FA: Tascam 48 analog 8-track 1/2" NYC

[Trevor deClercq]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3725636981

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Trevor deClercq > wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3725636981

I have don't know Trevor, other than having seen his posts here for
years. And I have no interest in the sale of this machine. But I have
to say that among the two dozen or so tape machines I have had
experience with in my life, my own Tascam 48 has been by far the most
reliable and easy to use (and maintain) machine of them all. The
electronics have more headroom than you'd ever expect from a "prosumer"
machine (it lets me hit the tape hard even though I'm calibrated to
elevated levels to begin with), and the transport is extremely gentle
to tape. The "spooling" modes (controlled fast forward and rewind
modes) are especially great. And the manual is extremely helpful and
informative. It ranges from a theory of operation section that covers
a lot of basic audio and electronics stuff, all the way to full
schematics and exploded views with every minute detail filled in. The
only weakness of the machine is a tendency for the RCA output jacks to
go intermittent, but I only use the XLR jacks so I don't really care.

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Trevor deClercq > wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3725636981

I have don't know Trevor, other than having seen his posts here for
years. And I have no interest in the sale of this machine. But I have
to say that among the two dozen or so tape machines I have had
experience with in my life, my own Tascam 48 has been by far the most
reliable and easy to use (and maintain) machine of them all. The
electronics have more headroom than you'd ever expect from a "prosumer"
machine (it lets me hit the tape hard even though I'm calibrated to
elevated levels to begin with), and the transport is extremely gentle
to tape. The "spooling" modes (controlled fast forward and rewind
modes) are especially great. And the manual is extremely helpful and
informative. It ranges from a theory of operation section that covers
a lot of basic audio and electronics stuff, all the way to full
schematics and exploded views with every minute detail filled in. The
only weakness of the machine is a tendency for the RCA output jacks to
go intermittent, but I only use the XLR jacks so I don't really care.

ulysses

[BLCKOUT420]

I had one too; great machine.

[BLCKOUT420]

I had one too; great machine.

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
m...
> Trevor deClercq > wrote:
>
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3725636981
>
> I have don't know Trevor, other than having seen his posts here for
> years. And I have no interest in the sale of this machine. But I have
> to say that among the two dozen or so tape machines I have had
> experience with in my life, my own Tascam 48 has been by far the most
> reliable and easy to use (and maintain) machine of them all. The
> electronics have more headroom than you'd ever expect from a "prosumer"
> machine (it lets me hit the tape hard even though I'm calibrated to
> elevated levels to begin with), and the transport is extremely gentle
> to tape. The "spooling" modes (controlled fast forward and rewind
> modes) are especially great. And the manual is extremely helpful and
> informative. It ranges from a theory of operation section that covers
> a lot of basic audio and electronics stuff, all the way to full
> schematics and exploded views with every minute detail filled in. The
> only weakness of the machine is a tendency for the RCA output jacks to
> go intermittent, but I only use the XLR jacks so I don't really care.
>
> ulysses
I don't know Trevor either but he's live very near me and I've been
thinking the tape machines, this could be good .

Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?


With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
m...
> Trevor deClercq > wrote:
>
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3725636981
>
> I have don't know Trevor, other than having seen his posts here for
> years. And I have no interest in the sale of this machine. But I have
> to say that among the two dozen or so tape machines I have had
> experience with in my life, my own Tascam 48 has been by far the most
> reliable and easy to use (and maintain) machine of them all. The
> electronics have more headroom than you'd ever expect from a "prosumer"
> machine (it lets me hit the tape hard even though I'm calibrated to
> elevated levels to begin with), and the transport is extremely gentle
> to tape. The "spooling" modes (controlled fast forward and rewind
> modes) are especially great. And the manual is extremely helpful and
> informative. It ranges from a theory of operation section that covers
> a lot of basic audio and electronics stuff, all the way to full
> schematics and exploded views with every minute detail filled in. The
> only weakness of the machine is a tendency for the RCA output jacks to
> go intermittent, but I only use the XLR jacks so I don't really care.
>
> ulysses
I don't know Trevor either but he's live very near me and I've been
thinking the tape machines, this could be good .

Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?


With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

[John Washburn]

"Edward Bridge" wrote:

> Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
>
>
> With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.

The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
animal.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Edward Bridge" wrote:

> Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
>
>
> With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.

The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
animal.

-jw

[Edward Bridge]

--
"John Washburn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Bridge" wrote:
>
> > Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> > classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
> >
> >
> > With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> > running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> > problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.
>
> The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
> animal.
>
> -jw

That's true , but let's just say ,reel to reel guitar track to the DAT or
hardrive, what would sound better. Would I need "bat ears" to hear the
difference?

Thank you
Ed

I learn " bat ears " from this group :>)

[Edward Bridge]

--
"John Washburn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Bridge" wrote:
>
> > Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> > classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
> >
> >
> > With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> > running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> > problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.
>
> The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
> animal.
>
> -jw

That's true , but let's just say ,reel to reel guitar track to the DAT or
hardrive, what would sound better. Would I need "bat ears" to hear the
difference?

