Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:34 pmPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:58 amPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:14 amPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:39 am
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:13 amPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:33 am| konabuzz wrote: |
| Kelley Stoltz has recorded all of his releases with the 388 in his home studio....Very Beatle-esque, poppy....shades of psych. Very cool arrangements and he's another wunderkind who plays everything.
http://www.subpop.com/scripts/main/bands_page.php?id=448 |
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:59 pmPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:02 pm| curtiswyant wrote: |
| a 388. I love mine, and I can't really see outgrowing it. |
| eh91311 wrote: |
| Ah, the 388. A great machine. Did my first "decent" recording project on one years back. still have it. Has a sound of its own. |
| darfking wrote: |
| I still love to caress its' awkward brown face.. |
| btaylor319 wrote: |
|
I just put mine in storage yesterday, and as I closed the door to the unit, a single tear rolled down my cheek. It is going to be a rough couple months without her. |
| Slider wrote: |
|
There is something amazing about that deck. I loved that thing. . |
| Quote: |
| "the sound of a typical, well-maintained 388 deck is
warm, round, thick sounding, no ultra-low end, rolled off upper highs. Great sounding, nonetheless."-eh91311 |
2001 "Antique Glow" Kelley Stoltz
| Quote: |
| There's lots of people using 388's for something other than the "East River Pipe" and "Kelley Stoltz" singer-songwriter-band thing. This young guy Wiggins from suburban Atlanta has been using his 388 for years to record hardcore and punk bands there. His current band, Hawks (myspace.com/hawksisaband) recorded their LP on his 388 primarily because that's what they had to record on and there was no budget for a "real" studio. Other ATL bands he recorded such as Benard and Fox Trotsky on Alaska Records (RIP), he used the 388 to track, bounced over to a computer or ADAT then back to the 388. I don't think he used the DBX, but kept the levels high. Not much treble on those tracks, but they sound very powerful. No one would think they were done on tape that skinny or a deck that old. |
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:56 pmPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:22 pm
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:03 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: |
| someone please stop bumping this thread..i cant read "388" without blowing up with GAS..
stop already
please? |
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:22 pm| eh91311 wrote: |
| Has a sound of its own. Doesn't sound like a 2" pro tape recorder but who cares? It's a cool piece of gear. |
| shedshrine wrote: |
| How would you describe it's sound? Does it have a sonic signature? |
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:14 pm| shedshrine wrote: | ||||
excellent question shedshrine! Yeah, describe it's sound. I mean this thread already has the killer Darfking photo, and the proclamations of love, let's make this thing complete... Say shedshrine, you wouldn't happen to be in the market for one of these, would you? Why yes, apsatively mint one arriving...FRIDAY!! whoohoo!! Better sounding than a 246, not quite a 38, but it's got the mojo baby!! |
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:34 pmPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:37 pmPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:46 pm| thegunshyboy wrote: |
| let's hope it remains apsatively mint when it arrives. i recently sold my 388 (very reluctantly) and the shipping company messed it up pretty good. |
) The original owner bought the last unopened box the store had in 1989. He brought it home, tried it out, and never touched it again, acording to his ad. I called him to of course ask why someone would buy something that was over 3 grand at the time new, try it out, decide it didn't suit their needs, and not return it for a refund.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:42 pmPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:52 pm| eh91311 wrote: |
| I have to agree with that description "better than a 246, not quite a 38". My 388 and MSR-16 1/2" sound very similar though, the MSR having more low and high end response.
The main thing that the 388 has over cassette portastudios is dynamic range and punch. Recordings have a muted 3-D thing going on rather than the flat smeary cassette multitrack sound with no real lows or bright highs. Modern computer soundcards are far more accurate, but lack the 388's "vibe". |
| cjacek wrote: |
| The 388 is like a beautiful woman, that many with the same taste can agree upon.
Aside from using the Studio 8, the 388 is one of striking beauty and uniqueness, that even hardened digital heads can find a sight to behold. Photos do it no justice and it helps if the person is right there in the same room. One had commented, in an eariler thread, that the 388 should be framed up on a wall. I agree. Part of the charm of the 388 is its complete nature, where you have elements of an open reel deck and a full fledged mixer rolled up in one. Oh, and what mixer that is! To touch, hear, feel and operate the 388 is a sensual delight. Everything is laid out so well that the interaction between the operator and the machine is natural. One feels like in the cockpit of a 747 jumbo jet. The sound is unique and can be contoured by the excellent EQ section. The recorded sound falls between a top of the line cassette deck and a stand alone open reel deck going at 15ips. It's way better than a TASCAM 246 (which I think is the king of all cassette multitrackers) but not yet approaching the sound of a TASCAM 38 (with dbx). The 388 falls right about in the middle. What you see is what you get with the 388. The sound is certainly way better than your typical digital multitrack recorder that you can get at Musician's Friend. It is a heavy, solid and very well constructed piece of art. It is a complete, unique unit which allows all of the major studio elements to be easily accessible from one place. Tape is cheap and heads (if it's a low use unit) will outlast you. |
| sweetbeats wrote: |
| Was a classic, is a classic, will be a classic, and in parallel remains and will forever be a testament to a pinnacle marriage of systems completely unmatched by any other product.
