upgrade my 388?

[Beck]

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...

There are a few possibilities

1. Those that can make the 388 sing are exceptionally talented.
2. Those who can’t get anything out of it are exceptionally unremarkable
3. Some are using well calibrated machines or even better tape and others aren’t
4. All of the above

So it’s inevitable if someone announces that the 388 sounds bad, many of us are going to quietly think (even if we don’t say it) that it’s a user problem. And especially for those of us that were there when the 388 was new, no argumentation will change this perception. It’s not a hypothetical because we’ve been there and done that. We don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

Many people have embarked on an endless quest for “better” equipment, when the problem is not the equipment. In fact, it’s the norm. This techno-lust is driven by manufacturers through magazines, web sites, and music store salesmen. These are the same people that say you need to have 10,000 different patches on your synth or 1000 different reverb programs. It’s never been worse than it is today.

Anyone can buy stuff. Some are talented composers, musicians, producers, etc. Others are just possessors of stuff… and no amount of stuff will make them talented composers, musicians, producers, etc.

If everyone with a recording background suddenly left the forum, well then maybe one could find some groupies here to worship them just for owning a 2-inch. Until that day, I’m afraid that balloon is going to continue to pop no matter how many times it’s flown.

Now back on subject with the original poster -- if you need more tracks, that's a great reason to get an E-16 or Tascam MSR-16. Personally I wouldn’t consider going from the 388 to the R8, or visa-versa, worth the time and expense.

These machines are all 20 years old now. It would be more cost effective to have whatever you have tweaked back into spec, as most have probably drifted.

 

[A Reel Person]

The 388 is fine in my book, for what it is. It's not top-of-the-line,... no.

Of course more tracks has more utility in production, & wider track width and higher tape speed yields a sonically better recording, as do differences in quality components of the circuitry. I'm not under any illusions about that. It goes almost without saying, that a 2" tape recorder stomps any of the lesser formats, so why try to make that the press-fit answer to every question?

I use and appreciate a variety of formats, for the inherent qualities that they each have. A lot of what you use is based on budget and personal preferences, but the bottom line IMO is that the 388 is fine, for what it is in the relative scheme of things. Everything's relative.

For someone to assert that the 388 is a piece of crap that barely edges out cassette based units, is a bit of an overstatement. It's just an opinion, and we all have'm. For the record, and with all due respect,... MCI and I disagree on this point and a number of other things.

I have my own opinions, and you're free to take'm or leave'm, but I'm not gonna get all high & mighty about it. If MCI were to say I have junk equipment and tin ears, (as stated more than once in the past), I'd consider it his problem and not mine. I've not heard anything that would lead me to believe that MCI's recordings are any better than average. 2" is a dynamite format, but it doesn't raise you to godlike stature. Not with me, anyway.

/DA

[edit] Sorry to take you off-topic like that! I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. [/edit]

 

[A Reel Person]

This is...

Nice!.................

 

[cjacek]

Well said guys and, really, no one's disputing where the 388's recorder section "sits" as compared to stand alone, wider formats @15ips. Did anyone state otherwise ?

The TASCAM 388 is a unique unit which stands on its own and cannot be fairly compared to semi-pro and pro stand alone recorders. To call the 388 "shitty sounding" is very unfair 'cause the next question to ask is: compared to what ? The 388 is basically a bloated and higher spec'd cassette portastudio. It offers better electronics, mixer section and higher fidelity (and selection of higher quality but inexpensive tapes).

Look, we're not morons and obviously don't think the 388 is superior to wider, faster open reel recorders. The 388 is what it is and excells at it.

There are a number of 388 advantages over the stand alones, however, that made the Studio 8 popular. I too have wider and faster formats but the 388 will never be less than what I think it is and was meant to be.

When you are a competent musician and recordist, then you'll make the 388 sing with people's eyes bulging at the results.

I understand where MCI2424 might be coming from but he is definitely unfair and unbalanced with regards to the 388 but comes off as a know-it-all. I respect his opinions but the world doesn't revolve around his MCI and other "pro" rated equipment, either.

 

[cjacek]

Nice Fostex btw, Dave.

 

[A Reel Person]

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

That's pbergo's Fostex Model 80!!

 

[arjoll]

I'm not wanting to offend anyone here and have never used a 388 so shouldn't really comment - but I would think that given the same track width, running at twice the speed would be an advantage.

