A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
You have to believe it.
I can't find my camera........
I can't find my camera........
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
LOL!! 
M
mikey@thecave
New member
the 388 is like a heavy beautiful woman a BBW
S
studiodrum
New member
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
That's from the the Phantom Productions site I think: http://reel2reeltexas.com/vinAd87Shure2.jpg
That's cool! I don't like the idea of the cup placed on the 388 though. Makes me nervous!
That's cool! I don't like the idea of the cup placed on the 388 though. Makes me nervous!
peopleperson
I'm so sorry.
Ahh, ode to 388.
The biggest find I had all last year was my 388 in pristine condition for $300. The thing is, my 388 gives me a bonor and makes me shed a few tears at the same time. It gives me a bonor cause the thing has this fantastic fat, unique sound that you don't get from other machines (ESPECIALLY in that price range, there's just no contest). It makes me shed tears because I live in an apartment and have no room for it, nor do I have the ability to make noise into it. I plan on buying a house in the spring and one of my biggest conditions is getting the basement and the space for the 388.
The biggest find I had all last year was my 388 in pristine condition for $300. The thing is, my 388 gives me a bonor and makes me shed a few tears at the same time. It gives me a bonor cause the thing has this fantastic fat, unique sound that you don't get from other machines (ESPECIALLY in that price range, there's just no contest). It makes me shed tears because I live in an apartment and have no room for it, nor do I have the ability to make noise into it. I plan on buying a house in the spring and one of my biggest conditions is getting the basement and the space for the 388.
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Heh, heh. (Pun).peopleperson said:
S
studiodrum
New member
K
Kasey
New member
haha, wow. the 388 is awesome, but 238? i'm going to have to put my money on that being near unlistenable. 3 1/2 ips, and 1/64" for each track? is that math right?
although i secretly want one, if nothing for the idea.
although i secretly want one, if nothing for the idea.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
The 238 has no right sounding as good as it does, for a cassette anyway. Sure, on paper, it might be a ridiculous idea for 8 tracks on tiny cassette tape but it does sound decent. I've heard some productions recorded on the 238 in the past and was surprised it was done on this format. The 388, of course, it isn't but it's not bad for an 8 track cassette.
Herm
Well-known member
238! yea it may not be a 1/2 inch 8 track but it will still sound better than any, And I mean any ADAT.
C
CFSound
New member
I just bought a 388.
A few months ago some recording engineer guy donated a 388 and a whole crap load of old Ibanez out board gear to my old high school. They didn't want the 388, so I bought it off them for $200. It came with the manual, the remote, two custom Switchcraft patchbays and a bunch of reels. Two VU meter light bulbs are out but everything else works just fine on it. It has a beautiful sound. It is now my main mix down mixer for my small studio. It replaces my A&H MixWiz 16:2. The difference in the sound is amazing. The only bad part was that it didn't come with any tape, but it was still a steal for that price. Does anyone here have any good suggestions as to where I can buy tape for the 388? Thanks, -Dan
A few months ago some recording engineer guy donated a 388 and a whole crap load of old Ibanez out board gear to my old high school. They didn't want the 388, so I bought it off them for $200. It came with the manual, the remote, two custom Switchcraft patchbays and a bunch of reels. Two VU meter light bulbs are out but everything else works just fine on it. It has a beautiful sound. It is now my main mix down mixer for my small studio. It replaces my A&H MixWiz 16:2. The difference in the sound is amazing. The only bad part was that it didn't come with any tape, but it was still a steal for that price. Does anyone here have any good suggestions as to where I can buy tape for the 388? Thanks, -Dan
shedshrine
Member
CFSound said:
Well, according to this thread (linked below), it's either 407 or 457. The tech that got mine up to spec said it was set up for 457 (which he determined by the specifications page reference to certain nanowebers?). I ended up buying a reel of each, though I've only got half way through the 457 reel (which sounds great), and have yet to open the 407.
Thread link:
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=218155&page=1&pp=25
The only place that sells the 1 mil thick 1800 ft 7" reels for the 388 that I have been able to find is quantegy itself. Other places site lack of volume for not listing/selling it.
Quantegy 407 buy link:
http://quantegyonline.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=32_76&products_id=39
Quantegy 457 buy link:
http://quantegyonline.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=32_79&products_id=64
M
MCI2424
New member
shedshrine said:enough with the technical, the bias, the tape formula, the pinchrollers, the u.p.s. disasters,...
Get in touch with your inner pancreas, er, recording joy jones. WHat is it about this unit in particular that get you exited. How would you describe it's sound. What does it excel at. Talk in terms of vibe, atmosphere, zone whatever. It gave this tune a real____ it needed. etc. The mixer/eq really gives you a lot of ____. Like to get all this in one continuing thread for everybody. Yeah, I'm probably going over the top , but...
(had abstained from lattes for two months as an additional method of saving towards the big purchase. Guess who fell off the wagon today...
