Originally Posted by kslight ➡️

First off, yes the world has lost its mind when it comes to 4 track cassette machines...I was looking the other day and didn’t realize there were some approaching $600-1000 oh well

Second, the 388 is amazing (imho), I love (almost) everything about it. Some people would say the prices are crazy for these as well.

Third, I disagree about losing the reels for proprietary cartridges in your proposed system. 1/4” reels are cheap (less than $30 for brand new LPR35 which is what we use on 388), you get 40 minutes out of one...

The only thing i don’t like about the 388 is that it’s too big/heavy, most other changes would probably bum me out or lose too much of the original flow.

However we all know Tascam would never do a “reel” one.

I realize they have their digital recorder line, but I feel like that they could make a shrunken SD card version but modeled that sound...and supported varispeed, ping ponging tracks, etc...that exact workflow no bs...pretty affordably.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

I believe more people would buy if they didn't need to thread reel to reel tapes. People of today want simplicity.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

4 tracks of 1/4 inch could be made small, the heads and rollers wouldn't need to be but just a bit bigger than cassette heads with new materials and today's innovation.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

You would get the same quality as the 8 track half inch 388, but an easy sync to any daw so the four tracks would be endless with daw sync.

Originally Posted by xamatsni ➡️

Reels of tape are not that difficult to deal with. Why are you so scared of them?



1/4" is twice the size of an 1/8" cassette tape. The size of the heads and rollers is related to the physical size of the tape. How would "today's innovation" make them smaller?

Originally Posted by Noisewagon ➡️

LOL...I was just looking at Ebay and you can get a Studer 24 track machine for under $5,000 these days.

So go for it if you like it. Because nobody is ever going to make them again.

Originally Posted by kslight ➡️

The school I attended famously went bankrupt last year and had a big music gear auction recently... If you had the will and the space for it you could have bought two Otari 2” machines for about $2k each, or the Studers which went for a bit more. Which is all totally amusing to me because in the same auction you could have bought...for example...a single Distressor for over $1300. That tells exactly how much most people value the large format machines. I absolutely considered buying an Otari, but also absolutely **** them and their for profit school.

Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio ➡️

Cassette tape is more like 3/16"..

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

I believe more people would buy if they didn't need to thread reel to reel tapes. People of today want simplicity. That's why VHS was rolling until digital, and did after digital came along too. So for me, a newly designed cartridge tape would be simple for today's people.

4 tracks of 1/4 inch could be made small, the heads and rollers wouldn't need to be but just a bit bigger than cassette heads with new materials and today's innovation.

You would get the same quality as the 8 track half inch 388, but an easy sync to any daw so the four tracks would be endless with daw sync.

My god, this would revolutionize the project and bedroom studio world. The replacement head cartridges would be a must as people don't want to have to toss the machine just because their heads or rollers wear out. So an easy head cartridge for a couple hundred would be mass produced for these, 4 screws and a wire harness, change them out in ten minutes.

You would need to cater to simplicity, that's why the newly designed tape cartridges, pop one in and record, easier than putting a vhs tape in with the retracting tape crap. These would pop in just like cassettes did in the 4 tracks, just a bit bigger, twice the size and thickness, but still way smaller than a clunky vhs.

The syncing to daw would simply be amazing while discarding all the inherent worries of heads and rollers wearing out and having to deal with reels and threading and all that.

these companies would use these new plastics, tough and durable but lightweight. I never thought of Tascam coming out with one, I was thinking UAD would come out with something like this.

They would be able to say, "Tape PLUG INS? NOPE, we have taken the full step. 4 tracks of 1/4 inch HEAVEN, easy sync to any daw, light weight, built in 6 channel mixer for remote recording, bring it back to your daw and send the tracks in, then record 4 more on to tape."

"Comes with a 10-minute tape, roller and head cleaning kit. $699.00 Worried about tape heads wearing out, we have replacement recording head cartridges, $249, 4 screws and a wiring plug and ten minutes"

I'm telling you, once samples of recordings done on it at the same quality of a 388 hit the web, my god, they would be swamped with orders, just swamped. I am poor and NO DOUBT I would start saving, not even debatable. I would sell my damn car, my dog, my girlfriend, anything for one.

Originally Posted by xamatsni ➡️

Reels of tape are not that difficult to deal with. Why are you so scared of them?



1/4" is twice the size of an 1/8" cassette tape. The size of the heads and rollers is related to the physical size of the tape. How would "today's innovation" make them smaller?



