Tascam 388 Track Width?

[cjacek]

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?

Yes, I would have expected it to have gained "legendary status", as you say but the world doesn't always function is such a linear way. In other words, something of superb quality doesn't automatically = people hail it as the next best thing since sliced bread. To say otherwise is naive. Again, the world doesn't necessarily function that way. It's rather governed by perception, which can easily be manipulated.

One might mention "best cassette deck" and people automatically reply "Nakamichi" but many don't even know why. Perception is everything and JVC was obviously under the radar when it came to high end cassette decks. The model in question is DD9.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I take your point. Excellent products arent always recognized and sometimes go completely "under the radar".

The DD9 looks like a well equipped machine and has a good combination of features, especially the 4 NR systems PLUS auto calibration of three different parameters, practically the only way to take advantage of all that NR.

But I stand by what I said. Cassettes were able to rival the sonics of open reel by a combination of improved tapes, machines and especially NR, when used properly. But if we're comparing apples with apples open reel also had access to improvements such as NR and so cassettes never really matched the advantage of open reel in every respect. Tape "real estate" was always important in analog recording.

I doubt the DD9 had any inherent advantage over other cassette machines in its class though I'm happy to be proved wrong on that.

cheers Tim

 

[cjacek]

The automatic adjust, on that deck, is a key factor in its performance, as parameters are indeed tight for narrow formats. In fact, I can pop in a type 1 (yes, type 1) cassette, let the machine take 30 sec to auto adjust all parameters and kid you not, I'm getting jaw dropping performance with only Dolby B engaged (sometimes no NR at all on certain material).

By jaw dropping I mean, I can take the best of my CD's, Vinyl and even high resolution DVD and I'll get an almost true to the source copy (I mean it's hard to tell source / tape). It's actually scary 'cause none of my other mid end decks and portastudios (driving dbx / 2x speed) can do that. I briefly used a Revox / Nakamichi Dragon at one time and the DD9 can easily compete but goes for peanuts on eBay vs the others.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

In the past I've owned several cassette decks, I owned a very basic JVC deck at one point which only had Dolby B noise reduction and used a mechanical piano key transport and yet, it actually made a damn fine recording! I also had a more highly acclaimed Tandberg TD-310 cassette deck which was a three head, three motor, built like a brick shit-house machine and as memory serves didn't sound all that different then my lowly ranked JVC. I think of all the cassette decks I ever owned, my TEAC V800X was probably the best sounding deck. In the early stages of my my home studio days, when I was recording on a Portastudio and then an A3340, I used that TEAC to master all my stuff and it did an admirable job. It never sounded as full and lush as the multi-track masters that fed it but seemed like a pretty decent means of getting the job done. The TEAC too never really earned top marks in the audiophile world but even still, I had heard many recording made on Nakamichi and higher end HK tape decks and none of them blew the doors off my TEAC. Marketing can indeed be the greatest specification to never make it onto to a spec sheet.

Cheers!

 

[sweetbeats]

Tim, the 388 has onboard dbx Type I n/r.

I don't care what format...head design and amp circuitry drive the performance...format will naturally set the potential, but the head design and amp circuitry will determine how close it gets to it. Tape path is of course a driver too.

 

[Beck]

Tascam definitely gained a reputation for advances in head design. They put a lot of R&D into it. By the time 1990 rolled around (about the time analog peaked) Tascam had heads with narrow tracks that performed better than older heads with twice the track width. So yeah, head design was crucial as were new tape formulations with finer particles. If digital hadn’t come along, especially the Alesis ADAT, I think we would have seen even greater things. Some things were on the drawing board, but the move toward digital nixed it.

Imagine something like the 388 with HX Pro, Dolby S and using EE tape, which is basically the reel-to-reel version of Type II cassette. There were rumors of it, but it was to little, to late with digital looming on the horizon. It would have put the 388 on par with the ¼” 8-track Fostex machines running 15 IPS. There were a lot of cool ideas waiting in the wings, but as it turned out we will never know.

Cassette decks really took off during the late 80’s – 90’s. Again, new tape formulations helped transform that format. With Dolby HX Pro, Dolby C and S, direct drive capstans and Maxell XL II-S tape, cassette could achieve down right audiophile status. My kids are still amazed when I play old commercial tapes on my Tascam cassette deck. My 15 year old says it's painful to go back to his MP3 player after a session with dad's old tapes. I think I might get him an old cassette Walkman for his birthday coming up. I know he’ll be thrilled.

 

[sweetbeats]

Beck, that is really cool. Thanks for that peek at what could have been.

