upgrade my 388?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hotel2tango
  • Start date Start date
H

hotel2tango

New member
i'm looking to maybe get a fostex e-16. how much better would the sound be than my 388? i dont' really ever use more than 8-tracks but sometimes i record a friends band and it's a little tricky. also what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx
 
hotel2tango said:
what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx
Click to expand...
The B16 was the first one, consequently the machines are by now rather old.
The E16 replaced it and became one of the most common 16-track machines in small to medium studios. Many popular albums were made on these during the late 80s and early 90s. It is said that Enya still uses one.
The G16 was the last revision. Technically I think the chief difference was that they switched from Dolby-C to Dolby-S, although that may have been an optional extra.

That's about as much as I know about these machines.
 
If you dont need 16 tracks then the fostex r8 may be a good way to go. They are small and easy to transport, They sound great and you can still use all of that tape you have for your 388.
They run at 15 ips and have dolby c. They are pretty easy to find at a price of about 200 to 300 bucks.
 
Congrats!

The Dolby C may have drifted after all these years, but with a tune-up (if needed) it works pretty well.

:)
 
ok. thanx. will 15ips be that much better than 7.5ips? is it just a sharper sound?
 
Higher speed = less noise and better specs in general. However, it gets more complicated than that.

You can push a Model 20/R-8 or E/G-16 harder @ 15 ips. You want to hit a machine as hard as you can without too much distortion to keep the noise floor down, which is still a factor with Dolby C, but especially important without noise reduction. Faster speed means more tape area for the same signal, which = lower disortion at a given flux level.

But dbx noise reduction allows a unit like the 388 to run at a lower flux level and still be pin-drop quite. dbx needs little help to do what it does. My 246 cassette portastudio is pin-drop quiet @ 3-3/4 ips and 160 nWb/m flux level.

Even though the 388 runs at a slower speed it still holds its own against the Fostex 1/4" 8-tracks.

The sound may be different, but saying better or worse is a subjective call.

:)
 
Last edited:
I have both of the R8 and the 388 I would have to say the R8 is a cleaner sound where the 388 is darker. If I get time later i will post a song i did on a R8 12 years ago. Its not much but you will get a idea how it sounds.
 


Ok this sounds like crap cause it was mixed to cassette over 12 years ago and the tape has got about half funky.
The gear is Fostex R8, alesis 1622 mixer cheap ART reverb unit some sm57,s and a AKG 535 eb mic for vocals.
This was done by my band back when i was in a country state of mind and gigging alot.
I shouldnt even put this up :rolleyes:
 
hey, that track is pretty nice sounding.better than what i can get.but then i do have god awful stuff. i have a cheap vox amp (not valve) a dbx 266 compressor and a behringer c-1 mic for vox which is a bit cheap but it's all i could afford. the r8 does seem a little clearer sound wise. i might hve to look into it.but im still not sure about the 16 track 1/2". wouldn't the heads be better than a 388? plus i could use gp9 tape, right? and i geuss i would have the tracks there if i needed them.
 
hotel2tango,

Check out the Beatles thread in the mp3 section. I posted a song I did on the 388. They are great machines and you can get great sounding recordings from them. I wish I still had mine.
 
ok.i'll try upgrading my mics and see what it sounds like. thanx for all yr help.
 
hotel2tango said:
i'm looking to maybe get a fostex e-16. how much better would the sound be than my 388? i dont' really ever use more than 8-tracks but sometimes i record a friends band and it's a little tricky. also what is the best 1/2" 16? i know fostex do a b-16 and a g-16. whats the difference? thanx
Click to expand...

The 388 sounds to a E-16 as a Wollensack cassete recorder sounds to a Studer.

The E16 is superior in all aspects in sound despite the ramblings of the few who will probably talk about track width etc.

18K gold can be made into any physical structure just like 24K gold, but, which is really better?
 
Beck said:
Higher speed = less noise and better specs in general. However, it gets more complicated than that.

You can push a Model 20/R-8 or E/G-16 harder @ 15 ips. You want to hit a machine as hard as you can without too much distortion to keep the noise floor down, which is still a factor with Dolby C, but especially important without noise reduction. Faster speed means more tape area for the same signal, which = lower disortion at a given flux level.

But dbx noise reduction allows a unit like the 388 to run at a lower flux level and still be pin-drop quite. dbx needs little help to do what it does. My 246 cassette portastudio is pin-drop quiet @ 3-3/4 ips and 160 nWb/m flux level.

Even though the 388 runs at a slower speed it still holds its own against the Fostex 1/4" 8-tracks.

The sound may be different, but saying better or worse is a subjective call.

:)
Click to expand...


No, really, the 388 is a OK sounding unit but anyone doing any type of recording for any sound quality would bypass the 388 in favor of absolutely anything else with a reel and speed approaching 15ips.


