Tascam 488 for "tape sound" or "analog mix"?

[lagoausente2]

Hello everyone.

I have a good studio with good preamps, Mytek Ad converter, and hardware multitrack digital recorders (Yamaha AW4416). Prefer hardware over DAW.

On the other side I have a Synthstrom Deluge, that´s a multitrack looper with song mode that allow midi and audio tracks. Quite creative.

I have around some gear I didn´t use too much. One Korg D16, that I replaced the hdd for a compact flash for totally silent work. I don´t use it very much really. I found it interested because a more portable 8 track with 24 bit and spdif input, so I could connect directly my Sony PCM- D100 to record acoustic guitars more "portable".
I put it on sale, and got a guy interested. For the worth money I said him have to think twice.. now thinking about order on my studio, and since already have AW4416 for the same thing, the Korg seems redundant.

I found a Tascam 488 near my location for near similar price of the Korg D16 sale, so I´m considering if could sale the Korg and get the 488 to get another "different" thing..,

I´m confused about the "tape" recording thing because there are threads regarding tape portastudios vs DAW and most say the DAW as an update, no brain about the sound...

but on the other side, I have found threads here about there is something about the "tape" or "analog" sound..., the seems some guys love compared with the digital mix..,

I have an Apollo Duo that have tape emulators, but never could compare how could be a plugin with a for example Tascam 488 machine.

The Tascam 488 is not that small, so I should consider if offers something like a "real" outboard mixer, or like a "color" hardware, I mean, a Neve preamp clone gives sound a quality that plugins can´t compete. I guess if a real Tascam 488 should be a good idea in this sense.., or just "lo-fi" sound..? I should no like to waste space with an unused gear. But something makes me doubt..., many guys seems to love this type of tape machines.., others don´t take care about them and consider them as "old" or obsolete..., can you give me a light?

Thank you in advance.

 

[grimtraveller]

The Tascam 488 is a good machine but you must be able to use it well. I used one for many years but I was learning about recording so my music that I recorded on it isn't very good, even though I love it. My DAW music is better ~ but this is because I have improved as the years go by.
I encourage you to try the 488. It has a different sound. Hopefully, you won't make the mistakes I did ! But I always loved that machine.

 

[TalismanRich]

There are those who swear by cassette tapes. For my money, all they would do is degrade the sound. I never went the cassette portastudio route. I've had cassette decks, and reel to reel machines. The cassettes were for making tapes to put in the car tape deck, or to make copies of albums so you wouldn't scratch up the records. I guess if you wanted to record in the 90s that was what you could afford, it was bang for the buck. When I got my AW16G in 2003, I finally got something that had the quality I wanted and the capability that I needed.

If you want the "analog sound" I would just take the digital recordings and dump them to a reel to reel deck and then back to digital. It will add the required wow and flutter, tape hiss, frequency response changes and distortions to sound analog.

 

[TalismanRich]

Oh yeah, one last thing. Don't dismiss the fact that you are looking at a 25 year old tape deck. Make sure that it's in FULL working order. Things like belts and rollers have a tendency to degrade over time. Sweetbeats here on HR.COM can probably tell you what issues you are likely to encounter with the 488.

 

[lagoausente2]

There are those who swear by cassette tapes. For my money, all they would do is degrade the sound. I never went the cassette portastudio route. I've had cassette decks, and reel to reel machines. The cassettes were for making tapes to put in the car tape deck, or to make copies of albums so you wouldn't scratch up the records. I guess if you wanted to record in the 90s that was what you could afford, it was bang for the buck. When I got my AW16G in 2003, I finally got something that had the quality I wanted and the capability that I needed.

If you want the "analog sound" I would just take the digital recordings and dump them to a reel to reel deck and then back to digital. It will add the required wow and flutter, tape hiss, frequency response changes and distortions to sound analog.

