The Tascam 388

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
User avatar
shedshrine
deaf.
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: sf bay area

Post by shedshrine » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:46 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 thing is dead mint (pre shipment that is :roll: ) 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.

Turns out he had been making good money at the time, in Philadelphia doing session guitar for folks like Harold Melvin and the Bluenotes. However, he was coming down with m.s., and decided to keep all his gear as inspiration to fight it. Some story huh?

Anyway, the thing is way out on the Florida keys. Long story short, it ended up having to be shipped ...ups. BUt i must have called that ups store 15 times about packing details. I'm also having it shipped 2 day air to minimize the dreaded conveyor belt drops and mishaps. GOt my new capstan belt and pinchroller at the ready...wish me luck :D

eh91311
buyin' a studio
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 7:38 am
Location: NW Los Angeles

what a 388 sounds like?

Post by eh91311 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:42 pm

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".

User avatar
shedshrine
deaf.
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: sf bay area

Post by shedshrine » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:52 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".
Nice description!

Oh, and I can't really take credit for the 388 sound between a 246 and a 38 example. I got that from cjacek over at homerecording, a guy with serious 388 love. Check this out...

WARNING, gear porn passage to follow:

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
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.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

More sound descriptions..

Quote from "retractblazing" on Gearslutz
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.
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.
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).

full discussion here: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end- ... nance.html


Image
Side-by-side shot of an Ampex 440 1" 8-track record/reproduce head and the 388 record/reproduce head.(photo:sweetbeats)


Sound Comparison samples back to back:
Pro Tools: Otari MX-5050, Tascam 388 w/Dolby: Tascam 388 with Dolby off


Image

_________________________________________________________

Pitchfork interview: Fresh & Onlys, Oh Sees, Sic Alps.

The 388 is hard to move, but easy to use. Once it's set up, you can pick a track, push the red [REC] button, and let it rip.
Sartin and Cohen used it to put down demos on-the-fly, jamming out chord changes and improvising melodies before the inspiration faded.
"I think that's one of the joys of those machines-- it's not stressful or intimidating," explains Sartin. "It's like a giant four-track."

It's also very flexible. A few knob tweaks can take a song from crisp to grotty.
"You can do shit really straight on it or you can really fuck with it, mess with the EQs, and get them into some extreme zones,"
explains Sic Alps multi-instrumentalist Matt Hartman. (Note: according to a recent post on his Facebook page, Hartman is no longer in Sic Alps -Ed.).

"I'm toying with the idea of doing a comp just called 388 with all the bands that use them," says Thee Oh Sees' John Dwyer, maybe half-seriously.
"And then doing a die-cut record cover in the shape of a 388, with it flying through space or something rad, because it's such a hilarious machine."
For Dwyer, the appeal is clear: "It's a pretty easy machine to learn. And it's brown."



_________________________________________________________

What Could Have Been..

"Beck" from homerecording
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 ?? 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.


Maybe a little off topic and discussed before elsewhere, but interesting in-depth discussion of the topic if you're so inclined.

Why no tape machine clones?

___________________________________________________________

Image
"This is what you've been working on for the past six months?
I said develop an eight track! Eight tracks on one reel
...I knew I should've put Fujimori or Tanaka on this project"


*Edit: Tech support says the 388 was a joint project developed on both sides of the pacific.


____________________________________________________________________

Image

I have Tascam 388 lust

Q:
ckswartwood of homerecording wrote:
I want a 388 really really really badly. I feel like there is a club that I am not apart of and I need some support.

I have two Tascam 38's (one was bought as a parts machine, but I ended up restoring out of my dis-satisfaction with it not working) And I use a 70's Yamaha RM830 mixer paired with the 38. I mean, is my lust justified, or am I fooling myself?
I wonder to myself, 1/2" versus 1/4" has got to have 1/2" as the clear winner in fidelity - but is that it? Is that the only excuse I can come up with? If it is, the why do 388 recordings SOUND better to me?! "Tubbier" Fatter" "Browner?"
The 38 really has no love to speak of, the 388 on the other hand, has what I would consider to be a cult following.