You don't see it at first, the thinking that went into the 388. For instance I think the automatic monitor switching is a gem, not that I necessarily like having a machine do my thinking for me, but by having the monitor source auto-switch you save panel space, reduce the chance for impaired connectivity (by eliminating the mechanical switches), and as the brochure states you stay focused on the project. They then used the panel real estate for functions that mean something like having the individual level and pan controls for the monitor mixer separate...no dual function send controls. I like Tascam's dig at (I'm assuming) the Akai MG series with their comment about non-standard formats. The Akai MG 1212 series recorders are the only product I know of that comes close to the 388. Some may argue that the 1212 is a better unit because it has 12 ~ 14 tracks across 1/2 inch tape and runs at 15ips but it MUST be considered that the tape is packaged in a proprietary cassette that is unobtanium for a long time now, and that the specific formulation of the tape is unknown as AFAIK so reloading the cassettes with fresh tape is a murky solution at best. And parts and service. Forget it! But on the 388 Teac has almost every single part in stock to replace everything tape touches on the 388. The only thing they don't have is the lifter assembly. That's impressive. Plus, look at the mixer sections between the two...absolutely no comparison. And the transport on the 388... I've had extensive exposure to the bowels of Tascam's model 48 and 58 1/2 inch 8 track transports and as of late my Ampex 440 1 inch 8 track...the 388 transport is a wonderful piece of craftsmanship. Built for professional work for certain. I'm not saying the 440 transport or 48 and 58 transports aren't impressive, but the 388 is professional to scale. Very finely built and designed. I'm impressed with it. I'm not against the Fostex 1/4 inch 8 tracks at all. They are really great sounding but from what I've seen of the construction and design of the Fostex units compared to the 388 the 388 is in a different class. Why did they not design it to run at 15ips then? I think there are two reasons: 1. it is a production machine with a strong focus on opening the doors of the creative process...do you want to be switching reels or do you want to be tracking? Plus with the push to have it as a viable partner for video production it would fall short if reels needed to be swapped every 20 minutes. That would not work. 2. Squeezing solid performance out of those narrow tracks requires compromise, but to design the gap for 7.5ips gave the 388 SOLID LF peformance...its -3dB point is at 30Hz! If it ran at 15ips it would loose LF response at a gain of HF response but mostly in the inaudible range. Teac thought it through. And back to the mixing section...no compromises in construction there, just smart choices about what is useful and necessary and it puts just about ANY small format mixer to shame presently offered in a wide price bracket...Teac put the 388's mixer together with the same quality and components you will find inside the M-300 and M-500 mixers. It truly is a professional machine. Take it from somebody who obsessively tears stuff completely apart and learns his gear inside and out. I'm impressed. And I have to mention how easy so many of the PCB's are to access...4 screws and you have instant access to PULL-OUT cards for the PSU, reel servo, meter amp, and balance amp PCB's as well as (of course) the recorder amp cards, bias PCB's and dbx cards. Anything else in this format requires a complete removal of the shell of the deck. I couldn't get over it when I discovered that the PSU is on a plugin card. I'll stop ranting, but the 388 will always be a signpost pointing to what was ahead for analog before the market tragically shifted. |
| Quote: |
| ppl get attached to the 388 because it is indeed a great and very neat recorder. unique in its own clumsy but cute way, and you can get way more than acceptable results from one, especially if you like the vibe you hear on the stuff recorded with these.