Thank you for your reply,
Have you tried them?
I mean, you say haven´t go for the portastudio route, so I´m not sure is if your conclusion is about the cassette from the car to the reel to reel seems not much neutral, this ones go double the speed than a standard cassette so the higher frequency can record is very different.., of course reel to reel is pro, but I suspect this units are not as pro sound as reel to reel but much better then standard speed car ones..

 

[lagoausente2]

The Tascam 488 is a good machine but you must be able to use it well. I used one for many years but I was learning about recording so my music that I recorded on it isn't very good, even though I love it. My DAW music is better ~ but this is because I have improved as the years go by.
I encourage you to try the 488. It has a different sound. Hopefully, you won't make the mistakes I did ! But I always loved that machine.

Thank you, from what I read in the manual, sound is monitored from the "tape".., I guess if there is any difference from the monitoring sound.. to the "recorded" sound, I mean.., I think pro tape machines have a head that just reads the recorded sound. Input..- recorder head- listen head- monitor.., I´m right? I guess if the 488 can do same, so could be used as a tape pluin in realtime?
Thank you in advance.

 

[sweetbeats]

Thank you, from what I read in the manual, sound is monitored from the "tape".., I guess if there is any difference from the monitoring sound.. to the "recorded" sound, I mean.., I think pro tape machines have a head that just reads the recorded sound. Input..- recorder head- listen head- monitor.., I´m right? I guess if the 488 can do same, so could be used as a tape pluin in realtime?
Thank you in advance.

No. there are no 3-head multitrack cassette machines. They are all 2-head.

 

[TalismanRich]

Thank you for your reply,
Have you tried them?
I mean, you say haven´t go for the portastudio route, so I´m not sure is if your conclusion is about the cassette from the car to the reel to reel seems not much neutral, this ones go double the speed than a standard cassette so the higher frequency can record is very different.., of course reel to reel is pro, but I suspect this units are not as pro sound as reel to reel but much better then standard speed car ones..

I had a 4 track reel machine, and used that until the late 80s. A friend managed to put together a Tascam 80-8/Model5 setup with DBX. It was a nice system and I did a few recordings with him on it. Very nice, but quite pricey, something that I couldn't afford. I never even considered going for a cassette multitrack system. For me, tape holds no special appeal. It's a step backwards. In it's day, it was the best we had. That's not the situation today. In fact, the few things that I have on tape, I've been converting to digital (this includes both cassette and reel audio and VHS/Hi-8 video). I do know someone who has a cassette system still, in this case, it's a 688. When I was at his house recently, he was using a Zoom H6. The Tascam is sitting.

My concern with the multitrack cassette systems like that are that they very much pushed the envelope when new. Now, those systems are 20-30 years old and unlikely to be in "like new" condition. This is happening with lots of equipment. Unless you are in a position to maintain the deck as problems develop, it can be a costly proposition.

I think your 4416 is still a very capable machine. I understand the preference to use an "all in one" system in place of a DAW/Computer. I have both as you do. Over the past several years, I've become very comfortable with the DAW setup, and when working at home, that's what I use. For portable use, I use my Zoom R24.

 

[sweetbeats]

I agree with everything that’s stated above.

8-track cassette really pushed the limits of cassette tape.

If you get the 488 (is it mkI or mkII?), be prepared to replace the capstan belt and pinch roller sooner or later to ensure the transport can perform to factory spec. You may also need to remove and disassemble the transport to clean and lubricate the gear mechanism that raises and lowers the headblock assembly.

People talk about cassette multitrack being “lo-fi”. Many times there is no context to their opinion. Yes cassette multitrack is technically lower fidelity than many other formats digital and analog. And the ultra-narrow track width of the 8-track multitrack format means a lower signal to noise spec, and more challenged crosstalk performance…and the 3 3/4ips tape speed means a more limited frequency response…some people don’t like the sound of the dbx noise reduction, blahblahblah. And I think it’s important to be careful about opinions formed by people who’s experience is based on a machine that’s not performing to factory spec. And we almost never know that background. A person might say “it sounds like butt…”, but we don’t get to know they were (for example) using normal bias tape, they turned off the dbx because they didn’t like the sound of the dbx processing, and the heads were dirty. Oh and the pinch roller was worn. Now people read that and without thinking critically and asking questions they assume “it sounds like butt.”

Here’s what I can say from personal experience…and I’ve owned and operated a lot of cassette multitrack machines both 4 and 8 track: yep…it *can* sound “like butt” if not properly maintained and operated, just like any tape machine. There’s just generally less wiggle room on a cassette-based machine between “good” and “butt.” I like how @grimtraveller put it when he referenced being able to “use it well.” This speaks to attentiveness with setting of levels, attention to track placement, proper maintenance, using the correct tape, etc.

I remember my first experience with a 488mkI in the early 1990s very well…we were recording a full-length release, multitracking to the 488, master to DAT, and then dupe to consumer cassette. The band leader was our recording engineer and producer. He had experience but we were also learning as we went. I had a lot of interest in the process so we did a lot of it together, and I remember how careful he was with levels, cleaning, placement of sources on tracks to minimize crosstalk…and to this day, with all my other exposure to wider tape formats and lots of digital formats and mediums (I too am a big fan of the Yamaha AW4416…have some of those here too), I listen back to the consumer release cassette and it sounds really good. I really need to get my 122B up and running so I can digitize and share some examples. But I don’t think most people would assume it was multitracked to 8-track cassette. So I know from experience a 488 can sound good, but I think it is fair to say it takes care and attention to get those results, and achieving them is somewhat at the limits of the machine’s capabilities.

Some of the character of a 488 is related to the mixing section. It’s a perfectly functional mixer and, like I said above, good results are possible. But the mixer places some limits on the recorder section’s capabilities. I did a test where I took a test song recorded on a 688, and then mixed that down three ways:

1. Through the 688 mixing section,
2. Through a 488mkII mixing section using the TAPE OUT jacks of the 688 to the LINE inputs of the 488mkII, and
3. Through my Studer 928 mixing desk using the TAPE OUT jacks of the 688 to line inputs of the Studer through a set of LA-40mkII level/balance converters.

I assumed the Studer mix would sound best, and it did…better clarity across the frequency spectrum and wider soundstage. I thought the 688 would be next, that it would have better sound than the 488mkII because of all its electronic signal switching. I actually thought the 488mkII was next in quality…sounded a bit more natural, the 688 mix was a little more sterile. Maybe the electronic switching didn’t do it any favors. Let me be clear these are all just my opinions and might mean nothing. But those were my impressions. None of the mixes were “bad”, but my point was to answer my own question about if the 488 or 688 mixer hampered the potential of the mix at all and I think they do. Which is why a 238 has better sonic potential than a 688 or 488 series machine. The 688 technically has that same potential since it has direct in and out jacks to the recorder section, though there are key difference in the 688 and 238 transports…the 238 has better wow and flutter specs because of the (problematic) direct drive capstan. The 488 series requires you use the mixer. What’s my point? If you’re thinking about getting that 488 keep in mind it’s the sound of the recorder section and the mixer, and both have their limits.

I can’t say I’d buy a 488 to have a different flavor in the studio. I’d go with an open-reel machine if I wanted to add an analog multitracking component. Reasons why I *would* have an analog cassette multitracker in the studio include the fact it is a simple very approachable format for capturing ideas, they are just plain fun to use, they are great teaching tools, I personally have a lot of nostalgia associated with the format, and truly the results can sound nice, especially if you’re using something like a 238 with an outboard mixer (but now we’re not quite as simple), or you’re using a 4-track machine, which there are many that can bring really, really surpassing results (again with proper maintenance and careful approach to the recording process). But 4-tracks is too limiting for a lot of people.