Boxy and lo-fi. Inaffective eq, groaning at 7.5ips, muddy sound when mixed.
shedshrine
Member
After the rain, the clouds parted, and those who write and record their music with their method of choice continued doing so, and cared less about those who disparage their efforts...
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
MCI2424 said:
When you make a baseless, blanket statement like this, at least provide your source of comparison.
M
MCI2424
New member
cjacek said:
It is not a baseless statement for I have used the thing for years. A blanket statement it is not because I have been very specific. It is a boxy sounding machine with a useless EQ and it does go 7.5ips. If you ever get to use a real deck, you will understand. My source of comparison is listed below for your reference:
Better stuff:
TASCAM anything with reels going at 15ips
FOSTEX anything with reels going 15ips
OTARI anything with reels going 15ips
MCI
Studer
Scully
Stevens
TEAC anything with reels going 15ips
Revox
Radio Shack anything with reels going 15ips
Denon anything with reels going 15ips
AKAI anything with reels going 15ips
Stellavox Analogue anything with reels going 15ips
Lyrec
Nagra-Kudelski
Sony anything with reels going 15ips
Uher anything with reels going 15ips
Brenell anything with reels going 15ips
CRown anything with reels going 15ips
DUEL anything with reels going 15ips
Kenwood anything with reels going 15ips
Mark Levinson anything with reels going 15ips
Mitshubishi
SABA
Soundcraft/Saturn
Tandberg anything with reels going 15ips
Technics anything with reels going 15ips
Tesla anything with reels going 15ips
VEB anything with reels going 15ips
Dokorder anything with reels going 15ips
Pioneer anything with reels going 15ips
Worse stuff:
Porta-studio anything, any company, any cassete, any oxide
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
cjacek said:
Warning: rambling post.
For me, the 388 is a paradox. Mine could be a little flaky sometimes, with occasional but annoying dropouts on SMPTE code on track 8, and a number of other problems I've pretty much managed to forget over the years. Sonically, the move to my 3M machines was a huge improvement and they are so much easier to maintain it's not funny. But, for a self-recording musician, the 388 has a certain cleverness and magic about the integrated mixer/recorder configuration with those nifty mic/line/tape switches that make it very quick and easy to use.
I bought mine in 1985, brand new, after selling off an Otari 1/4" 4 track, which was both a good and bad thing to do. Sonically, the 388 wasn't as good, but it was more convenient and allowed me to record 8 tracks, which was very fun. It was at least good enough that I could hear the difference when I improved my playing, instruments and recording technique.
I remember I recorded on my 388 a couple of Hiatt tune covers performed by my friend Lee Vardell before he passed away untimely. He was very talented and we recorded the tunes very quickly (he knew all the parts dead on) and they sounded great. Didn't use the EQ much, just recorded and mixed, with heavy reverb on the vocals (that's the way Lee liked it). One was Blue Telescope and Lee's version totally kicked ass over Hiatt's recording. The guitar sound and playing was just amazing (not fancy, he just nailed what the tune needed better than Hiatt did, in my opinion). It was on the first Hiatt discussion group compilation tape some years ago and was the most compelling recording on there by far, at least to me, though not the fanciest or most pristine.
Now I'm doing more recording into my Mac, which is even more convenient than the 388 was and I'm getting better recordings on it by far, though that is primarily due to better decisions and practices (and gear) in front of the recorder and only secondarily because it is a better sounding recorder (in my opinion). I also still use the M-79 when I have the time and the need.
Another random thought, I think I get better results with my digital gear than I would if I hadn't worked for 23 years with analog gear. Obviously, there's the 23 years of mistakes I've made (some I've learned from). Beyond that, I think many folk who come into digital recording without an analog background have a disadvantage. They don't necessarily think about levels from an analog (VU) point of view, which I think is the more musically relevant point of view.
Digital gear and software tends to focus on peaks and peak levels because going "over" is sonic death. But peaks don't really tell you anything about the loudness of a track. Analog doesn't mind the peaks and may well not even represent them fully on playback. But analog gear has VU (or VU-like) meters generally on every channel that present a useful view based upon a musically relevant smoothing time constant that relates better, (not perfectly) to the levels we hear than pure peak meters.
And piled on top of that is the ease with which you could apply all kinds of processing to each track via plug in, without having any perspective on whether it needs that processing or even how to do that so that it harms the sound least. This is a place where much of the mischief lies. I was much better off starting with the 4-track Otari, a pair of SM-57s, a digital delay, a Roland mixer and a few instruments. The potential to screw up was much more limited!
That's my thoughts on the matter today. I'd better check in with the Bureau of Tape Affairs and see if there's any news...
Cheers,
Otto
B
Beck
Guest
Hey... where is the love? 
B
Beck
Guest
I’d be interested to hear what kind of tape people were using with their 388, especially those that bought them new in the mid 80’s. Maxell XL 35-90B was most commonly available around here, so that’s what everyone used.
I never experienced a dropout using the 388.
I never experienced a dropout using the 388.