Again 388 is 1/4". DAW sync is not that useful with a tape machine. BTW you can easily sync a DAW to a 388 with the Tascam MTS-30 which you can find for under $50. What's the point of that though?

Originally Posted by kslight ➡️

Nah reels aren’t hard to deal with. If you can wrap a mic cable you can load tape. I’ve owned (4) 388s in the past and passed this skill on to their future owners before money was even exchanged (don’t worry, I still have 2 machines that I kept for myself).

As others have pointed out, 388 is 1/4” not 1/2”.

4 tracks to me is just too little to be very useful (without serious bouncing). But you can do a full band to 8 tracks.

Never had a need to sync to the daw.

Of course could never build this machine to sell for $700, but it’s okay to dream.

Originally Posted by Lance Lawson ➡️

I love tape I am deeply involved with tape but tape machines will never be produced again as a new device. Digital is dirt cheap compared to tape and any Joe Blow can get a digital system and make an album on the cheap. Tape requires outlay for the tape itself and tape is pricey now. Then there is the user's skill level and patience to run tape. I hate to say it but most of the kids don't have the acumen to run tape. If I had to rely solely on tape these past 18 years I'd have no finished recordings, likely no recordings at all. Tape is a great medium to play finished tracks on ore master tracks to but as a medium for multitracking recordings from scratch it's time has come and gone unless you're in a major studio and can afford to use a Studer multitrack machine.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

I mean, the Tascam 388 was it? That was half inch 8 track? You could sell tapes that would be say, 15 minute tapes so that the cartridges could be even smaller than vhs were. The company would make the machines and the tape cartridges and the replacement head cartridges as well. Include a simple analog mixer like was in the cassette 488, maye 6 track recording at once.

I think if some company could make a recorder like this for say, 700 dollars they would sell a million of the damn things.

Just dreaming I guess

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

What’s the point of sync? Wow, to sync to daw and be able to record dozens of tracks on tape and move them to your daw, so you could have as many tracks as you want recorded to tape and then moved to the daw for editing.

Originally Posted by xamatsni ➡️

I disagree whole heartedly. I have worked with tape and what's fun about it to most everyone I have ever known is that IT SOUNDS AMAZING!!! I have thought through the workflow and have used synced machines before.


You don't appear to be following my thoughts. I AGREE. The synced machine lets you record to tape to begin with, then control and edit everything on your daw. You get the best of both worlds. You could also record your vst instruments over to the tape and then back to the daw, so everything would be able to benefit from the great sound of tape. The sound and joy of this would be obvious and the machines would sell by the thousands.

We are talking 4 tracks, not 8. And once they are on the computer you no longer need them on the tape. You record over them, it's that simple. The sound of tape is EASILY worth that.



The machine I am dreaming of could send compyer tracks, ones you record or send EZ drummer tracks or vst instruments to tape and then move them back to the daw for editing. Everything gets the sound of tape if you want it, or just the few you want.

And that's fine. That would be an ability of the machine, no problem. How does this argue against my idea of this machine? This machine would do all this through a VST type interface. Move stems, tracks from and to the tape, as many as your daw can handle. You can record directly to the computer and then move to tape or record direct to tape, your choice. You would have a couple channels to record to because this machine could do remote recording. BUT, you could also just forego that and have nothing but tape tracks completely daw dependant. Not even any rewind buttons or play buttons, the entire machine controlled through a vst tye interface.

If a song is 3 minutes you think 3 minutes every 4 tracks is a nightmare and NOT WORTH a beautiful tape sound, WHAT? I already listen to my mixes 50 frickin times just toying with mixes, it wouldn't bother me a bit waiting 3 minutes while 4 tracks records over to the daw, 12 tracks takes 9 minutes, and that's NOT worth the beauty of quarter inch tape sound? Sorry, but it would be worth it to me and everyone in to recording that I know.

Ever listen to guys like Art Feynman (Luke Temple) who was in a recent Tape Op article? Here's a couple links. This guy thinks it's such a nightmare he chooses to use a Tascam cassette 4 track because he loves the sound of even cassette tape.
YouTube
YouTube

He doesn't even have sync and is still willing to run 4 tracks over to daw and then back out to tape to keep recording.

The machine I am dreaming of would of course have better quality by far and complete and easy sync. He could have heavenly tape sound and complete ease of daw control.

I don't believe you can say that at all. You know no such thing. These things have to be talked about and the love for tape sound is as strong as ever. As I said, look at those prices for these ancient old 4 tracks. People clearly still love tape.


2 track would be double the waiting, still worth it but 4 tracks would be preferrable. 4 tracks on 1/4 inch would be wonderful qualiity.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

Again, once the first songs were out with 388 or better quality sound that would be all she wrote, these things would sell by the thousands and thousands.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

The synced machine lets you record to tape to begin with, then control and edit everything on your daw. You get the best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

If a song is 3 minutes you think 3 minutes every 4 tracks is a nightmare and NOT WORTH a beautiful tape sound, WHAT? I already listen to my mixes 50 frickin times just toying with mixes, it wouldn't bother me a bit waiting 3 minutes while 4 tracks records over to the daw, 12 tracks takes 9 minutes, and that's NOT worth the beauty of quarter inch tape sound? Sorry, but it would be worth it to me and everyone in to recording that I know.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

Ever listen to guys like Art Feynman (Luke Temple) who was in a recent Tape Op article? Here's a couple links. This guy thinks it's such a nightmare he chooses to use a Tascam cassette 4 track because he loves the sound of even cassette tape.
YouTube
YouTube

He doesn't even have sync and is still willing to run 4 tracks over to daw and then back out to tape to keep recording.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

2 track would be double the waiting, still worth it but 4 tracks would be preferrable. 4 tracks on 1/4 inch would be wonderful qualiity.

Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️

....and this is where your argument falls apart - you're making an assumption "these things would sell by the thousands", but you have no data to prove it - there's no evidence that tape appeals to anyone but a minority of tape fans (just as vinyl, even though there's a resurgence, is still small enough to be nothing but a new cottage industry - otherwise you'd see Sony, Yamaha etc. building new vinyl mastering and manufacturing plants).

I used the analogy of sports cars earlier - I'm a big fan of two seat sports cars, during the 70's, there were tons of affordable, two-seaters being built and sold, appearing on american streets and around the world - Alfa, Fiat, MG, Triumph, Corvette, Datsun, Austin Healy, Opel - with many models from each manufacturer [MG, MGB, Triumph Tr3,4,6,8]) - today, there are nothing but a few, and really only one that's affordable enough for the masses, the Miata (and its twin, the Fiat 128).

A new-era tape machine would have to sell for much more than what you think - several times the price because to be the least bit profitable, it'd have to sell to a relatively wealthy clientele - think of this new machine as the Porsche Boxster of the recording world - with specs and fidelity not even close to a "lowly" (in your eyes) Focusrite, or Audient interface.

Your assumptions are the problem here, they're yours and you're ascribing them to 99% of this, or "thousands and thousands" of that, but a business case has to be made to attract investors, and if there were a case, this product you dream of would already exist.

The best way to understand this is to remove yourself from the "magical thinking" mode, and dive into the world of hard facts; determine the costs involved in marketing, meeting regulations, tooling and distributing such a product, then figure out how many you'd have to sell, and over what period of time to make it a business.

Originally Posted by xamatsni ➡️

It depends on how you work, but for me one of the great strengths of digital is that it makes tracking, comping, and editing so easy. Therefore it makes the most sense to start digital for an easy, flexible tracking workflow, and then to dump to tape for the sound. That's the best of both worlds imo. And it doesn't require sync.



Yeah if I'm in the middle of tracking that's going to kill my workflow. Say I'm tracking guitars on a song with two guitar parts. I might do 2 or 3 takes on separate tracks for each part and comp them together later. Maybe more if I'm still writing and trying out ideas. With a DAW you can also loop sections, jump around instantaneously, and do all sorts of things that tape can't do. It makes more sense to do all of your tracking in the computer, finish comping and editing, and then dump it to tape.

Imagine recording drums with 3 mics. You do one take and you're ready for the next, but now you have to wait not just to rewind the tape but also to dump your last take back to the computer in realtime and then rewind again a second time before you can do a second take? Not a fun workflow.



Yeah exactly, you don't need a new device! You don't need sync. You can do this right now, just buy a tape machine.




So buy something like a Tascam 34b or any other 1/4" 4 track.

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar ➡️

Sound quality trumps all that. The wonderful sound iis readily apparent. I enjoy watching some of those reaction videos on YT. Many times these kids,are hearing tape for the first time and are blown away by it, though they aren't sure why.

If it would already have been made, then how do any new products ever get made? Couldn't someone just say every time that if it was sellable it would have already been made?

The sound of tape is the sale. Once that sound is out there and people hear it project and home studio folks would go nuts over it.