I also want to reiterate what I posted earlier, there is no way to monitor playback while recording on any 4 or 8 track cassette multitracker I’m aware of. They are all 2-head machines. When the 488 manual refers to monitoring tape, they are not talking about monitoring playback of a track you are presently recording, they are talking about monitoring of previously recorded tracks while overdubbing new tracks.

 

[lagoausente2]

I agree with everything that’s stated above.

8-track cassette really pushed the limits of cassette tape.

If you get the 488 (is it mkI or mkII?), be prepared to replace the capstan belt and pinch roller sooner or later to ensure the transport can perform to factory spec. You may also need to remove and disassemble the transport to clean and lubricate the gear mechanism that raises and lowers the headblock assembly.

People talk about cassette multitrack being “lo-fi”. Many times there is no context to their opinion. Yes cassette multitrack is technically lower fidelity than many other formats digital and analog. And the ultra-narrow track width of the 8-track multitrack format means a lower signal to noise spec, and more challenged crosstalk performance…and the 3 3/4ips tape speed means a more limited frequency response…some people don’t like the sound of the dbx noise reduction, blahblahblah. And I think it’s important to be careful about opinions formed by people who’s experience is based on a machine that’s not performing to factory spec. And we almost never know that background. A person might say “it sounds like butt…”, but we don’t get to know they were (for example) using normal bias tape, they turned off the dbx because they didn’t like the sound of the dbx processing, and the heads were dirty. Oh and the pinch roller was worn. Now people read that and without thinking critically and asking questions they assume “it sounds like butt.”

Here’s what I can say from personal experience…and I’ve owned and operated a lot of cassette multitrack machines both 4 and 8 track: yep…it *can* sound “like butt” if not properly maintained and operated, just like any tape machine. There’s just generally less wiggle room on a cassette-based machine between “good” and “butt.” I like how @grimtraveller put it when he referenced being able to “use it well.” This speaks to attentiveness with setting of levels, attention to track placement, proper maintenance, using the correct tape, etc.

I remember my first experience with a 488mkI in the early 1990s very well…we were recording a full-length release, multitracking to the 488, master to DAT, and then dupe to consumer cassette. The band leader was our recording engineer and producer. He had experience but we were also learning as we went. I had a lot of interest in the process so we did a lot of it together, and I remember how careful he was with levels, cleaning, placement of sources on tracks to minimize crosstalk…and to this day, with all my other exposure to wider tape formats and lots of digital formats and mediums (I too am a big fan of the Yamaha AW4416…have some of those here too), I listen back to the consumer release cassette and it sounds really good. I really need to get my 122B up and running so I can digitize and share some examples. But I don’t think most people would assume it was multitracked to 8-track cassette. So I know from experience a 488 can sound good, but I think it is fair to say it takes care and attention to get those results, and achieving them is somewhat at the limits of the machine’s capabilities.

Thank you for the full in depth reply. Today I were being to similar conclusion, but seems that now seems clearer.

First, the 488 machine was a MKI, after reading the manual about sync, and see that price with MTS-30 could be near the 688 I found another guy selling a 688 for good price, considering it has the midi onboard. The guy of the 688 have changed the capstan belt and pitch roller, but I didn´t like very much the big size and weight of the machine. I have enough gear around, so I didn´t imagine that 688 around. Also, it´s not as portable.
As you say, maybe the smaller ones could be fun to use.
What I found in the 688 studio guy was a reel 2 reel machine, it was an Akai 4000ds. The guy make mixes and mastering, so he is selling the 688 because he uses only 2 tracks, so yes, he uses it as a plugin, as you say.
I made some search on local auctions and found a guy that is a sybarite of all analog equipment, vinyl.., speakers, it has 10 units reel tape recorders .., high end cassette recorders and he seems to spend a lot of money on that hobby to pay a tecnician to put all the machines, speakers and vintage gear to get the best. He seems obsessed about all this vintage equipment and very exigent to sound.., he has one Akai 4000ds MkII and one Akai Gx4000d. Im waiting for him decide if sell me one of these, seems good price, around 340 eur fully tested and adjusted.
I should like your opinion about this option. If you now this models or maybe you can recomend me any similar one.., seems he had 10 reel tape machines I don´t know the other 8 models one but I can ask him..., maybe he also have them,
From what he said, the Akai Gx4000d, sounded a bit more bright, and the older 4000ds more "analog" (his words), but may be other models brands I still don´t know.., so if you know recomended machines reel 2 reel..., maybe I could ask him if have it.
He also recomended me a good new tape from a store here in Spain for good quality, so seems the type of guy obsesed with the best sound, so seems buy from him a good choice.