I also agree very much how good a good cassette recording sounds on a good deck after listening to compressed digital formats or even uncompressed. Even a cassette recording on a BAD deck...I think I had a post some time ago over on the old Tascam Analog forum after putting a dubbed copy of Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams" in the stock tape deck in my Subaru...don't think I've ever cleaned or demagged it and the whole system is stock, cones in the back are starting to rot, BUT...after having listened to lots of music off my phone plugged into the aux jack on the deck and then putting that tape in I was shocked. I had the windows open and was driving down the freeway and the ability to clearly hear everything at all frequency ranges...the fullness and sonic palatability of everything especially things that tend to get harsh in the compressed digital world like cymbals and sibilants were so pleasing to listen to. Granted, Fleetwood Mac knew what they were doing and had SERIOUS gear at hand, but this was a dubbed cassette copy that was worn out on a worn out system...If I was listening to an mp3 or wma in that scenario it would have been totally different. Gooood cockroach....gooood cockroach.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I had the windows open and was driving down the freeway and the ability to clearly hear everything at all frequency ranges....

Yup, I had exactly the same experience once. The more raging wind noise, tire noise, engine and drive train noise and vibration, somehow the better I could hear all those subtle little things in the mix.

Man, I sure wish I could get some more of that weed.

 

[jedblue]

We're off topic a bit from Cory's original ask but this is getting to be a really interesting thread. I was wondering just what goes on in the spectrum of the same track via various formats so here is a Hanning frequency graph from 24 seconds of the same track in the same place in Audacity from the Stormcellar track we did on 1/4" (the one that plays on the Myspace site), in three different forms all normalized to -3db.

I've put on it the 16/44.1 digitized wav version of the 1/4" track recorded off the 1/4" machine, a digitized 16/44.1 wav version of that track off a properly biased type II cassette recorded to a zero db analog peak on the Akai GX95 with Dolby C and HXPro on and a 320 kbit mp3 of the 1st 16/44.1 digital wav.

I can't do a pure analog 1/4" one because I don't have an analog analyzer that can do it.

Interesting to see how the 320 kbit mp3 tracks the 16/44.1 wav up to about 16kHz, gets spikey from about 18kHz then really drops off at 20kHz (it goes down to -120db at 22kHz) and how the cassette is a bit fatter at the bottom but loses 3-5db in the mids and falls away above 19kHz in comparison with the 16/44.1 digital wav. It doesn't fall as steeply as that mp3 does though.

ps - the yellow line is the 320kbit mp3 not a 32kbit wav, dunno what I was thinking then

Geoff

 

[cjacek]

The only problem that I see and I don't wanna start anything here but most of the stuff that drops off rapidly occurs at a point where most of us can't really hear anyway, more like up to maybe 16 or 17khz. I personally have a hunch that "something" is happening between a more realistic audible range that is completely passed over in such discussions. Yeah, I know, some people say (and I was one of them) that it's about the ultra high frequencies that is responsible for the difference but I don't think so. It's, I believe, how the readily "audible" frequencies interact between a so and so range and, once again, IMHO, tape "combines" frequencies (even between a comparatively narrow range), in such a way, that really makes the ultimate difference and also why some prefer tape over digital. And, no, I'm not talking about tape saturation or compression. It is a completely separate, this "combining" thing that I speak of. Just thinking out loud guys.

 

[jedblue]

Yes Daniel, I feel you're right. I don't think this chart explains very much at all. I know my hearing's gone at tones above 17,900 khz and above about 17,500 I have to concentrate to hear them - a weak almost inaudible high pitched tone peeking through my background hiss with unknown ramifications for the listening back of music or the comparison of different formats.

And when you cut off the graph at say, 17,500 khz to accommodate most of us, there is very little to me in that to explain anything about the differences between the various formats except that the cassette was a bit fatter in the bottom and less so in the mids and that the mp3 fell away quicker above about 17,000 khz where it may or may not have had anything to do with any sound difference between the mp3 and the digital wav file. How much impact can 3db less at -60db at 16,500+ khz have anyway?

As far as the audible comparison of the mp3 vs the digital wav? Much more likely to do with lossy formats, sample rates and bit rates and all that stuff I expect.

And analog versus digital? No doubt the debate will continue on endlessly until the last roll of tape rolls out of the last manufacturer in the universe to be snatched up and hoarded like gold, hopefully by one of us. I guess we're fortunate to be able to work with both for as long as it may continue

 

[sweetbeats]

jedblue,

no sweat moving off-topic. I'm actually really excited because it seems like a long time since I've started a thread that's actually generated discussion...all my threads are about tearing machines apart, recapping and refurbing and that's not very discussion oriented so this is refreshing.

Thanks very much for the input. Really interesting.