i miss mine, a lot, but ultimately i needed an even more drastic sound, hence having the tascam 244 as my main recorder, even with a 2-610 feeding it, great outboard, expensive mics and a duet as the mixdown deck. but that's me and i'm no example to anyone. i've tried pretty much every format there is and i get the tone i want from a well maintained tascam 244 (not ashamed to admit it either). i don't record anyone else's music anymore though, just mine. the 388 is a great recorder, you'll not be sorry to get it, and i would question the otari or a bit larger format tascam (i've owned a 38 as well). you can really hear the 388, the 38 will be a little more robust (totally negligible though), but a lot less drastic in its tone. if you like those recordings, you'll not be happy with the 38. the 388 is another matter altogether and will satisfy you, i'm pretty sure of that as i've been there and actually owned all those pieces (except the otari). feed the 388 with decent and well chosen outboard (preamps and fx), and you'll have a mate for years. stupid easy to use, pretty much maintainence free and a great great tone. great to look at too (my humble opinion). if you have the space and you're on a fence between a 388 and a budget 1/2" 8 track, don't even hesitate. 388 all the way. |
| Quote: |
| Reply
Posted by Otis Hey retractablezing, thanks for the great advice. What do you mean when you say that the tone is more "drastic" on the 38? I assumed that the two machines would sound fairly similar, perhaps with the 38 having slightly better fidelity than the 388. |
| Quote: |
| the tone is more drastic on the 388, not the 38. you can hear the 388, not necessarily the 38.
if the 38 is properly maintained and if you record with conservative levels, i doubt you'll be able to hear any major difference between it and a mid level soundcard, assuming you're recording the exact same things, with the same mics, outboard, etc. maybe a bump on the low end and a certain smear to the sound. the 38 sounds a tad more robust (but less interesting in terms of tone) than the 388 (the 38 uses wider tape), but the 388 has that funky mixer going for it (which is quite capable) and the recorder part has its own sound as well, as you're jamming 8 tracks on where (normally) there should be only 2. if you're after a grainy sound that's very very interesting and that sounds surprisingly big, the 388 is it. i've always found the 38 rather bland and a bad 8 track overall. if you want a good, well built 8 track from tascam, you should find a 48. both the 38 and the 48 will sound more modern than the 388 though. when i say drastic, i mean it in a good way. so yeah, the 388 will sound a lot more drastic than either the 38 or the 48. if you're after a certain sound that's not lo-fi but not hi-fi either, and that has character to spare, the 388 is it. the 388 can also sound fairly light though, so make sure you hit it hard to get the best out of it. it will yield a nice, saturated tone that's very very usable. again, i still miss mine and i kind of regret having sold it. make sure you use good stuff with it though...again, i'm no example, but after owning much high end outboard, i settled for a lexicon lxp-1, a fender spring valve reverb and a rnla with it. was recording with my lyrec preamps into it as well, most expensive pres i've ever owned. no need to cut yourself short just cause you're recording to a "lesser" recorder. the 388 will take it very well, and your recordings will thank you. with that said, its preamps are way beyond usable. make sure you use the right tape though. the 388 motors and heads are very sensitive to that kind of thing and you can ruin the recorder by using the wrong tape (and not tascam nor anyone will be able to supply you with a new set of heads for it). |
| Quote: |
| Tascam definitely gained a reputation for advances in head design. They put a lot of R&D into it. By the time 1990 rolled around (about the time analog peaked) Tascam had heads with narrow tracks that performed better than older heads with twice the track width. So yeah, head design was crucial as were new tape formulations with finer particles. If digital hadn’t come along, especially the Alesis ADAT, I think we would have seen even greater things. Some things were on the drawing board, but the move toward digital nixed it.
Imagine something like the 388 with HX Pro, Dolby S and using EE tape, which is basically the reel-to-reel version of Type II cassette. There were rumors of it, but it was too little, too late with digital looming on the horizon. It would have put the 388 on par with the ¼” 8-track Fostex machines running 15 IPS. There were a lot of cool ideas waiting in the wings, but as it turned out we will never know. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:21 amPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:09 am| thefiremelted wrote: |
| if anyone needs to sell theirs, sell it to me!! |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:12 am| eh91311 wrote: |
| the flat smeary cassette multitrack sound with no real lows or bright highs. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:20 am| shedshrine wrote: |
|
Why yes, apsatively mint one arriving...FRIDAY!! whoohoo!! Better sounding than a 246, not quite a 38, but it's got the mojo baby!! |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:12 am| eh91311 wrote: |
| The main thing that the 388 has over cassette portastudios is dynamic range and punch. Recordings have a muted 3-D thing going on rather than the flat smeary cassette multitrack sound with no real lows or bright highs. Modern computer soundcards are far more accurate, but lack the 388's "vibe". |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:32 am
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:49 am| swelle wrote: |
| It can be hard to find techs who will work on them... something about the 'all in one' unit, and you can't pull out channel strips. New users should probably learn to fix them themselves?