I honestly think I wont be happy until I have one.
You think I could manage a trade of the two Tascam 38's and the Yamaha RM804 Mixer for a working 388?
Hell, if anyone here is interested, let me know. Needless to say, I am motivated.
A:
Beck of homerecording wrote:The 38 is a great machine with better sonic performance on paper and in practice. But the 388 is no slouch and I think part of the reason is it's a well matched system recorder/mixer. Tascam did a great job with it based on their experience and R&D with their cassette portastudios. When you're matching decks with mixing consoles you can end up with results as different as night and day, depending on the mixer you use. The designers of the 388 took that unknown out of the mix (no pun) and built a complete system optimized to work well with itself. I think that's about it.

One more thing about the 388 is the onboard dbx NR is optimized for that unit. So you've got this well-integrated system fine tuned at the factory at every stage. Using outboard dbx is hit or miss with different machines and probably why some people seem to love dbx while others abhor it. And speaking of dbx it does tend to accentuate that warm fuzzy something about analog on narrow track machines. dbx is not transparent, but in my experience its not transparent in a good way if setup properly.

Tascam's legacy portastudios like the 244 and 246 were setup properly, as was the 388, which is basically a portastudio that's too big to be portable. I still have a 246 porta that I bought new. Even after many years using many machines, pro, semi-pro, whatever, there's still something about the sound of the 246 cassette that just sounds right. I think its pretty much the same story with the 388. 8 tracks on 1/4" tape @ 7-1/2" IPS is not supposed to do what the 388 can do, and yet it does.
I remember when the 388 first came out. I wanted one too, and still kinda do. For a home/project studio it?s just so convenient, and another factor that wasn?t so much a concern back then, but is now is the price of tape. Sometimes I look at all the unused ?? reels of tape I have and I?m really tempted to sell it all, get a good condition 388 and simplify my life. I have a feeling I?ll never get around to it though. But I have a TSR-8 and a whole book could be written about that well-designed machine, and a whole cult following started.
_________________________________
donny wrote:For less than half of that price (a 388 going for $800 as of 12/2012), you could get a 1/2" 8-track machine like the Teac 80-8, Tascam 38, or an Otari. All of which are potentially better machines. The only reason the 388 goes for so much is because it's easy to use, sounds cool, and was cheap at one point in time a few years ago, so lots of cool records were done on them. Now it has street cred.

1/2" 4-tracks like an Ampex, Scully or MCI are in the realm of $800 ... $1200 and you're getting closer to 1" 8-track ... a 388 is not THAT cool !

source thread

__________________________________
Image
Last edited by shedshrine on Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:54 pm, edited 30 times in total.

tguncle
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:31 am

Post by tguncle » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:21 pm

I'm in love with my 388 and hope that I never outgorow it. I've recorded a bunch of stuff for my bands and other local bands on my 388 and everyone who comes in contact with it falls in love too. The simplicity and versatility lure them in and then in the end when you end up with more than you ever expected it's like icing on the cake. I have had numerous people leave sessions at my place swaering up and down that they want to get their own 388. I (like everyone around here) have gear lust, but it's for stuff to compliment my 388 not to grow out of it! Viva la 388!!!!!!! -Jason

creature.of.habit
buyin' a studio
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:27 am
Location: lisbon, portugal

Post by creature.of.habit » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:09 am

thefiremelted wrote:if anyone needs to sell theirs, sell it to me!!
hey, i've been first in line for 3 years..:shock:

don't even think about it..

creature.of.habit
buyin' a studio
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:27 am
Location: lisbon, portugal

Re: what a 388 sounds like?

