Tascam 48-8????

[Hi_Flyer]

One thing to consider if you're using as front end for a DAW... The 38/48/58s are three head decks, so you can print to the sync head, then take a signal from the repro head into your DAW, all in real time. Essentially, it gives you unlimited tape tracks (just compensate for the slight delay between repro and sync head in your DAW). I don't think you can do that with a TSR-8 as it only a two head deck. I'm gonna try to do this with my newly acquired 38.

 

[Good Friend]

compensate

What do you mean by "compensate"? Hopefully you dont mean that you have to move the tracks in to position by eye or some other kind of syncing method.

I need to be able to play to already laid tracks and have them in the phones as well as hear my "performance" in real time, no delay. Is that possible when using a tape machine as a front end?

 

[jpmorris]

I need to be able to play to already laid tracks and have them in the phones as well as hear my "performance" in real time, no delay. Is that possible when using a tape machine as a front end?

No. Not when using it as a direct front-end.

You can do that sort of thing when tracking to tape. In that situation the record head plays back all the tracks except the one you're recording - for that one you will hear the input rather than the recording. You can do this with a two-head deck like the TSR-8, but basically it means you're using it instead of the DAW. You could then dump the tracks into the DAW 8 at a time and line them all up, that's one way of doing it.

But what people with DAWs often do - and what everyone here is expecting - is record everything into the tape deck and get the playback off the replay head, recording that into the DAW during the performance. Because the two heads are about an inch apart you will get a delay of 1/15th of a second at 15ips, so any existing tracks in the DAW will be that much out of sync. That is what they are suggesting you compensate for.

Does that make sense?

 

[cjacek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe many parts of the 38/48/58 decks are interchangeable. I don't think it will be any harder to locate parts for a 48 than a 38.

That's the problem that many parts are not interchangeable. The pinch roller for the 38 and 48 are the same, heads are shared by the 38, 48, 58 and TSR-8 but other than that, the 48 and especially the 58 are almost exclusive designs maybe sharing more with the ATR60 series than anything else and those are rare. I know the 58 channel cards, motors, transport etc.. are completely different as compared to the 38. The electronics, motors and many mechanical parts are different on the 48 and 58. I think parts are not impossible to find but it'll be easier if you have a 30 series (or 20 series for that matter) as there's so many more outthere and many parts from these are indeed interchangeable. I guess one has to weigh the benefits of getting a better built machine vs the greater support for the budget versions. At the same time, whatever goes wrong with the 40, 50 or 60 series can be fixed so their relative rarity is not really an issue. Generally speaking, tape recorders are very serviceable items. I still would go with one in the best condition, no matter the series.

 

[Good Friend]

i dont mean to

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but the more i try to understand digital/analog hybrids and all this stuff the less i care to get what i want out of a recording setup. Its hilarious to me that in the year 2007 with all this shit people know about recording there is no easy way to record something the way you want. There is always a ton of hassle and then you end up sacrificing some flexibility in the end anyways. Actually i guess it ISNT hilarious to me, more painful really because it shouldnt take a million thought out calculations and strange processes and wiring schemes just to record a lousy tape while the computer records it.

It is UNBELIEVABLE how hard it is to have something be easy enough to use yet flexible enough to allow you some room to alter and adapt your recorded work. There are a thousand ridiculous pitfalls that logic should have eliminated in the design phase long ago.

OK im done

 

[Hi_Flyer]

That's the problem that many parts are not interchangeable. The pinch roller for the 38 and 48 are the same, heads are shared by the 38, 48, 58 and TSR-8 but other than that, the 48 and especially the 58 are almost exclusive designs maybe sharing more with the ATR60 series than anything else and those are rare. I know the 58 channel cards, motors, transport etc.. are completely different as compared to the 38. The electronics, motors and many mechanical parts are different on the 48 and 58. I think parts are not impossible to find but it'll be easier if you have a 30 series (or 20 series for that matter) as there's so many more outthere and many parts from these are indeed interchangeable. I guess one has to weigh the benefits of getting a better built machine vs the greater support for the budget versions. At the same time, whatever goes wrong with the 40, 50 or 60 series can be fixed so their relative rarity is not really an issue. Generally speaking, tape recorders are very serviceable items. I still would go with one in the best condition, no matter the series.

OK see, so I WAS wrong!

Interesting nonetheless. during my search for a R2R I was always sort of hoping to run across a 58.

 

[cjacek]

during my search for a R2R I was always sort of hoping to run across a 58.

...and it's a great machine but there's one, what I believe to be, major fault with this beast and that's the way the RCA's are connected to the machine. Very much unlike the 20, 30, 40 series, the 58 has the RCA jacks directly attached to the PCB and what's worse is that the jacks themselves are not secured tightly and pretty much just rest with the PCB. It's very easy to plug in a cable and watch the RCA's flex, in, out, side to side, without much pulling, which is why many 58's report a similar problem with intermittent connections / bad solder joints, fractured etch etc.., due mainly from these hideously mounted RCA connectors and general / routine connect / disconnect of cables. Oh yeah, and if you think you can bypass the intermittents by using the XLR's [on the OB model] then think again. I'm not exactly sure how they're connected but obviously to that same PCB board, only the XLR's are not directly connected but with wires going to the bottom PCB. Now why couldn't TASCAM have mounted the RCA's in a manner similar to the more budget versions? A major oversight.

Ok, so my main point is to be very careful, keeping the above in mind and make sure you run signals through the RCA's before buying the unit, thereafter being extra cereful with how you hook cables. If you've a problem, then if you're good with soldering then great but if not then budget in several hundred dollars for a tech to do it, that is if he doesn't fuck up your machine even worse or, at the very least, doesn't fix the problem. [As you can tell I trust almost no one with my machines].

 

[jpmorris]

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but the more i try to understand digital/analog hybrids and all this stuff the less i care to get what i want out of a recording setup. Its hilarious to me that in the year 2007 with all this shit people know about recording there is no easy way to record something the way you want. There is always a ton of hassle and then you end up sacrificing some flexibility in the end anyways. Actually i guess it ISNT hilarious to me, more painful really because it shouldnt take a million thought out calculations and strange processes and wiring schemes just to record a lousy tape while the computer records it.

In that case I suggest you complain to God because what you're asking for is not physically possible...

If you really want a flamewar, what horrifies me is that people are still using Windows in 2007. And for things which are actually important, what's more. And people are willing to accept crashes as a normal part of their computing experience.

It is UNBELIEVABLE how hard it is to have something be easy enough to use yet flexible enough to allow you some room to alter and adapt your recorded work. There are a thousand ridiculous pitfalls that logic should have eliminated in the design phase long ago.

Two points: firstly, the machines were not designed in 2007, and secondly, what you are using them for is not what they were designed to do, plain and simple. You could probably design something to do this, but you'll never eliminate the delay completely and get the same effect.

You could crank the tape up to some stupendous speed to minimise the delay, but you'd wear the components and the tape out very quickly. If you move the heads very close together, you'd need custom heads like the ones in three-head cassette decks, but you'd have signal bleed-through if they are close enough to make the delay unnoticable.

Now we come to the actually helpful, practical suggestions. What you might want to investigate are machines like the SPL Machine Head (now discontinued) which do tape simulation.
There's another one, a Neve unit I believe - the name of which eludes me - that uses a record and play head back-to-back, i.e. magnetically coupled. That has no delay whatsoever, but it's not actually recording to tape so the effect is not going to be quite the same.

Finally, what a lot of people do is record to the DAW and mix to a two-track tape deck. You can then bounce it back into the DAW, DAT, CDR or whatever your final stereo mix would normally be recorded to.