Regarding the multitrack cassette for fun, I agree, not sure if does worth.., not sure if the 488 Mki could be this type of "funny" machine.., I found it at 250 euro, really cheap.
The guy the sell the 688 is selling a compact Fostex X-28 for 280 euro.

- I´m convinced about the reel 2 reel option, seems good quality and versatile, with 3 head can record directly through tape to digital so use is as a hardware plugin for some tracks, seems make more sense.

- I´m considering aditionally to the reel.. a cassette multitrak recorder for fun, but here I´m not sure, they seems atract on some way I still not sure why. I have a Korg D16, that can record 8 track at 24 bit through it´s lighpipe spdif input.., so portable recording with a good preamp is nice. I have a USBpre2, and a Sony PCM- D100 handy recorder both good quality. But seen to that multirack cassette recorders, like the Fostex X-28 or the Tascam 488 , atracts me aswell for the price.., but not sure if it´s GAS, or if there is some "magic" using this machines that make them more lovely than a portable digital recorder like the Korg I have? What do you think about? what is your experience?
I´m conviced about the reel
I´m tempting aswell for the 488 or the Fostex for fun, but don´t want to get it for GAS and could stay getting dust after a week. So in your experience, do you still use them from time to time or is just nostalgia about remembering past times? That could give me a light.

I now have quite fun with the Synthstrom deluge combined with a Roland arranger keyboard.., I can record both midi loops and audio loops for the lengh I want and combine them in a very creative way. I ´m thinking about the reel tape, to add tape color to some tracks, like the guitar amp..,

So in this context, not sure about the cassette multitrack units. My first idea was to buy the sync adapter to tie it to the Deluge, but now seems too complicated.
So not sure if discard this ones 488 (250 euro), Fostex (280 eur).., or maybe buy one.. make a try and if I don´t feel that funny sale them on Reverb... opinions about this? I know its personal decision, just want to know your feeling and experience...do you still use them? for any particular reason?

thank you very much.

 

[leddy]

A cassette deck that is fully up to spec running at 3.75 ips and noise reduction *can sound really good - good enough to make something you’d release if you did everything else right. I’ve also never come across a tape deck in recent years that was anywhere near spec unless I sent it to an expert for an overhaul. Sometimes I’ve had to wait a year or more for a tech to get to it and find parts.

 

[lagoausente2]

A cassette deck that is fully up to spec running at 3.75 ips and noise reduction *can sound really good - good enough to make something you’d release if you did everything else right. I’ve also never come across a tape deck in recent years that was anywhere near spec unless I sent it to an expert for an overhaul. Sometimes I’ve had to wait a year or more for a tech to get to it and find parts.

I have found a man that has some Akai 4000 units already fully working and adjusted. If he decides to sale me one unit I´ll make a try for the studio (mixing, mastering).

Regarding the cassette, my doubt if it´s worth goin to a 488 mki, not expensive (250 eur). The synthstrom Deluge is very creative and portable, but digital, still sound pretty good.
What I´m not sure if there is behind a substantiated reason for me looking at the 488 (maybe because analog sound, or anything like workflow),
or if it´s simply GAS, or nostalgia, and simply I should be loosing time and money with that.
Opinions?
Thank for your inputs.

 

[sweetbeats]

Honestly I think it’s GAS. And that’s fine.

I wouldn’t use the Akai as a mastering deck. It’s a consumer quarter track stereo machine operating at 3.75 or 7.5ips.

 

[lagoausente2]

Honestly I think it’s GAS. And that’s fine.

I wouldn’t use the Akai as a mastering deck. It’s a consumer quarter track stereo machine operating at 3.75 or 7.5ips.

I think you are correct about GAS.

Regarding the Akais, the guy sent me a video of the later model Gx4000d, seems from the 80 decade, quite neutral.
Although you are correct that they are consumer.., Honestly I don´t know about tape reel to reel alternative machines pro o consumer.
I have an Apollo UAD and the tape plugins, so most probably should be less degradation using the UAD tape plugins instead DA-- AD re-conversion.
Probably best use should be use it to record directly to digital.., just taking the "tape" out signal from the thrird head.., as example for recording a guitar to digital... something like this:
mic-preamp- analog compressor- tape- AD-- digital workstation o DAW.

Can you give me more lights about better alternatives that this Akai models? Or do you think should be a waste of time or money aswell?
From my experience with preamps and compressor, analog gear is better and more realistic then UAD emulations. Haven´t compared the true tape machines with the UAD ones, so don´t know.
What should be your recomendations instead that akais?

Thank you. Your opinion is very helpful form me.

 

[lagoausente2]

Honestly I think it’s GAS. And that’s fine.

I wouldn’t use the Akai as a mastering deck. It’s a consumer quarter track stereo machine operating at 3.75 or 7.5ips.

Don´t you think those Akais are better than a Tascam 488?
I mainly should like can add some "tape" flavour to my tracks. Quite confusing about the best option to go.

 

[sweetbeats]

Don´t you think those Akais are better than a Tascam 488?
I mainly should like can add some "tape" flavour to my tracks. Quite confusing about the best option to go.

Yes, given both machines are working and maintained properly, the Akai has better sound quality potential. But you mentioned “mastering”. You can use anything as a master recorder, but typically people don’t use a multitrack machine as a mastering recorder, OR a quarter track stereo deck. Like I said it doesn’t mean you can’t do that, but if you are wanting higher quality master recording you’d want to look for a halftrack machine, where the two tracks span the entire tape width and you only record/reproduce with the tape in one direction. With those Akai machines the two tracks span half the tape width, and you flip the tape over to record the other half of the tape…consumer format. But the Akai has better sound quality potential over the 488 because the track width is about 4x the 488, and the tape speed is 2x the 488.

The other thing you keep talking about is doing real-time record/reproduce through the tape machine, and monitor off the playback head. Just keep in mind there is a delay because of the distance from the record head to the playback head and you’ll need to figure out the exact delay and adjust all of your DAW tracks to be in time with the delayed tracks, or adjust the delayed tracks after recording. More sophisticated systems use timecode and a synchronizer to keep the DAW and tape machine lined up and you can program in the latency. But machines like the Akai decks are not capable of that kind of setup.

 

[rob aylestone]

The thing with all things recording is quality bit also where your 'quality' comes in the the great scheme of things.

Back in the 70s, when this kind of kit was emerging and developing into the 80s, the quality of cassette in general - consumer, prosumer and professional gradually increased. Tape mechanisms presented less wow and flutter, the electronics better signal to noise and the tape formalations got better and better. At work we had all of these - as a hifi and video sales and rental outfit doing domestic and business customers. It did get to the stage that I could wander in and take anything I liked to do a recording - either music events or conferences or meetings, and quite frankly, we got to the stage where the quality differences were so minute, it didn't matter. What mattered were gadgets and gizmos to make life easier. I had a few favourite cassette decks and reel to reels, and yet when new things appeared, like elcassette I'd give them a shot, and even Sony's digital audio add on unit for the F1 video recorder. We had Akai 4000Ds sitting there and my favourite, the Ferrograph series 7s and Super 7s. These all had sufficient quality to be as close to transparent as we could get. I hated the 4000D - for no reason other than it was so easy to mark the brushed aluminium front, and for resale values, we needed to keep them pristene. The 4 track Akai and the 2 track Ferrographs were impossible to spot by listening, as were ALL the cassette decks. Any of the proper hifi ones sounded excellent.

We suffered from dodgy tape, that was all. BASF was my favourite - the CR02 being my go to forumation in the black and silver livery. Memorex was pushing heavily on TV. Is it live or memorex? being the strapline. Sony tapes were OK. TDK Ferrichrome were reliable too.

My point for home recording or pro studios then and now, was that as long as you had hiss under control, then all these brands did a great job. There really was (and still isn't) some level of quality we can really determine. As soon as you got to a certain level, anyone could use them - abd our national broadcaster, the BBC did. Very rarely did they modify things for quality, they modified them to be simpler, more reliable when abused or over used and sometimes just to make inputs and output levels the same as other gear, for swappabiliy.

The 688 we had lacked EQ versatility and the routing possibilities were a bit limited and mic possibilities, but it sounded fine. It was reliable and as an all in one box offered more than the 4 track portastudios of the day. I don't remember tape issues once we found the most appropriate cassette type. For the life of me, I cannot remember what we standardised on. I don;t remember any major reliability issues either. Compared with ADAT, which we moved to, the unreliability and constant requirement for cleaning and aligning didn't sit well at all. We moved to the MK2 versions but then quickly bought an HD24 which integrated well and was transparent. you just pushed record, and it did. No more waiting for three machines to rewind and lock up, and no need to pray before you ejected.

People who are no reliving the analgue life seem to think there were real goto machines, but the reality is there weren't. If you had a Tascam 3340 you probably had it bodged into some awkward mixer and it meant lots of cable swaps. I bought a Tascam multi-track and a Revox 2 track, mainly to be able to transfer a few things, but with the idea of recording on them. However, this 'sound' people are expecting to get out of them is compression and a bit of hiss coupled with a bit of frequency response filtering, and maybe a touch of distortion. I simply don't record the kind of music that reacts well, so transfers complete, they are just sitting in the studio. I suspect, at £70 a spool, I'm not going to be buying much tape just to dirty my recordings up. I do understand the liking some folk have for the 'old' sound, but I spent all my recording life moving upwards, and going back to the old problems (even not talking about the quality) means I shan't be doing it.

 

[lagoausente2]

Yes, given both machines are working and maintained properly, the Akai has better sound quality potential. But you mentioned “mastering”. You can use anything as a master recorder, but typically people don’t use a multitrack machine as a mastering recorder, OR a quarter track stereo deck. Like I said it doesn’t mean you can’t do that, but if you are wanting higher quality master recording you’d want to look for a halftrack machine, where the two tracks span the entire tape width and you only record/reproduce with the tape in one direction. With those Akai machines the two tracks span half the tape width, and you flip the tape over to record the other half of the tape…consumer format. But the Akai has better sound quality potential over the 488 because the track width is about 4x the 488, and the tape speed is 2x the 488.

The other thing you keep talking about is doing real-time record/reproduce through the tape machine, and monitor off the playback head. Just keep in mind there is a delay because of the distance from the record head to the playback head and you’ll need to figure out the exact delay and adjust all of your DAW tracks to be in time with the delayed tracks, or adjust the delayed tracks after recording. More sophisticated systems use timecode and a synchronizer to keep the DAW and tape machine lined up and you can program in the latency. But machines like the Akai decks are not capable of that kind of setup.

Oh, you are right..,
Yes I said mastering, but I was thinking in mixing sorry. I mean, re-record some of the tracks back through tape.

But I was missing the point problem of the reproducing head latency distance. It should be no problem for re-record a track.., but yes to live recording, depends on where I record it.

 

[lagoausente2]

The thing with all things recording is quality bit also where your 'quality' comes in the the great scheme of things.

Back in the 70s, when this kind of kit was emerging and developing into the 80s, the quality of cassette in general - consumer, prosumer and professional gradually increased. Tape mechanisms presented less wow and flutter, the electronics better signal to noise and the tape formalations got better and better. At work we had all of these - as a hifi and video sales and rental outfit doing domestic and business customers. It did get to the stage that I could wander in and take anything I liked to do a recording - either music events or conferences or meetings, and quite frankly, we got to the stage where the quality differences were so minute, it didn't matter. What mattered were gadgets and gizmos to make life easier. I had a few favourite cassette decks and reel to reels, and yet when new things appeared, like elcassette I'd give them a shot, and even Sony's digital audio add on unit for the F1 video recorder. We had Akai 4000Ds sitting there and my favourite, the Ferrograph series 7s and Super 7s. These all had sufficient quality to be as close to transparent as we could get. I hated the 4000D - for no reason other than it was so easy to mark the brushed aluminium front, and for resale values, we needed to keep them pristene. The 4 track Akai and the 2 track Ferrographs were impossible to spot by listening, as were ALL the cassette decks. Any of the proper hifi ones sounded excellent.

We suffered from dodgy tape, that was all. BASF was my favourite - the CR02 being my go to forumation in the black and silver livery. Memorex was pushing heavily on TV. Is it live or memorex? being the strapline. Sony tapes were OK. TDK Ferrichrome were reliable too.

My point for home recording or pro studios then and now, was that as long as you had hiss under control, then all these brands did a great job. There really was (and still isn't) some level of quality we can really determine. As soon as you got to a certain level, anyone could use them - abd our national broadcaster, the BBC did. Very rarely did they modify things for quality, they modified them to be simpler, more reliable when abused or over used and sometimes just to make inputs and output levels the same as other gear, for swappabiliy.

The 688 we had lacked EQ versatility and the routing possibilities were a bit limited and mic possibilities, but it sounded fine. It was reliable and as an all in one box offered more than the 4 track portastudios of the day. I don't remember tape issues once we found the most appropriate cassette type. For the life of me, I cannot remember what we standardised on. I don;t remember any major reliability issues either. Compared with ADAT, which we moved to, the unreliability and constant requirement for cleaning and aligning didn't sit well at all. We moved to the MK2 versions but then quickly bought an HD24 which integrated well and was transparent. you just pushed record, and it did. No more waiting for three machines to rewind and lock up, and no need to pray before you ejected.

People who are no reliving the analgue life seem to think there were real goto machines, but the reality is there weren't. If you had a Tascam 3340 you probably had it bodged into some awkward mixer and it meant lots of cable swaps. I bought a Tascam multi-track and a Revox 2 track, mainly to be able to transfer a few things, but with the idea of recording on them. However, this 'sound' people are expecting to get out of them is compression and a bit of hiss coupled with a bit of frequency response filtering, and maybe a touch of distortion. I simply don't record the kind of music that reacts well, so transfers complete, they are just sitting in the studio. I suspect, at £70 a spool, I'm not going to be buying much tape just to dirty my recordings up. I do understand the liking some folk have for the 'old' sound, but I spent all my recording life moving upwards, and going back to the old problems (even not talking about the quality) means I shan't be doing it.

hell, I was quite exited about going tape, now I´m blocked.

Now seems that going with UAD tape plugins is the best option.

Sad the "delay" issue, for tracking. Seems not that worth for re-mixing/color , I was expecting something more "real" from hardware, but seems should be need a bigger investment. ¿?

 

[TalismanRich]

You might want to check the prices of tape as well as the machines. The Tascam 38 uses 1/2" tape at 15IPS. A single reel of RTM900, 10.5" reel is €118 or about $150. That will give you 30 minutes of recording time. The days of grabbing a reel of tape for $25 are long gone.