On that basis surely the 1/2" 16 tracks and 1/4" 8 tracks runnnig at 15ips like the MSR16 and the various Fostex's would sound better than the 388?

You lose the convenience of a built in mixer but should gain sound quality; maybe not as much as going to a wider format but it should be noticeable.

Again, this is just my opinion. I have never used a 388 so, to quote ARP, YMMV. My only contact with this track width was the MSR16 - which sounded great to me, and some Fostex 8 track that a guy I knew years ago did some jingles on - sounded a bit mushy.

(ducks for cover)

 

[Beck]

No, that's perfectly sound reasoning (pun intended). I even mentioned that in post #7 above. The 388 is really something you have to try though, because the choice of dbx NR, the unique proprietary Tascam head design, the integrated mixer, etc, all contribute to the product’s performance beyond theoretical tape speed and track width.

This is where comparing one machine to a completely different machine gets complicated. Now if it was a Fostex R8 running at 7.5 ips vs. an R8 running at 15 ips, then all other things would be equal… the speed factor could be isolated more easily as a decisive factor.

And a 388 running at 15 ips would be an improvement over a 388 at 7.5. In fact that is something I wish they had done.

but here, since I don't want you to feel you ducked for nothing.

 

[cjacek]

Precisely my point too, Tim. Well said. <thumbs up goes here>

 

[pbergo]

That's the Fostex that I bought.

The guy still hasn't sent the tapes!

I already have tape, so I've been using it. It sounds pretty durn good!
Man it is brand new. The heads and rollers were clean, not a scratch on it, runs perfectly.

I figure once the tapes arrive, that's not a bad deal, Model 80 with 4 tapes delivered for $193.

I have some digital stuff, (sorry, blasphemy!), but My blues combo and I have been working on a project using only three tracks for the rythm section. This took awhile to get the tracking sound just right, but now we can fly.

Anyway I have a VSR-880 in the 'tracking room' aka the drummer's basement, and I have another on at home in the studio. I've been taking a hard drive back and forth...record to it at the tracking room, then take it home to sift throught the takes and mix.

Well, I've been recording the 3 tracks into the Fostex and then doing lead and vocal comps on the Fostex. So far so good.

btw...I really like the 388 and came very close to buying one, but was outbid at the last second.

 

[MCI2424]

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..." .

Somwhere between these two is exactly where the 388 stands. It holds it's own with a porta-studio, which is a cassette machine by definition.

Thanks for clearing that up..................

 

[cjacek]

Somwhere between these two is exactly where the 388 stands. It holds it's own with a porta-studio, which is a cassette machine by definition.

Thanks for clearing that up..................

uhh ... yeah ... ok ..

...but really I'm not sure what you're saying ? Care to translate ?

You seem to be opposing your own views, so that's why I ask ..

First you agree with me that it's somewhere in between and then you say it's basically no better than a cassette porta. Perhaps I misunderstood ?

 

[Mark7]

Damn it MCI2424, the 388 is already better than any cassette 4 track by virtue of it's higher tape speed (7.5 IPS as opposed to 3.75 IPS) which, as you of all people should know, equates to better frequency response.

Now, whilst it's true that, all things being equal, a 1/4" eight track running at 15 IPS should have a better frequency response still that doesn't take into account differences in head design (as well as head materials) and electronics. Nor does it take into account the different effect the dbx type 1 and Dolby C noise reduction systems have on FR.

I've never had the opportunity to test the 388 (Tascam's only 1/4" 8 track) and the best of the Fostex machines side by side: so I'm not really in any position to make comparisons.

Have you?

 

[Mark7]

I created this handy track width comparison table for you.

 

[cjacek]

As per what Mark mentioned plus one must take into account the higher quality open reel tape formulations that cassette (tape) can never match. Taking into account everything already mentioned here (and other threads), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the 388 is superior to even the best cassette portastudio. To say otherwise is simply wrong and misleading.

 

[Mark7]

Of course, track width affects headroom, it's tape speed that accounts for frequency response. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that, even though they should, in theory, have about the same headroom (having the same track width), a 388 running at 7.5 IPS should have a better frequency response than a High Speed Portastudio running at 3.75 IPS but an inferior one to a 1/4" 8 track running at 15 IPS (i.e. one of the Fostex models). Therefore, I believe we can say that, all else being equal, the 388 should be better than a 424 but not as good as an E8, or a similar Fostex 8 track.