Tascam 388 - Maintenance?

[Otis]

Any Tascam 388 owners out there? I'm about to get my hands on a machine in excellent condition. The original owner treated it very well! I'm new to the world of reel-to-reel and I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any routine maintenance operations that will keep it running smoothly. I've read up a bit on head cleaning and demagnetizing. When is it necessary to perform an alignment? And how should this be done? Also, does anyone know what the best tape is for the 388? Can it still be purchased new?

[wannaberocker]

Hey Otis, i just got one of these from a guy off ebay and after 4 days the capstan motor went bad...i'm still waiting to get one, also the right side tensioner assembly was incomplete so the tape sort of took up the slack a little roughly...i fixed and re-lubed the tensioners and now they are smooth as ever....these machines are pretty finicky...but the owners manual has all the testing and calibration procedures in it. Audio Tape Recorder Heads that have gone BAD !!! here is a cool page for inspecting heads....

as far as tape goes, the guy i bought it from said RMG900 on a 10.5 x .5 reel is what my machine is set up for....he said this The RMG 900 needs a lot bias 6-7db @ 10Khz. Its also set up for 370nWb/m +6Db. So its operating with this tape correctly. and that no dbx was necessary, for the few hours it worked, it seemed to sound quite good...

uh crap...nevermind 388 doh!

[eh91311]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Hey Otis, i just got one of these from a guy off ebay and after 4 days the capstan motor went bad...i'm still waiting to get one, also the right side tensioner assembly was incomplete so the tape sort of took up the slack a little roughly...i fixed and re-lubed the tensioners and now they are smooth as ever....these machines are pretty finicky...but the owners manual has all the testing and calibration procedures in it. Audio Tape Recorder Heads that have gone BAD !!! here is a cool page for inspecting heads....

as far as tape goes, the guy i bought it from said RMG900 on a 10.5 x .5 reel is what my machine is set up for....he said this The RMG 900 needs a lot bias 6-7db @ 10Khz. Its also set up for 370nWb/m +6Db. So its operating with this tape correctly. and that no dbx was necessary, for the few hours it worked, it seemed to sound quite good...

wannabearocker, I think you are referring to a Tascam 38 recorder: 8 tracks, 1/2" tape, 10.5" reels, 15 ips recorder. Otis is contemplating buying a Tascam 388, which is a deck with an integrated mixer and tape recorder, 8 tracks, 1/4" tape, 7" reels, 7.5 ips speed max.

I use Quantegy 457 tape on my 388, which is a thin 1.0mil thick variant of 456. It is probably very hard to find new or NOS. RMGI LPR-35 is supposed to be the modern equivalent, but it is pricey, as all new tape is. Whatever you do, don't use 1.5 mil thick tape like 456, 406, or any of the high-output formulations like RMGI or BASF 900, Quantegy GP9 or 499. The 1.5 mil tape or modern formulations (which are thicker) will eventually kill the capstan motor & accelerate head wear.

Your 388 will need calibration if recorded tracks sound or measure hotter or lower in volume than recorded, or if track recording & playback volume is inconsistent from track to track or inconsistent in sound (dull). Calibration of these narrow-format decks is tedious and expensive, as there are only 2 heads, erase and record/playback. Once set up, adjusted and calibrated, 388's provide good service. I had a local tech calibrate mine a couple of years back and it sounded much, much better after.

It's very heavy (85-90 lbs or more) and not really made to be portable.

It is very likely that your machine will be in good condition and record/playback just fine. Just try recording on it and see what happens. Keep the heads and tape path clean (using high strength alcohol and q-tips), use warm water and/or diluted windex on the pinch roller rubber, and demag the heads every few hours. Search for a competent tech in your area with experience in working on these Tascam decks.

[AnalogBrain]

I used mine for 3 years with 456 tape. Used to cart it around in the trunk of my car and record bands in their rehearsal spaces. Never had any issues.

It is a real kicka$$ little machine. You'll get some great recordings out of it. As the above poster said, I wouldn't try to calibrate it unless you notice some real funky sounds. I never did on mine. You have to take the whole machine apart to do any type of alignment. Just get some tape and hit record. Believe it or not, the EQs aren't half bad for what kind of gear it is.

-NEil

[Otis]

Thanks for the great advice! The RMGI LPR35 sounds like a good option. At $30 per reel it's not cheap, but seems like the best route to take. I'm assuming if the previous owner of the 388 I'm looking at used 1.0 mil tape as well, the machine won't need an alignment. Apparently he used Maxell and Scotch. I'm waiting to hear back if it was in fact 1.0 mil. Other than that, it looks like it's in perfect shape. Its important to me not to have to put a lot of work/repairs into it.

[noah330]

My first 8 track was a 388. Very cool machine that I made a ton of recordings on!

[eh91311]

Originally Posted by Otis

Thanks for the great advice! The RMGI LPR35 sounds like a good option. At $30 per reel it's not cheap, but seems like the best route to take. I'm assuming if the previous owner of the 388 I'm looking at used 1.0 mil tape as well, the machine won't need an alignment. Apparently he used Maxell and Scotch. I'm waiting to hear back if it was in fact 1.0 mil. Other than that, it looks like it's in perfect shape. Its important to me not to have to put a lot of work/repairs into it.

IIRC, Maxell UD-35 is the tape that the 388 was originally spec'd to use. I wouldn't trust using old stock UD-35 now.

I also don't like the fact that RMGI LPR-35 is so expensive per reel. But, again, all new analog recording tape is very high-priced.

1.0mil tape must be used in order for the tape end-stop feature to work on the 388; the transport senses when near the end of the tape and stops. With 457 it works, not 456.

I agree that you should look for a unit to buy that doesn't require a lot of service or repairs. Right now, a calibration & general servicing for a 388 would probably cost as much as the deck.

[psycho_monkey]

Otis - as one previous poster has mentioned, and everyone else ignored, are you buying a Tascam 388 or a 38? the first is a cassette based 8-track and should be avoided like the plague, the 2nd is a 1/2" reel to reel that are quite funky...

I think from the way you're talking, it's the latter but definitely avoid the 388 cassette in this day and age!

[Tapeworm]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Otis - as one previous poster has mentioned, and everyone else ignored, are you buying a Tascam 388 or a 38? the first is a cassette based 8-track and should be avoided like the plague, the 2nd is a 1/2" reel to reel that are quite funky...

I think from the way you're talking, it's the latter but definitely avoid the 388 cassette in this day and age!

The Tascam 388 is a 1/4" reel to reel 8-track machine with built in mixer. I know this because I still have one.

It's a great "little" machine.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Tapeworm

The Tascam 388 is a 1/4" reel to reel 8-track machine with built in mixer. I know this because I still have one.

It's a great "little" machine.

That's weird - tascam 388 - Google Image Search - it's definitely the cassette based 8-track too!

Some weird naming choices there - I think the cassette one was referred to as a "midistudio" suffix...but even so.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

That's weird - tascam 388 - Google Image Search - it's definitely the cassette based 8-track too!

Some weird naming choices there - I think the cassette one was referred to as a "midistudio" suffix...but even so.

having owned a 388, i can tell you it's everything but cassette. you're thinking of the 688.

[Otis]

It is indeed the Tascam 388, 1/4" 8 track reel-to-reel with an integrated mixer that I've been thinking about buying. Pyscho Monkey, what makes you want to avoid the 388 "like the plague?" I've spoken to many 388 owners and they are all very attached to these machines. I was a bit wary of the narrow format and slow tape speed (1/4" at 7.5 ips) but after hearing some stuff that was recorded on the 388, I was sold. Also, at around $500, a 388 in excellent condition seems to be a much more financially feasible solution for those on a budget.

Check these:

The Olympians on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

Kelley Stoltz on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

KillionSound on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

It is a kind of "mid-fi" vibe that sounds great to my ears.

I've also been entertaining the idea of going the route of the Tascam 38 or the Otari MX5050, both 1/2" 8 track machines. Can anyone recommend a good mixer (not too expensive) to pair with these?

[retractablezing]

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.

[Tapeworm]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

That's weird - tascam 388 - Google Image Search - it's definitely the cassette based 8-track too!

Some weird naming choices there - I think the cassette one was referred to as a "midistudio" suffix...but even so.

Those images ARE of the 388. The tape lies "horizontal". The unit is quite large (and heavy). It just looks small in those pictures because there is nothing to compare it against.

It has nice eq and routing. In it's day it was a great machine. I recorded many projects on it.

[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.

[retractablezing]

Originally 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).

[Otis]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

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.

I'm assuming you weren't using the dbx noise reduction when hitting the tape hard. I've heard that if you're going for tape saturation effects, you must have it disabled or else it overloads the machine. Is the noise reduction ever worth using?

Glad to hear that the pres are usable. I don't have much in the way of outboard at this point (I'm fairly new to the world of recording) but will certainly be looking to acquire some quality mics and pres in the near future. As the center piece of the studio, the 388 seems like a great option that is well within my budget. Now I just have to track one down.

[eh91311]

retractablezing has described the sound of the 388 about as well as it can be. Neither hi or lo-fi, but somewhere in-between. Lots of character that is pleasing to hear. I'll never sell mine.

Here's another project done almost completely on a 388;

Willoughby on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

Gus Seyffert's Willoughby project basically shows off the sound of a typical, well-maintained 388 deck; warm, round, thick sounding, no ultra-low end, rolled off upper highs. Great sounding, nonetheless.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by Otis

I'm assuming you weren't using the dbx noise reduction when hitting the tape hard. I've heard that if you're going for tape saturation effects, you must have it disabled or else it overloads the machine. Is the noise reduction ever worth using?

Glad to hear that the pres are usable. I don't have much in the way of outboard at this point (I'm fairly new to the world of recording) but will certainly be looking to acquire some quality mics and pres in the near future. As the center piece of the studio, the 388 seems like a great option that is well within my budget. Now I just have to track one down.

the noise reduction can be tricky, but in a good way. for instance, if you track with it on and then mix with it off, it yields a very interesting sound, but the whole mechanics of it are gonna take you a while to master, as you'll have to hit the recorder differently than if you'd record with it off and mixed with it off as well, or recorded and mixed with it on all the time.

this technique is also used in portastudios (the ones where you can actually turn it on/off - for instance, you can't do that on the tascam 244).

don't fret about the noise reduction, most things you'll hear about is made up crap and urban myths from ppl that should never have gotten this recorder. without the noise reduction, there will be some hiss. the noise reduction is actually very good at keeping things a bit less hissy and still sounding good.

if you don't have a 388 in sight yet, i'd advise you to get a tascam 246 if you can find one for cheap. the routing/assigning/etc is basically a miniature 388, and there's switchable noise reduction that will let you perfect that technique if you wish to do so. if you get a good grip of a 246, you'll know a 388 by heart.

in fact, if you're not very experienced in recording but want to leap straight to an interesting sound, i'd really advise you to get a 246 first. not to discourage you or anything, but for as easy as the 388 is to use (which it is), you're in for a bit of frustration cause it really takes a bit to master and take out of it everything that it can actually give.

spend some time with a tascam 246 (it's the closest thing to it you'll find) and get used to the way you have to hit the tape, the routing, etc. even in terms of sound, these 2 machines are not worlds apart.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by eh91311

Here's another project done almost completely on a 388;

Willoughby on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

Gus Seyffert's Willoughby project basically shows off the sound of a typical, well-maintained 388 deck; warm, round, thick sounding, no ultra-low end, rolled off upper highs. Great sounding, nonetheless.

did u record those folks EH? if so, congratulations, sounds very very nice.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Tapeworm

Those images ARE of the 388. The tape lies "horizontal". The unit is quite large (and heavy). It just looks small in those pictures because there is nothing to compare it against.

It has nice eq and routing. In it's day it was a great machine. I recorded many projects on it.

You're right of course - the one I was thinking of was the 688 Midistudio.

Which is a total piece of junk.

Apologies for de-railing the thread!

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

the 688 Midistudio. Which is a total piece of junk.

you're actually wrong, but nevermind.

[eh91311]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

did u record those folks EH? if so, congratulations, sounds very very nice.

No, I didn't record him. I'm just a fan. I bought some gear from Seyffert off his local Craigslist ad and he gave me a CD.

He has some serious musician friends playing on it. He recorded it himself, in his living room/rehearsal room. He did the basic tracks on the 388, then bounced them to an 002R/AI-3 combo then mixed it OTB to a small Auditronics console and back to the 002R, IIRC.

I wasn't a big fan of the music initially, but I can appreciate it for what it is and how it sounds. Definitely a very professional-sounding recording that happened to be done on a 388.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by eh91311

No, I didn't record him. I'm just a fan. I bought some gear from Seyffert off his local Craigslist ad and he gave me a CD.

He has some serious musician friends playing on it. He recorded it himself, in his living room/rehearsal room. He did the basic tracks on the 388, then bounced them to an 002R/AI-3 combo then mixed it OTB to a small Auditronics console and back to the 002R, IIRC.

I wasn't a big fan of the music initially, but I can appreciate it for what it is and how it sounds. Definitely a very professional-sounding recording that happened to be done on a 388.

indeed, it sounds very nice. when i had mine i remember thinking i heard lots of air, but it was not air per se, it was more like dust. and this is something i hear on most 388 recordings, even on this one that wasn't mixed on it (i always associated that sound to the mixer section as well, probably wrongly so). very neat.

i really miss that machine.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

you're actually wrong, but nevermind.

If you insist - I thought they were total junk. But that's opinion, as opposed to fact.

But then I thought pretty much every cassette 4-track I ever used (as well as cassettes in general) were fairly awful, my recordings or anyone else's recordings.

Anyway, that's enough time OT.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

If you insist - I thought they were total junk. But that's opinion, as opposed to fact.

But then I thought pretty much every cassette 4-track I ever used (as well as cassettes in general) were fairly awful, my recordings or anyone else's recordings.

Anyway, that's enough time OT.

i'm just kind of appalled as to why anyone that doesn't even know what a 388 is would jump on a thread and start making remarks about this sort of stuff, when you don't even know what recorder is being discussed.

the use of cassettes is as valid as the use of whatever it is that you use to record. period.

there are several 4 track machines that are anything but awful, and the 688 (which i frankly doubt you've ever used) is the top of the line in terms of 8 track cassette recorders (not taking in consideration the 238, which again, i dunno why i'm even bothering mentioning since you probably never heard or used one).

you should also check out post #11 on this thread and realize that i answered your question a long time ago. the feeling i get is that you entered this thread on total ADD mode and started making remarks left and right without really knowing what you're talking about. of course that's what gearslutz is mostly all about, but i'll say something if i have anything to add to the discussion. you happen to be talking about several recorders that you know nothing about, and that i know plenty about.

the 688 is everything but a total piece of junk, but i'm not gonna argue about that with someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and that has nothing to add but crappy opinions about gear he doesn't like but that he probably never used.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

i'm just kind of appalled as to why anyone that doesn't even know what a 388 is would jump on a thread and start making remarks about this sort of stuff, when you don't even know what recorder is being discussed.

the use of cassettes is as valid as the use of whatever it is that you use to record. period.

there are several 4 track machines that are anything but awful, and the 688 (which i frankly doubt you've ever used) is the top of the line in terms of 8 track cassette recorders (not taking in consideration the 238, which again, i dunno why i'm even bothering mentioning since you probably never heard or used one).

you should also check out post #11 on this thread and realize that i answered your question a long time ago. the feeling i get is that you entered this thread on total ADD mode and started making remarks left and right without really knowing what you're talking about. of course that's what gearslutz is mostly all about, but i'll say something if i have anything to add to the discussion. you happen to be talking about several recorders that you know nothing about, and that i know plenty about.

the 688 is everything but a total piece of junk, but i'm not gonna argue about that with someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and that has nothing to add but crappy opinions about gear he doesn't like but that he probably never used.

I made a one digit mis-remembering, and you're acting like I've killed your grandma or something! Why are you so "appalled"?! had I actually remembered correctly, you're right, I wouldn't have bothered...and I actually apologised for getting wrong earlier! yet you're still so appalled? Wow.

The use of cassettes may be "valid" - I never said it wasn't - just that I didn't like the sound of the format.

Seriously - chill out. I HAVE used the 688 - never used the 388 and never claimed to - briefly used a 38 - and have used many other 4 tracks. Also used Tascam and Fostex 1" 24 tracks, ADATs, and several other budget multitrackers.

The only one I've actually made a comment on was the 688. I don't have any experience on the 388, and hence haven't passed any comment on it. I'm talking about ONE recorder I HAVE used, and never passed comment on any of the others.

Hell, even my .sig refers to not making comments on things you've not used....you've made a big assumption on one little opinion. MY OPINION is that the 8-track cassette format in itself isn't great, and the 688 wasn't great either. You may not agree - that's fine - but please don't start a great big personal attack with a load of false accusations and mis-assumptions. I have never claimed to be a 4-track don or anything like that, and quite clearly I wouldn't wish to be. Unfortunately, whilst you may think your opinion has more weight, that doesn't make mine any more "crappy".

Now if you don't mind, if you have any more personal attacks maybe you can take it to PM. Otherwise quit derailing the thread any more.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I made a one digit mis-remembering, and you're acting like I've killed your grandma or something! Why are you so "appalled"?! had I actually remembered correctly, you're right, I wouldn't have bothered...and I actually apologised for getting wrong earlier! yet you're still so appalled? Wow.

The use of cassettes may be "valid" - I never said it wasn't - just that I didn't like the sound of the format.

Seriously - chill out. I HAVE used the 688 - never used the 388 and never claimed to - briefly used a 38 - and have used many other 4 tracks. Also used Tascam and Fostex 1" 24 tracks, ADATs, and several other budget multitrackers.

The only one I've actually made a comment on was the 688. I don't have any experience on the 388, and hence haven't passed any comment on it. I'm talking about ONE recorder I HAVE used, and never passed comment on any of the others.

Hell, even my .sig refers to not making comments on things you've not used....you've made a big assumption on one little opinion. MY OPINION is that the 8-track cassette format in itself isn't great, and the 688 wasn't great either. You may not agree - that's fine - but please don't start a great big personal attack with a load of false accusations and mis-assumptions. I have never claimed to be a 4-track don or anything like that, and quite clearly I wouldn't wish to be. Unfortunately, whilst you may think your opinion has more weight, that doesn't make mine any more "crappy".

Now if you don't mind, if you have any more personal attacks maybe you can take it to PM. Otherwise quit derailing the thread any more.

i'm not personally attacking you, i'm stating the obvious.

if you don't like the sound of the format, why did you post at all? the op is clearly after a more interesting sound than what digital or what have you has to offer, is your only contribution to that to say a 688 (what you thought a 388 was) is a crappy recorder? that's why i'm asking: why bother at all? especially when the topic was about maintainence.

if you have indeed used a 688, then i very much doubt you knew what you were doing recording to it. if you can't take an interesting sound out of it, then..i dunno. whatever your opinion might be of it, it's certainly not a crappy recorder - and that's what you said.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

i'm not personally attacking you, i'm stating the obvious.

if you don't like the sound of the format, why did you post at all? the op is clearly after a more interesting sound than what digital or what have you has to offer, is your only contribution to that to say a 688 (what you thought a 388 was) is a crappy recorder? that's why i'm asking: why bother at all? especially when the topic was about maintainence.

if you have indeed used a 688, then i very much doubt you knew what you were doing recording to it. if you can't take an interesting sound out of it, then..i dunno. whatever your opinion might be of it, it's certainly not a crappy recorder - and that's what you said.

You're not stating the obvious - and you're not reading my post either. I've already mentioned why I posted.

Obviously I don't know what I'm doing. I never have. I've never worked on any records on any analogue formats at all.

How well does sarcasm come across online?

I wouldn't deny you can get an "interesting" sound out of it. There's lots of crap you can get an interesting sound out of - that's not the point.

I THINK it's a crappy recorder - mainly because I think the format is crappy. But I'm actually entitled to think that!

Anyway - we're seriously derailing the thread here, I'm sure no-one else is bothered by this. If you really want to carry this on, again I'd request the PM route.

This is my last post on the subject.

[Otis]

I'm going to take this opportunity to stop the discussion. We're not making any head way and I'm certainly no longer learning anything about the Tascam 388 or it's maintenance. I think it's important for everyone to respect the opinion of every member. Also, it is dangerous in general to voice negative feelings towards an entire format (such as tape, or digital) and present it as fact. All opinions can lead to insight but should be presented as subjective and open to friendly challenge (without hostility). This way, we can all learn and even disagreements can be productive as we will ultimately gain valuable knowledge about both sides of an argument.