introduced the 'C' version the repro head had thinner laminations and some differences on the repro amp PWA. The result? Significantly better HF response. Essentially the same transport and same format. I'm putting 'C' heads on mine.

Well we were talking about narrow Portastudio tracks re also narrow 388 tracks. That's why I said I doubted the electronics would "make much of a difference here" because the weak link was the narrow track width. Actually I wasnt thinking about heads as such but the rest of the circuit design.The biggest circuit related sonic improvement would be (and was) some sort of double ended NR and no surprise it was offered on Portastudio type formats. Not sure about the 388 reel format but Fostex offered Dolby C.

I went on to say that "most of the noise and distortion comes from the fact it is recorded by analog means. A narrow track and slow speed just accentuate that."

I dont own an Ampex 440 but I do have a Nagra 4.2 of similar vintage (15ips full track 1/4") which as a service technician I have lovingly restored to near original specs. What strikes me on careful and unbiased listening is the amount of noise and distortion the recording process introduces. The recordings fall well short of the Nagra's own high quality internal preamps in terms of noise and distortion, and their designer, Stefan Kudelski, was honest enough to state that without reservation in the operator's manual.
Possibly changing to a play head with even thinner laminations would have given some improvement in HF response but no way would it have addressed the major problems of noise and distortion - at all frequencies - inherent in that method of recording.
Whether it's Ampex, Nagra, Studer, Tascam, etc, they've all pioneered and stayed with a different form of audio recording. Perhaps they are all misguided...

Tim