The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it.
 
MCI,
I am going out on a limb here and I am probably making the wrong assumption, but does your user name have something to do with the fact that maybe you have a 1/2", 1", or maybe a 2" machine? That's the ONE factor you have left out of the equation. We would all have 1/2", 1", or 2" machines IF our budgets allowed it. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing you in anyway. I think (I hope....Dave, Daniel where are you??) that others would agree that the 388 is a great machine capable of some great recordings. If I had a choice between the 388 or a cassette...there would be no choice. I now own a MSR-16 and yes there is a big difference, but it took me awhile to acquire it. Paying my dues, waiting, sacrificing gear, saving and I now have it. I am not going to stand on this level with my new gear and say that what I once had was shit. You have to start somewhere. I am not going to encourage someone to buy something better if they are not using what they have to its full potential. It's all a learning curve. I am not saying that you are not right as far as machines go....there's just so much more to consider.
 
I think MCI2424 holds some sort of a grudge against the 388 ;) 'cause he paints a most biased but certainly unrealistic picture of the recorder in question. Take this quote: "The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it". Almost anyone here, who has / had extensive experience with the 388 and cassette portas from the same era can hear a night and day difference between the two. IMHO, the sound of the 388 is somewhere between a top of the line cassette portastudio and a stand alone reel to reel recorder, of the same era. The 388's advantage, though, is that it takes some of the better elements of cassette, reel to reel and mixers and combines these into what we call the Studio 8. It'd be unfair to compare parts of the 388 'cause it was meant to be a self contained Studio, really. Any stand alone recorder, with NR, would beat it for resolution, like the popular 38 and TSR-8 but they're a class of a different animal. The TASCAM 388 does what it was designed to do and it does it well.
 
cjacek said:
I think MCI2424 holds some sort of a grudge against the 388 ;) 'cause he paints a most biased but certainly unrealistic picture of the recorder in question. Take this quote: "The 388 holds it's own against cassette machines, but that is about it". Almost anyone here, who has / had extensive experience with the 388 and cassette portas from the same era can hear a night and day difference between the two. IMHO, the sound of the 388 is somewhere between a top of the line cassette portastudio and a stand alone reel to reel recorder, of the same era. The 388's advantage, though, is that it takes some of the better elements of cassette, reel to reel and mixers and combines these into what we call the Studio 8. It'd be unfair to compare parts of the 388 'cause it was meant to be a self contained Studio, really. Any stand alone recorder, with NR, would beat it for resolution, like the popular 38 and TSR-8 but they're a class of a different animal. The TASCAM 388 does what it was designed to do and it does it well.
Click to expand...

The grudge I hold is from 15 years of my drummer recording our band on that miserable machine. When we recorded in my studio on my E16, he would comment on how professional the sound was.

My 2" just killed him.
 
elmerfunk said:
MCI,
I am going out on a limb here and I am probably making the wrong assumption, but does your user name have something to do with the fact that maybe you have a 1/2", 1", or maybe a 2" machine? That's the ONE factor you have left out of the equation. We would all have 1/2", 1", or 2" machines IF our budgets allowed it. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing you in anyway. I think (I hope....Dave, Daniel where are you??) that others would agree that the 388 is a great machine capable of some great recordings. If I had a choice between the 388 or a cassette...there would be no choice. I now own a MSR-16 and yes there is a big difference, but it took me awhile to acquire it. Paying my dues, waiting, sacrificing gear, saving and I now have it. I am not going to stand on this level with my new gear and say that what I once had was shit. You have to start somewhere. I am not going to encourage someone to buy something better if they are not using what they have to its full potential. It's all a learning curve. I am not saying that you are not right as far as machines go....there's just so much more to consider.
Click to expand...

I have a 2" MCI24 track and 2 1/2" 16 track E-16s (OK, 1 is a B16 but the latest one that is exactly like the E16).

You don't have to be rich to go to a reel-to-reel 15IPS deck as they go pretty cheap these days. When you finally get one, you will totally understand why the 388 sucks eggs. Everyone has to pay dues, but that does not change the fact that the 388 has lousy sound. This you will figure out sometime in your recording career.
You can get your recording chops on a 388, but you will hit the stumbling block and little by little your finger will point to it as the culprit.


I put over 30 years in recording in every facet imaginable with absolutely some of the shittiest equipment available (from the 70s).

The 388 is not THE shittiest by far, but pit it against anything with 2 reels at 15ips, and there is just no contest.
 
yeah i kinda thought the e-16 would sound better. im happy with the sound of my 388 for my own stuff, just that when friends me ask to record them (and they seem to be asking more and more) i feel like im letting the down a bit, esp the bigger bands (one of them is a six piece,pretty hard to fit it all on 8-tracks). also some of the albums i love most were recorded on a an e-16, i know thier mics shit mine but hey it's a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top