The sound amazing, btw. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:23 pm| Quote: |
| "gunshyboy"i've only really run 457 on mine, but as long as it's 1 mil thick, it should be good.
when i first got mine i was lucky enough to find a tech close by to calibrate it and clean it up. he's since gone out of business, so i've been becoming very familiar with the maintainence part of the manual. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:33 pmPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:40 pm| shedshrine wrote: | ||
Thanks. Yeah, I guess what I'm asking is is there an appreciable difference between these two 1 mil tapes, one (407) being hotter and all. I've just ordered one of each, so I'll post my findings. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:58 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| Also,In becoming familiar with the Maintenance section, any particular equipment you've picked up? |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:20 pm| thegunshyboy wrote: |
| even after it was damaged in shipping (it cracked both wood sides.) i've gotten it back to 90% functioning just by reseating loose pcb boards. . |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:54 pm| Quote: |
| head and capstan cleaner - "A#1" most important. clean that thing daily!
demagnetizer - 'han-d-mag' is the best also super important. i demag every month or two (MAKE SURE YOU TURN THE MACHINE OFF AND ALL TAPE IS FAR AWAY.) antistatic bracelet - the 388 has a shitload of PCB boards. don't know if they are as sensitive as a computer's but better safe then sorry. if you plan on digging around inside, get one...or make sure you touch the metal chassis alot to get rid of any static electricty you have. The maintainence section has a big list of essential test equipment, (none of which i own, and isn't necessary if the machine is in good condition.) even after it was damaged in shipping (it cracked both wood sides.) i've gotten it back to 90% functioning just by reseating loose pcb boards. i plan on getting an oscilliscope this weekend that's been sitting in a thrift store for a few months. |
Got a handymag earlier this year when I got the 238s. The green TEAC thing I'd been using was not doing anything. Don't know how long it had been broken since it had still been making a nice buzz..
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:01 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| Porta 05, a 424, and a 238s I got the low water alcohol tip awhile back |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:10 pm ) I believe it's called anahydrous (sp?)
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:59 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: | ||
what's that shedshrine? i never even looked at the insides of my 244's deck. he's kind of shy... gotta clean it up one day i suppose...would like to know more about that tip.. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:07 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| "tip" as in advice, in case you thought I meant a special cleaning swab tip thing. I was told you want to use alcohol with the least amount of water.(so scotch and soda is out ) I believe it's called anahydrous (sp?)
...but US Recording has stuff they say is even better, as it dissolves away the tape backing buildup, non-carcinogenic etc.. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:08 pm| eh91311 wrote: | ||||
Yep, you want to get the stuff from the drug store that's 99% alcohol; the kind that knocks you over when you uncap it. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:43 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:47 pmPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:08 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| Say, can anybody in the audience speak to the calibration question a few posts back there aways, before we were all overcome by annahydrous fumes? |
| Quote: |
| There is no need for head height and tilt adjustments because the record/reproduce head of the 388 is a semi-fixed type (erase head fully fixed.) |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:16 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: |
| hey, can you guys take a picture of what's actually meant to be cleaned inside? i know it's the metal parts, but i don't wanna risk anything with that caliber of booze..
(thanks btw) |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:44 pmPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:21 pm| thegunshyboy wrote: | ||||
from the 388 bible:
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:29 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: |
| thanks gsb,
ill have a serious look at the whole thing next time i'm tracking. any recomended cloth btw? most stuff i have here leaves "something"/residue" behind.. |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:37 pm
)
| Quote: |
| joel hamilton said:
I recorded a ton of stuff on one of those. I never used the NR. Just print bright and turn down the top if you are getting too much hiss. I just learned to track bright as fuck with that machine, and then attenuate the high end a little, rather than throwing a wet wool blanket over everything by using the NR. I always thought the NR on that machine was a joke, like a lowpass set to 5k, rather than a dynamic companding system like SR. Make your own decisions, but I always hated the NR on those things. The amount of hiss I got was directly proportionate to how bright I printed the sounds in the first place. Just thoughts. Record stuff. |
| Quote: |
| eh91311 said:
I'm no expert. It's your machine, do with it whatever sounds best to you. If you like the way your 388 sounds with no DBX, leave it off. I've tried it that way, but I didn't like the hiss level on playback. I've found that you can't slam the meters or record at or over 0 VU with narrow-format recorders like the 388 and MSR16 because the DBX will mistrack and over-accentuate the compression and expansion effect, compressing the sound more on playback and rounding off the top end. Leave 2-3db or so of headroom and the DBX can work on reducing the noise floor and doesn't overly "warm" the track so much. The DBX still affects the sound, just not as much as when hitting the track hard. |
| Quote: |
| The dbx noise reduction is a key element in the overall quality and performance of the Studio8.
It is basically responsible for the elimination of all tape hiss and much of the internally generated modulation noise. It also allows for far less adjacent channel crosstalk or bleed-through so that you can better isolate a singular track in the mix and not hear its neighboring track(s) playing in the background. dbx also provides you with a flatter frequency response as it allows the recordings to be made at lower levels where response curves are much flatter and distortion levels much lower as well. Keep in mind that the Studio8 is indeed a narrow track format machine and was designed for tape economy as one of its paradigm features. dbx is a true benefit feature for that machine and even of much benefit to the 388's bigger brothers that have wider track widths and faster tape speeds. The only open reel machines I would suggest not needing dbx would be half track stereo decks which have hotter calibration setups and wider guard bands in-between the tracks to reduce bleed-through." |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:08 pmPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:35 pm
| shedshrine wrote: |
Lay the deck face down and take off the back. 
Take out a screw on one leg of the large wheel bracket, and loosen its other one, then slide the new belt under the free leg and put the belt around both wheels like this. |
photos courtesy "technoplayer"
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:31 pm
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:32 pm You ever listen to your first recorded stuff (well, maybe not your FIRST first recorded stuff...) and wonder how the hell you came up with it. The exitement of pressing record, and listening back and going, woah, I did that. And then recording alongside it, like you were jamming with yourself. Double woah. As it's been said soooomany times on this site, it's not so much about the gear as what you do with it. I remember reading about stuff I couldn't afford, and wishing and pining, because I just knew that stuff would improve my, um, songwriting?. Then going back to my four track and running vocals through my little tube amp and korg effect box and getting killer huge rock vocals. Lately I've been on a remastering kick of all the stuff over the years: home stereo cassette, 4 track cassette, 8 track cassette, adats, minidiscs, DAW tracks,band practice, gigs, experimental stuff. Aint it cool to put all that stuff on the ol' iPod and fall asleep to all the imagery, people, times and places that go by. May your mileage never vary.
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:39 pm| Mark wrote: |
| When you say "tacky" do you mean "sticky"?
Because, I'm almost 200% certain that that isn't right |
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:46 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| "dude, shut up about em already." |
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:49 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: | ||
that's what i said in my first post |
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:59 pmPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:50 pm
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:06 pmPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:13 amPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:12 am
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 amPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:30 am| jckinnick wrote: |
| There are 3 of them on Ebay does anybody know where to get the tape for them |
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:38 pm| shedshrine wrote: | ||||||
Ahmen! I'm actually referring to calibration of bias, trim pots and such. I'm out of my depth, but isn't there some adjustment needed beyond the head alignment to make sure your maximizing what the tape is formulated for. All the talk of 0vu, +3, +6 . The manual is extensive and all, but I have no idea what i'm reading about in terms of actual application. Any leads on a video or detailed book explaining the process? |
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:42 pm| ThunderFaceWizardHead wrote: |
| Tape still seems to be plentiful. But more importantly, when are people going to start tricking out their 388's?
I'm thinking about a snakeskin wrist rest, birdseye maple sides, and all ivory knobs. Maybe some neon blue underlighting as well. |
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:43 pm| eh91311 wrote: |
| musiciansfriend has 7" 456 1/4" wide tape in stock. |
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:48 pm| thegunshyboy wrote: | ||
i wouldn't use 456. i know some people do it, and have no problems, but i've heard it will fuck up the motor over time. better safe then sorry, imho. |
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:15 pmPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:50 pm| eh91311 wrote: |
|
The 1.0mil thick 7" tape stocks (Quantegy 407, 457, RMGI LPR35) is thinner than 1.5 mil thick types (Quantegy 456) and more subject to print-through, or "ghosting", which basically is hearing sound from previous tracks' recordings on playback. Store the tape tails-out, which means play through to the end, store that way, rewind to the beginning to use; this can help deter print-through. |
I'd actually been thinking about doing that too, save the original ones and make some nice solid wood grained runners... in my spare time
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:32 pmPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:03 pmPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:22 pm
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:28 pm
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:38 pm
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:40 pm
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:09 pm
)
| Quote: |
| The "CHUNK" noise...You're talking about a mechanical noise from the transport? Any time you hit STOP or PLAY there are three solenoids that kick in or out with associated linkages and such, and they are indeed "chunky" devices considering the size of the transport so all is good if they go "CHUNK". Enjoy the positive mechanical action of your 388...mmmmmmm.
