otari mx5050 mkIII vs. tascam atr-60 1/2" 8 track
Nathan Hall
purchasing decision. i'm looking to get a high quality analog 1/2" 8
track, and my search seems to have come down to these two (also
considering tascam 48 and 58s, but i havent seen many of them). i was
hoping that some of you would have some experience with both of these
machines and could offer opinions as to sound quality, reliability,
construction, etc. if you could have either for $500-800, which would
you choose? thanks for your time.
nathan hall
Justin Ulysses Morse
several Tascam 48s. I think the 48 is a WAY better machine than the
MX5050. Not that the Otari is bad, but the 48 really is reliable and
performs very well. It's amazing. The Otari has a couple of minor
perks like a built-in headphone amp, and you can select individual
channels to Repro while others are in Input or Sync mode. But the
outputs of the Otari are unbalanced (on XLRs) while the Tasca has both
balanced XLRs and unbalanced RCA I/O. The transport on the 48 seems
more robust to me and I really like the "spooling" mode where FF and
REW are performed with uniform tension rather than fly-away speed.
I haven't actually used a 58 or an ATR-60, but I would expect them both
to be even better than the 48. Who knows.
ulysses
In article <ca2f7f6.02091...@posting.google.com>, Nathan
Rob Adelman
You'll have to check out my MSR24 some time. Heck of a tape deck...
-Rob
EggHd
Tim Padalan has done some great records on his.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Ted Spencer
>
>You'll have to check out my MSR24 some time. Heck of a tape deck...
>
>-Rob
Tascam made some excellent tape machines including the ATR-80 2" 24 track which
for whatever reason has never gotten its due respect.
The 50 series machines were excellent, very well built machines too (I have a
52), and while I never used an ATR-60 it appeared to be designed and
market-positioned above the 50 series (I think it replaced them actually) and
had pretty much all the requisite pro features IIRC. I'd imagine a clean used
ATR-60 8 track would be a great deck and should be much better than the Otari
5050 which was never very high on my list of faves...
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
umbriaco
They were rock solid reliable and sounded good.
Otari 5050's don't hold a candle to them.
More in the league of Otari MTR10.
Patric D'Eimon
and have had them workin' hard since 84. Why's everybody kickin' the
Otari's these days? Jeeesh! I've used Tascams and Ampex 102's.
They are all good. Buncha' feakin' Tascam snobs...mutter...mutter...mutter...
drumsound
tape gently and sounds very nice. It's a big warm sound. I'm quite
happy with the unit.
Tony
Oxide Lounge Recording/SanCastle Mastering
Justin Ulysses Morse
wrote:
> Bull Crap. Otari 505 MK-III's are terrific machines. I have 2 of them
> and have had them workin' hard since 84. Why's everybody kickin' the
> Otari's these days? Jeeesh! I've used Tascams and Ampex 102's.
> They are all good. Buncha' feakin' Tascam snobs...mutter...mutter...mutter...
I haven't heard anybody say the Otari's not a good machine. But Tascam
has built some fantastic machines that are even better. I think the
MX5050 is very usable, but my 48 has been like a miracle for about 6
years now. It has never gone down once, it sounds great, the transport
is like butter, and it punches flawlessly.
ulysses
david
Morse <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote:
> I haven't heard anybody say the Otari's not a good machine. But Tascam
> has built some fantastic machines that are even better. I think the
> MX5050 is very usable, but my 48 has been like a miracle for about 6
> years now. It has never gone down once, it sounds great, the transport
> is like butter, and it punches flawlessly.
These few posts over the last couple days are the only comments I've
heard in 22 years with people saying Tascams are better than Otaris. As
a general comment, it's a laugh. Tascam even caught the moniker
Trashcan, as it was always the low end spread, the cheapest deck. Well,
at least before Fostex started making reel to reels.
As to value, I'd say to those looking into analog tape to note the
average resale value of a deck, as the marketplace generally speaking
is pretty good gauge of value. And all reel to reels machines are
falling in value even more quickly than the Bush stock market.
Buy the most machine you can afford and have it checked out by a
competent tech and its heads by John French BEFORE you plunk down your
dough. A bargain ain't a bargain no matter how cheap it is when in fact
the machine needs new heads, or rollers, motors, guides, etc. etc. etc.
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Justin Ulysses Morse
<ih...@spamo.com> wrote:
> These few posts over the last couple days are the only comments I've
> heard in 22 years with people saying Tascams are better than Otaris. As
> a general comment, it's a laugh. Tascam even caught the moniker
> Trashcan, as it was always the low end spread, the cheapest deck. Well,
> at least before Fostex started making reel to reels.
It's not that all Tascams are better than all Otaris. I surely would
enjoy an MTR-90 MkII. And I wouldn't wish a TSR-8 or a 3340 upon the
unsuspecting. What should be getting across from these posts is that
despite what you heard 22 years ago, my Tascam machine works really
well. It works better than my MCI or my Studer or my Ampex (all of
which I do like). I do have two other Tascams that don't work at all.
But they did make some good tape decks at once time.
ulysses
Rob Adelman
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
> And I wouldn't wish a TSR-8 or a 3340 upon the
> unsuspecting.
The 3340 would still be a fantastic learning tool for the new multi-tracking
student.
Kind of like teaching someone to fish. Id' be curious to find out how many of
todays "vintage" engineers broke in on one of those things.
Ted Spencer
>The 3340 would still be a fantastic learning tool for the new multi-tracking
>student.
>Kind of like teaching someone to fish. Id' be curious to find out how many of
>todays "vintage" engineers broke in on one of those things.
I did, although it was a 2340 (7" reel, 7.5ips model). I bought it in 1972, a
year before my first job in a studio.
ScotFraser
>The 3340 would still be a fantastic learning tool for the new multi-tracking
>student.
>Kind of like teaching someone to fish. Id' be curious to find out how many of
>todays "vintage" engineers broke in on one of those things. >>
Yup. I had the first Teac 3340S in Eugene, Oregon, 1973.
Scott Fraser
david
Morse <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote:
> What should be getting across from these posts is that
> despite what you heard 22 years ago, my Tascam machine works really
> well.
As for "what should be getting across from these posts" you're the guy
that actually said Tascams are better than Otaris. Which is what I
responded to.
Congrats that your Tascam has been a great performer for you. Keep
taking care of it. You mentioned you've had it for 6 years. What a good
investment. I still use a 5050B I bought in 1981. No problems either.
You also said "despite what you heard 22 years ago". It may have been
difficult for you to imagine this, but I owned both the Otari and a
Tascam 1/4" machine 22 years ago. And I owned a Revox B-77 at the same
time too. (And a 1/2" Otari 8 track, my fave of all 4 of these
machines. What a sweet machine!! Despite its sweetness it got booted by
brand new mtr-90II in 1985.)
I dumped the Tascam quick. It was an easy decision. The other 2 tracks
stayed. We needed 2 half tracks for making dubs of radio commercials.
The B-77 got sold in the mid 90's with new heads from John French. I
don't see too many of them for sale. Ours had tiny holes drilled into
the bottom to access pots and do tweeks without having to take the B-77
apart. What a nice touch. And the guy who did this wonderful mod back
in 1981 was none other than rap's own David Butler.
The mtr-90II got booted by an mtr-90III two years ago.
And for some of our customers, our new Protools HD is booting the
90III. Time marcheth on, like it or not.
George Perfect
One of those was "my" first multi-track (I worked for TEAC/Tascam at the
time so used the bigger machines in my 'day job').
Can't tell you quick I was to change it for a 3440 when that model came
out!
--
George >{蚩髛<
Newcastle, England
(please remove leading 'x' from email address to reply, thanks)
Mike Rivers
> These few posts over the last couple days are the only comments I've
> heard in 22 years with people saying Tascams are better than Otaris.
I don't think that anyone has said that in general TASCAM is better
than Otari, but rather, they were talking about particular models of
each. The MX5050 is a mid quality broadcast grade recorder. Think of
it as a latter day Ampex AG-440 only not as sturdy and a bit more
complex. The TASCAM ATR-60 was designed from the ground up as a studio
manchine and is all around better built than the MX5050. Just look at
the two side by side.
Either one would be a good choice for a starter 8-track system. When
it comes to "what's better", that involves a lot of things, one of
which should be how difficult will it be to get parts, service, and
documentation. Who cares how great it sounds if it doesn't work and
you can't fix it? In this respect, I suspect that Otari has the edge.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Justin Ulysses Morse
<ih...@spamo.com> wrote:
> As for "what should be getting across from these posts" you're the guy
> that actually said Tascams are better than Otaris. Which is what I
> responded to.
I said SOME tascams are better than the MX5050. Which is true. I
actually liked the MX5050s I used.
> You also said "despite what you heard 22 years ago". It may have been
> difficult for you to imagine this, but I owned both the Otari and a
> Tascam 1/4" machine 22 years ago. And I owned a Revox B-77 at the same
> time too. (And a 1/2" Otari 8 track, my fave of all 4 of these
> machines. What a sweet machine!! Despite its sweetness it got booted by
> brand new mtr-90II in 1985.)
I don't know what model your Tascam 2-track was, but unless it was a
42, 52, or BR-20 it was probably not in the same league as the machines
we're talking about here. Comparing what they were making in the late
70s (or even a 22 or a 38 for that matter) to a 48, 58, or ATR-60 is
like comparing the MX5050 to an MTR. Or comapring an Ampex PR-10 to an
AG440. Completely different end of the pool.
ulysses
Will Hunt
band I was in at the time has it now, and he's finishing up a record on it.
I went on to more expensive things with more tracks....
Good machine. ...And MINE had the sexy plexi dustcover!!
....Will
sjjohnston
Morse <uly...@rollmusic.com>:
> ... As for "what should be getting across from these posts" you're the guy
> that actually said Tascams are better than Otaris....
Actually, he didn't (unless you're referring to some post I haven't
seen). He said a Tascam 48 is better than an Otari MX5050. Which may
be obvious, or debatable, or crazy, but in any event is not what
you're saying he said.
Jay Kadis
I got a 3340 in 1973. Replaced it with an 80-8 (which still runs great) in
1981. I'm trying to teach a friend with, shall we say, little technical
background, to work a 3340S/Model 5 right now. He has plastered the machine
with notes on masking tape, but he is indeed learning the process.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x