Thank you
Ed

I learn " bat ears " from this group :>)

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Edward Bridge > wrote:

> --
> "John Washburn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Edward Bridge" wrote:
> >
> > > Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> > > classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
> > >
> > >
> > > With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> > > running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> > > problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.
> >
> > The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
> > animal.
> >
> > -jw
>
> That's true , but let's just say ,reel to reel guitar track to the DAT or
> hardrive, what would sound better. Would I need "bat ears" to hear the
> difference?

You're talking about recording to two of the 8 tracks on the Tascam and
comparing that to the two tracks on the Nagra? Well, the Tascam
squeezes 8 tracks onto half an inch of tape, whereas the Nagra spreads
two tracks across a quarter inch of tape (unless it has timecode or
something, in which case it would be a little narrower). But all else
being equal, there's more tape per track on the Nagra and therefore it
should sound better. It will depend on the tape speed, but I'm
assuming 15ips in both cases. And of course the Nagra is a far more
precisely engineered machine than the Tascam. I forgot about the Nagra
I used to have when I said the Tascam was the most reliable and robust
machine I'd ever used. What you have there is like a swiss watch that
plays tape. Rather than buying a new machine, which probably wouldn't
solve your problem at all, you need to solve whatever interfacing
problems you're having between your Nagra and the DAT. But of course
the big question is: Why in the world would you want or need to
transfer your analog tapes to DAT? I could see transferring them to a
computer DAW for editing and for making CDs, but transferring to DAT
offers no useful advantages that I can see, and only offers a
degradation in sound (which ideally shouldn't be too noticeable).

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Edward Bridge > wrote:

> --
> "John Washburn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Edward Bridge" wrote:
> >
> > > Question: Would this Tascam sound better then my Nagra IV-L for doing
> > > classical guitar and Classical Guitar and voice?
> > >
> > >
> > > With the Nagra we just use two mic's and that's it. I'm having problems
> > > running it to my dat afterwards.My lack the electronic background is a
> > > problem. I'm thinking the tascam would be easier.
> >
> > The Tascam has 8 tracks, so it's really a completely different kind of
> > animal.
> >
> > -jw
>
> That's true , but let's just say ,reel to reel guitar track to the DAT or
> hardrive, what would sound better. Would I need "bat ears" to hear the
> difference?

You're talking about recording to two of the 8 tracks on the Tascam and
comparing that to the two tracks on the Nagra? Well, the Tascam
squeezes 8 tracks onto half an inch of tape, whereas the Nagra spreads
two tracks across a quarter inch of tape (unless it has timecode or
something, in which case it would be a little narrower). But all else
being equal, there's more tape per track on the Nagra and therefore it
should sound better. It will depend on the tape speed, but I'm
assuming 15ips in both cases. And of course the Nagra is a far more
precisely engineered machine than the Tascam. I forgot about the Nagra
I used to have when I said the Tascam was the most reliable and robust
machine I'd ever used. What you have there is like a swiss watch that
plays tape. Rather than buying a new machine, which probably wouldn't
solve your problem at all, you need to solve whatever interfacing
problems you're having between your Nagra and the DAT. But of course
the big question is: Why in the world would you want or need to
transfer your analog tapes to DAT? I could see transferring them to a
computer DAW for editing and for making CDs, but transferring to DAT
offers no useful advantages that I can see, and only offers a
degradation in sound (which ideally shouldn't be too noticeable).

ulysses

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
Rather than buying a new machine, which probably wouldn't
> solve your problem at all,

Thank you

you need to solve whatever interfacing
> problems you're having between your Nagra and the DAT.

Seems to be my Zen master :>)

But of course
> the big question is: Why in the world would you want or need to
> transfer your analog tapes to DAT? I could see transferring them to a
> computer DAW for editing and for making CDs, but transferring to DAT
> offers no useful advantages that I can see, and only offers a
> degradation in sound (which ideally shouldn't be too noticeable).

Your right . The only reason why I use the tascam DAT is becasue I have a
Audigy 2 and until I get the "right" hard disk recording sytems or
workstations .I use Tascam as a front to do the A/D convertions then
straight into Audigy.At this point I lack faith in the Audigy, toooo many
dropouts.




Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
Rather than buying a new machine, which probably wouldn't
> solve your problem at all,

Thank you

you need to solve whatever interfacing
> problems you're having between your Nagra and the DAT.

Seems to be my Zen master :>)

But of course
> the big question is: Why in the world would you want or need to
> transfer your analog tapes to DAT? I could see transferring them to a
> computer DAW for editing and for making CDs, but transferring to DAT
> offers no useful advantages that I can see, and only offers a
> degradation in sound (which ideally shouldn't be too noticeable).

Your right . The only reason why I use the tascam DAT is becasue I have a
Audigy 2 and until I get the "right" hard disk recording sytems or
workstations .I use Tascam as a front to do the A/D convertions then
straight into Audigy.At this point I lack faith in the Audigy, toooo many
dropouts.




Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Edward Bridge > wrote:

> Your right . The only reason why I use the tascam DAT is becasue I have a
> Audigy 2 and until I get the "right" hard disk recording sytems or
> workstations .I use Tascam as a front to do the A/D convertions then
> straight into Audigy.At this point I lack faith in the Audigy, toooo many
> dropouts.