Post by creature.of.habit » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:12 am

eh91311 wrote: the flat smeary cassette multitrack sound with no real lows or bright highs.
i beg to differ...my 244 in the highest speed setting with outboard pres and decent mics sounds nothing like what you're describing.

creature.of.habit
buyin' a studio
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:27 am
Location: lisbon, portugal

Post by creature.of.habit » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:20 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!!
you lucky bastard...

i've been winning deals for 388s for years, but when people realize i'm in europe, and that shipping will cost double the amount the machine goes for..

i dunno why, but europe never seemed to pick up on these..i literally never saw one on ebay germany, france or uk. the places where one would find one, theoretically.

i've had a 246, a 488 and now i record everything through my 244. i like the 244 a lot more than i liked the 246...i bought the 246 on the hype craze that "it's the closest you can get to a 388"...the 244 and 246 sound the same, safe for the mixer section and the added possibilities. the simpler setup makes a lot more sense to me.

with that said, and never having operated a 388, i would seriously doubt that it doesnt sound a lot better than the 244/246, no matter how good these two sound.

kayagum
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3490
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:11 pm
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Re: what a 388 sounds like?

Post by kayagum » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:12 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".
It's that "smear" that I really like about cassette multitracks. Great for ambient vibe, and stacking tracks seem to only add to the vibe.

That's why I'm never giving up my 238s (and BTW, the Dolby S adds its own signature).

User avatar
shedshrine
deaf.
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: sf bay area

Post by shedshrine » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:32 am

I too have a Tascam 238s. Amazing sound out of that thing. Got that and the Soundcraft 200b it's mated with through our very own TapeOp buy/sell/trade.
Love the gear, love the site, and hey, we as a people rock :D
Image

Back to the 388 if I may. Experiences and opinions running 407 v 457?
*(Also, see page 8 of this thread..)
Last edited by shedshrine on Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
the velour fog
buyin' a studio
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 9:38 am

Post by the velour fog » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:49 am

i've only really run 457 on mine, but as long as it's 1 mil thick, it should be good.

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.
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.
"Set Phasers to Extra Slow."

User avatar
shedshrine
deaf.
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: sf bay area

Post by shedshrine » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:23 am

"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.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess what I'm asking is
is there an appreciable difference between these two 1 mil tapes,
one (457) being hotter and all. I've just ordered one of each, so I'll post my findings.

EDIT: Quantegy 407, +3, lower headroom, warmer sound as saturates easier than
Quantegy 457, +6 tape
which is cleaner as it has more headroom before saturation.
(current available 457 equivalent is RMGI-EMTEC LPR35)

Image
Also, In becoming familiar with the Maintenance section, any particular equipment you've picked up?
Last edited by shedshrine on Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:08 am, edited 12 times in total.

eh91311
buyin' a studio
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 7:38 am
Location: NW Los Angeles

388 vs cassette 4-tracks

Post by eh91311 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:33 am

Hmm... when I referred to the cassette multitrack sound, I was comparing my 388 to portastudios running on 1-7/8 speed. They definitely "smush" sound together at regular cassette speed, but have more fidelity at 3-3/4.
I too like the cassette "smush" thing.

When I think of "smear", I think of a band like The Thermals' first CD, done on a low-speed portastudio recorded at high levels and released by SubPop because they could not "improve" on the demo recording. A definite "no highs, no lows" sound.

eh91311
buyin' a studio
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 7:38 am
Location: NW Los Angeles

Post by eh91311 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:40 am

shedshrine wrote:
"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.
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.
I too have always used 456 or 457 on my 388 and recently bought a reel of 407 to try. My understanding is that 407 is a less bright tape, compared to 457.

User avatar
the velour fog
buyin' a studio
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 9:38 am

Post by the velour fog » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:58 am

shedshrine wrote:Also,In becoming familiar with the Maintenance section, any particular equipment you've picked up?
you may know this already:

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.
"Set Phasers to Extra Slow."

creature.of.habit
buyin' a studio
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:27 am
Location: lisbon, portugal

Post by creature.of.habit » Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:20 am

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. .
god..

gotta love them post office workers..always ready to put/build different perspectives on our precious gear. a whole new DIY branch that's what it is, misunderstood bunch of geniuses. no one gives them their due credit..

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests