UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Tape (Audio), Cassette, Wire and Magnetic Disc Recorders and Players

Notices

Vintage Tape (Audio), Cassette, Wire and Magnetic Disc Recorders and Players Open-reel tape recorders, cassette recorders, 8-track players etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 27th Mar 2018, 9:32 pm   #21
dave walsh
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 5,814
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

On the domestic front in the sixties, a "proper" half track machine would be associated with the expensive professional gear that was out of reach, in terms of quality and affordability and with tape economy not being a big factor there. For home use you could get a two track recorder but 4 track did give twice the length [as monaro says] or 4 times in mono, a big consideration re tape cost and a four track could also be more versatile as well. The "best"quality" wasn't such a specific issue necessarily. I often used 4 track mono to squeeze more out of a reel. I've still got the recordings! Glyn either made a typo there and meant the A77 or he's listening to some interesting sound effects on the wrong machine to play back his tapes Or maybe I'm just losing track altogether?

Dave W
dave walsh is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2018, 10:37 pm   #22
Ted Kendall
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kington, Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 3,657
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

It is as well to point out that bass breakthrough is caused by the same mechanism as the fringing which makes using a full-width test tape on multi-track heads problematical. This effect is worse at long wavelengths and hence also more noticeable at higher tape speeds. It can be minimised by good tape path alignment to preserve guard bands and not putting too much bass level onto the tape. If everything is set up right and used sensibly, it isn't a huge problem.

As regards pre-recorded 4 tracks tapes, it is very much a case of buyer beware. The high speed copying involved is notoriously variable and it is a rare tape indeed which is directly comparable with the equivalent disc, certainly among US mass production, and this goes for the EMI stereo tapes issued in the late 1960s as well. The few Japanese-made tapes I have come across have been uniformly excellent - but then I can't remember a duff Japanese vinyl pressing either...
Ted Kendall is online now  
Old 28th Mar 2018, 12:57 pm   #23
SteveCG
Nonode
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 2,495
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

Put succinctly, back in the 70's the feeling was:

1/2 track for live recordings,

1/4 track for recording LPs (which is quite frankly what most machines were used for!).

The only disadvantage of 1/4 track I can remember was potential drop-outs on the outermost tracks due to tape stretch.
SteveCG is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2018, 6:53 am   #24
ricard
Octode
 
ricard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lund, Sweden
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

It's interesting to note how the different manufacturers viewed 2 vs 4 track. Upmarket manufacturers such as Revox and Tandberg offered their machines in both configurations, where the more consumer oriented such as Philips or Grundig essentially switched from 2- to 4-track in the early 60s and left it at that (although Philips did offer some very basic mono two track machines towards the end of the 60s, probably for cost and simplicity reasons).

Bang & Olufsen hade an interesting take, which I think a couple of others had too, with mid-1960s machines such as the Beocord 2000 De Luxe that were inherently 2 track, for better sound quality, but in addition had a 4 track playback head so that 4 track tapes could be played back (but not recorded) (the Beoworld page on this machine seems to get it backward, or else there were actually two configurations, the one I have definitely only has 4 track playback). By the end of the 1960s, B&O seemed to give in to four track and had that as their only option - or perhaps they felt that technology had advanced far enough to lead them to abandon two track.
ricard is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2018, 8:23 am   #25
wd40addict
Octode
 
wd40addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Stevenage, Herts. UK.
Posts: 1,515
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

Ricard, the 2000 was also available in 1/4 track only without a fourth head (at least in the UK). I have had two of these pass through my hands.
wd40addict is online now  
Old 4th Apr 2018, 12:20 pm   #26
ricard
Octode
 
ricard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lund, Sweden
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: 1/2 or 1/4 track?

Interesting, I thought it was only the 2400 that was offered in that configuration (I have one of those). Still, it's clear that they thought the four track compatibility important enough to include the extra head.
ricard is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 am.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.