I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?

If you don't trust the Audigy, you should run out and buy an M-Audio
Audiophile 9624. It's not the best thing out there, but it is
absolutely usable, will beat the DAT machine easily, is very stable and
stadards-compatible, and is cheap as hell. You could even sell your
DAT machine to pay for it.

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Edward Bridge > wrote:

> Your right . The only reason why I use the tascam DAT is becasue I have a
> Audigy 2 and until I get the "right" hard disk recording sytems or
> workstations .I use Tascam as a front to do the A/D convertions then
> straight into Audigy.At this point I lack faith in the Audigy, toooo many
> dropouts.

I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?

If you don't trust the Audigy, you should run out and buy an M-Audio
Audiophile 9624. It's not the best thing out there, but it is
absolutely usable, will beat the DAT machine easily, is very stable and
stadards-compatible, and is cheap as hell. You could even sell your
DAT machine to pay for it.

ulysses

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?

I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our practices
and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
afterwards .. crash.. . I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass on
wine then a sceen and a mouse.
> If you don't trust the Audigy, you should run out and buy an M-Audio
> Audiophile 9624. It's not the best thing out there, but it is
> absolutely usable, will beat the DAT machine easily, is very stable and
> stadards-compatible, and is cheap as hell. You could even sell your
> DAT machine to pay for it.

Soon, I spend money on a good converter .
Thank
Ed

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?

I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our practices
and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
afterwards .. crash.. . I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass on
wine then a sceen and a mouse.
> If you don't trust the Audigy, you should run out and buy an M-Audio
> Audiophile 9624. It's not the best thing out there, but it is
> absolutely usable, will beat the DAT machine easily, is very stable and
> stadards-compatible, and is cheap as hell. You could even sell your
> DAT machine to pay for it.

Soon, I spend money on a good converter .
Thank
Ed

[Edward Bridge]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?

I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our practices
and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
afterwards .. crash.. . I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass on
wine then a sceen and a mouse.
> If you don't trust the Audigy, you should run out and buy an M-Audio
> Audiophile 9624. It's not the best thing out there, but it is
> absolutely usable, will beat the DAT machine easily, is very stable and
> stadards-compatible, and is cheap as hell. You could even sell your
> DAT machine to pay for it.

Soon, I spend money on a good converter .
Thank
Ed

[John Washburn]

"Edward Bridge" wrote:
>
> "Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote:
> > I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> > than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> > feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> > feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?
>
> I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our
practices
> and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
> afterwards .. crash.. .

So your computer is crashing and you're losing the data altogether? That's
different than "dropouts"...

I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
> there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
> listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass
on
> wine then a sceen and a mouse.

I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either a
DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Edward Bridge" wrote:
>
> "Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote:
> > I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> > than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> > feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> > feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?
>
> I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our
practices
> and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
> afterwards .. crash.. .

So your computer is crashing and you're losing the data altogether? That's
different than "dropouts"...

I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
> there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
> listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass
on
> wine then a sceen and a mouse.

I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either a
DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Edward Bridge" wrote:
>
> "Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote:
> > I see. That makes sense, if you think the DAT converters sound better
> > than the Audigy converters. But don't you get just as many drop-outs
> > feeding the DAT into the computer (via SPDIF, I assume) as you would
> > feeding the NAgra directly into the computer using the analog inputs?
>
> I think the dropouts (crash) happens becasue when I recorded our
practices
> and drop the recordings to the PC and forget and check my e mail
> afterwards .. crash.. .

So your computer is crashing and you're losing the data altogether? That's
different than "dropouts"...

I can send a 45 min practices to the DAT and
> there's no crash. We go though 2 or three songs two or threes times and
> listen in the evening . DAT with a remote goes so much nicer with a glass
on
> wine then a sceen and a mouse.

I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either a
DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.

-jw

[Edward Bridge]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message
news:5L2tc.142847>
> I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either
a
> DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.
>

While we're working on the "something nice" . We notice a huge differene
using the Nagra but then we don't even have a $5000.00 setup so mic's
right into the Nagra . .bang . done deal.. The trick for us is how to take
what's on the Nagra and get in on a piece of "plastic", or post it our
site. --
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com>

[Edward Bridge]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message
news:5L2tc.142847>
> I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either
a
> DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.
>

While we're working on the "something nice" . We notice a huge differene
using the Nagra but then we don't even have a $5000.00 setup so mic's
right into the Nagra . .bang . done deal.. The trick for us is how to take
what's on the Nagra and get in on a piece of "plastic", or post it our
site. --
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com>

[Edward Bridge]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message
news:5L2tc.142847>
> I'd think a Nagra IV would go much better with a glass of wine than either
a
> DAT or a computer, especially if it's something nice.
>

While we're working on the "something nice" . We notice a huge differene
using the Nagra but then we don't even have a $5000.00 setup so mic's
right into the Nagra . .bang . done deal.. The trick for us is how to take
what's on the Nagra and get in on a piece of "plastic", or post it our
site. --
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com>