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:21 pmPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:22 pm
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:56 pmPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:22 pmPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:41 pm
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:53 pm| creature.of.habit wrote: |
| i hate you guys that live in the states and that can get these shipped more or less easily even more... |
| pacrock wrote: |
|
Is there any chance a fostex head can be modified/mounted on the 388? fostex made a whole bunch of 1/4" 8 track machines - more so than tascam - they may have a bigger supply of leftover heads... any thoughts? |
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:21 pmPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:58 pmPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:12 pm| march18th1976 wrote: |
| anyone know where to get a pdf version of the 388 manual? thanks |
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:14 pm| pacrock wrote: |
| is there any chance a fostex head can be modified/mounted on the 388? fostex made a whole bunch of 1/4" 8 track machines - more so than tascam - they may have a bigger supply of leftover heads...
any thoughts? |
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:54 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| Hey man, there's got to be some sexy european recording gear you have access to that we can covet and you can lord over us |
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:03 pm| eskimo wrote: |
| I've seen three around here (got one of them) so there's got to be a few in portugal.
And shipping is not adviced anyway, ask gunshyboy. |
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:36 pm
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:42 am
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:49 am
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:21 am| Quote: |
| i want this thing more than anything ever, other than an advanced jumbo (the guitar, not the elephant). |
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:44 am| creature.of.habit wrote: |
| i hate you guys that live in the states and that can get these shipped more or less easily even more... |
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:54 am| dirty wrote: | ||
awesome. go for the elephant! also, I just picked up a 388 and have barely swtched it on. And no, I probably shouldn't have spent the money. But.... how could I not? By the way, my VUs all light up. |
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:56 am| kayagum wrote: | ||
You could, like, leave Portugal, right? (Assuming you don't have any outstanding warrants...) |
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:31 amPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:56 pm| dirty wrote: |
| By the way, my VUs all light up. |
mine were all lit up when i got mine. a year later 3 lights are out.
| eskimo wrote: |
| And shipping is not adviced anyway, ask gunshyboy. |
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:02 pm
| Quote: |
| "Tascam VU bulbs are a tough issue. I've seen them at www.electronix.com under "bulb, Panasonic -or-like audio equipment", for about $1,25/ea, but I can no longer find them. Unfortuately, the smaller of the Tascam VU meters take solder-in bulbs. The larger Tascam VU meters often have a clip-in fuse-type bulb, (8V)." |
| Quote: |
| I dare anyone to post pictures of a 388 with all 8 VU meters lit up! |
(clickable pics..)
| helmuth wrote: |
| I love the whole "these 8 channels is what I got, no more, no less, now record something". |
| kayagum wrote: |
| Google fails to verify but supposedly quoth Brian Eno: "If you need more than 8 tracks, it means you can't make up your mind." |
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:33 amPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:20 pm
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:06 amPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:08 pmPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:31 amPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:03 pm
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:02 pm
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:29 pm
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:48 pm| Quote: |
| Definitely need more speakers for mix comparison |
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:31 pmPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:10 pmPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:36 pmPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:46 pmPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 9:27 pm| tascaman wrote: |
| Two more questions:
Maxwell UD 35 - 90. It was described here that it was the tape that was built for the machine, vice versa... Is it still ok to use, or is 407 and 457 better? |
| eh91311 wrote: |
|
The 1.0mil thick 7" tape stocks (Quantegy 407, 457, RMGI LPR35) is thinner than 1.5 mil thick types (Quantegy 456) and more subject to print-through, or "ghosting", which basically is hearing sound from previous tracks' recordings on playback. Store the tape tails-out, which means play through to the end, store that way, rewind to the beginning to use; this can help deter print-through. |
| tascaman wrote: |
|
Also, what is/is there a difference between Ampex 407 to Quantegy 407? I have heard that Ampex tape has the sticky residue these days, and it is best that you bake it before use. Thanks, Conrad |
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:01 pmPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:53 pmPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:46 pm| Quote: |
| Yeah, if the heads are shot, it's relap or the odd e-bay/craigslist etc. offering. |
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:17 pmPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:45 pm
| Quote: |
| sweetbeats of homerecording.com said:
In theory it would be cleaner, more dynamic and quieter, but I don't know enough about all the mods that were done to say more and it all depends so much on the design of the unit itself and that gets over my head. In the end though, I think enough of us agree around here that the 388 is a great sounding piece of equipment in its original form, and it is clear that the seller did some illogical stuff too. I wouldn't have paid $1245 for for sure, particularly when there is questionable logic. "Better" is so subjective y'know? And sometimes what we like about a piece of gear, unbeknownst to us, is the noise and distortion. Sometimes you castrate a piece of gear by making it "better". |
| sweetbeats wrote: |
| Modding is neat and fun, but is in no way a guarantee of better results, and opens the door to irreparable damage. |
| sweetbeats of homerecording wrote: |
|
Quote: 456 is used by many on their 388 without issue. Is it the same thickness and stiffness as high performance tape like GP9? GP9 is about 0.2mil thicker (456 = 1.93mil total, GP9 2.13mil) Quote: would the stock cards be adjustable enough to handle the signal? Are the 388’s electronics capable of being set to accept the levels and biasing for such high performance tape? Ultimately you'd have to try it out, but here is what I am pretty sure you will find: * That the bias amps are either not robust enough to pump the bias level, or at the very least you'd need to mod the bias cards to allow more current which is what is necessary in the likes of the 58 and MS16 systems...not sure about later decks. I would be really surprised if the 388 bias amps had enough headroom to bias "+9" tape, and if they do there is always the question as to whether or not you are going to damage something by running it at that constantly. Think of a car...yeah the tach in my old Subaru says I can wind the engine up to over 6,000rpm, but we all know if I drove it around like that all the time it would most certainly (and I believe drastically) reduce the life of the engine. * Even if you could get the bias issue resolved (assuming there IS one), I betcha the R/P amps would be stretched before being able to take advantage of the headroom on +9 tape. I bet it would work, but there may be sonic artifacts that leave you going "was this worth it?" Remember, program peaks, especially on things like percussion, are WAYYY over the nominal level...that's why you see the peak LED's flickering and the VU needle is hardly pushing 0...those peak LED's typically light at +10 or +12. Now let's say you cal the deck using a 355nWb/m standard, now those same peaks will be at around +13~+15 maybe? That's getting up there. Not sure at what level the 388 R/P amps clip. The amps in my Ampex MM-1000 aren't rated to clip until +28 or +29 and I'm pretty sure the 388 amps aren't up in that range. If the goal is to get tape saturation then you want to leave enough headroom in the setup so you stay far away from overdriving the electronics. YMMVyadayadablahblah. I realize you are just thinking "out-loud" so I don't want to sound like I'm over-reacting to your musings, but the reality is that whatever discussions we have had on this forum over using +9 tape on any number of 1/2" 8-track decks from Tascam would certainly be more acute with the 388 since it is a transport very explicitly designed for "1.0mil" +6 tape. I just don't see the benefit of "going-there". Somebody tell me if I've got it wrong...the only substantial reason to use "hotter" tape is to increase headroom to create greater sonic distance between the program level on tape and the noise floor...right? Tape formulations on +9 tapes may elicit a different or specific "flavor" but the whole hoo-hah about higher and higher output tapes is NOT because the tape in and of itself is "hotter" or "phatter" or "louder" or "dripping with tape 'compression'" or whatever...its just simply this: The higher the tape rating (the consumer +3, +6, +9 figure), the more signal the tape can handle before presenting a industry standard distortion rating of 3%. This means that the recorded material can be tracked "hotter" on that tape than a lower output level tape and still be "clean" and since the tape noise does not increase with a "hotter" tape you've just gained more distance between your program material and the tape noise. So if low noise is an issue (i.e. tape hiss), then maybe +9 or greater tape is the solution. If you want crunchy-yummy tape distortion on a 388 then maybe 407 is the answer...print-through is an issue on thinner tape. 407 is a 1.0mil +3 tape which means you'll be able to drive the tape into distortion (hopefully nice yummy third-order harmonic distortion) while being more kind to your R/P amps AND while keeping print-through from being as much of an issue. YES you are closer to the tape noise floor but my guess is that if you (not YOU specifically , shed, but whoever is reading this) are wanting to push/saturate the tape you aren't tracking solo acoustic guitar...it is probably something with drums and electric instruments and I challenge you to hear the tape noise on properly biased 407 as the cymbals rage and the guitars crunch. Yes there are all levels of dynamics and tones in the music style I'm hinting at but I'm just trying make a point with that example. No matter what, ANY machine and tape selection is going to be a process of compromises but if you are clear on what you are going for it should be obvious what tape to use and how to use the machine within its scope, and for most stuff I'm thinking LPR35/457 is ideal for the 388 and if it was high energy stuff I might even try using a LOWER output tape like 407. Am I discouraging you from trying? I hope not. You might love the result and if that's the case more power to you...I'm just trying to make the point that the desired performance or result from the machine may be achieved in a much better way that seems backwards by being mindful of the tape selection and understanding what the numbers really mean. You might try GP9 and compare to to 407 and like the latter better because the deck itself isn't running at "7,000rpm" or even "5,000rpm" and the results you hear are the tape being pushed rather than the electronics. Am I knocking folks who mod their decks to properly bias and drive higher output tape? Certainly not! I just know after going through all kinds of thoughts about "I wonder if..." and "I wonder what..." I came to realize that most of the time it wasn't worth the hassle when I considered all the unknown variables and when I came to understand the drivers behind the super-high output tapes, and when I came to understand what the numbers mean and how to use operating level to my advantage. Know and understand your goal and the purpose behind it. Then choose the path to get there. I'll use evm1024 (homerecording member) as an example...he's modding/modded the bias circuit on his Tascam 58 R/P cards to properly bias super-high output tape. This is a known solution to a known issue with those amp cards when using +9 tape...the bias amps can handle it but the (Ethan, correct me if I'm wrong here) feedback loop in the stock bias trimmer circuit provides for a trim window that, at best, just barely biases +9 tapes. In most cases it doesn't quite get there. The mod adjusts that window by raising the ceiling on the feedback loop so that the bias level trimmer can dial in more gain. This also means that that "window" may now be to high for lower output tapes because the low end of the trim range may now not be low enough, sending too much bias to low-output tapes. That's the compromise. But outside of that we know (by field-tested results and educated analysis that people like Ethan possess) that the bias amps are safe to produce that level on a routine basis. And WHY did he do it? Ethan has a focus on tracking acoustic instrumentation...classical compositions...he likes pipe organs too. These are sensitive sources that often leave tape noise exposed and can be problematic with nosie reduction. Higher output tape is the natural solution. The bottom line is that he's got a specific need to use hgher output tape and is educated and experienced in the area of electronics to be able to design the circuit level solutions. Getting off the box now. And I CERTAINLY hope this doesn't feel like I'm lecturing you, shedshrine...What I'm saying is (hopefully) for the good of the order and I'm just sharing things that have come to settle in my mind as a result of the same kinds of thoughts and questions you are pondering and posting. So thanks for the question. I feel it is a really, really good and important topic. |
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:57 pmPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:40 pmPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:05 pm
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:43 am
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:18 am
Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:14 pmPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 11:24 amPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 11:48 am
| Quote: |
| Tim Beck of homrecording:
The binder problem known as sticky-shed-syndrome (SSS) did not manifest itself in the ‘80s when the tapes were new… it took several years for tape to breakdown. It breaks down whether used or still sealed new-old-stock. It affects all sizes of 456/457, 406/407, as well as other brands and types from ¼” to 2”. If it’s in the worst stage of SSS it’s a mess to get the tape path clean. If a tape has a binder problem it will usually slow the machine down -- maybe even stop it. When it does run it may make a squealing sound. Really bad shedding will leave thin strips of tape and obvious sticky residue behind on the tape path. You can hear it peeling off. It's really awful. Late 1994 is officially when Ampex changed to the new formula. Anything before that could develop sticky-shed. The reason you hear more about tapes from the 70's and 80's is because it takes time for the binder to deteriorate. Also the whole mess was discovered when studios tried to use archived tape from that time period to remaster and release old albums on CD. Magnetic Reference Laboratory (MRL) puts the new tape at anything after early 1995 -- probably just to be on the safe side. "I've never personally had any Maxell XL that had the binder problem. I've had problems with all my Ampex 456 from 1986 through 1993 production. 1994 and after is still like-new." "A lot of the 7" don't have date labels on the outside. Check the address on the back. It will either say Opelika Alabama or Redwood City California. If it says Opelika it's good. It might be good even if it says Redwood City, but they changed the box style a little before they changed the formula, so some with that box style are vulnerable to sticky shed. The ones with the AMPEX logo in the middle of the box are from 1993 and older. They are using the old binder. There’s a good chance the box with the logo across the bottom will be fine. Unfortunately, the date for those is usually on the hold-down tape on the reel, which means you have to break the seal to see when it was made. The catch being the tape is no longer “sealed in box” after you’ve checked. " -Tim |
| Quote: |
| cjacek of homerecording:
Nor do "Whale Oil" lubricated tapes, such as the Maxell UD line. The problem seems to be only with the backcoated mastering tapes that used urethane binders. The only tapes that get sticky-shed are non-Japanese backcoated mastering tapes from the seventies and early eighties plus certain pre 1995 (1986-1993) Ampex tapes. Quantegy doesn't have this problem as it uses the new improved binder. ~Daniel |
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:05 pm| shedshrine wrote: |
| See the big reel picture a couple posts up on this page. That is good,currently available tape. If you have to clean after every take, you have bad sticky shed tape. Toss it.
I highly reccommend reading this thread. I started adding to this thread to get all the info I could find on the 388 stored in one place. I realize it's kind of long, but if you (royal you intended here) are intending to hold on to the machine, do a little homework here many of your questions will be answered, and we won't have to repeat ourselves endlessly . |
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:08 pmPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:10 amPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:41 pmPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 amPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:22 am