Pick of the Pops recordings for salvage

[yestertech]

Mods, not sure if this is correct section for this...

I have recently audited a pile of tapes and was delighted to find some POTP recordings, from late 68-72 or so - AM ,but also including some rare FM music and links from 1968.
These sound particularly good on quick check.
They are mainly at 3 3/4 but there also some at 1 7/8 which my ancient REVOX doesn't accommodate. The track standards seem to vary between 1/4 track stereo format and usual 1/2 track opposite sides etc.

I wonder therefore if I could "donate" these to any fellow POTP fan with the right playback equipment, in return for a transfer to CD of the segments. ( costs covered of course )
Alas, most of these are incomplete, and minus the all important closing chart. But it is good to hear some FM recordings for a change.
In years gone by I would have lifted out just the links and chart run downs to add to my master compilation, all done the old analogue way. Time moves on and alas I'm not proficient with digital recording software ( yet)

There is also what appears to be a 1964 segment, probably recorded with a mike, of new releases. If this can be "tweaked" it is probably worth saving also.

Big ask, I know, but hopefully someone else will enjoy listening to these too !!

Andy
( Lifelong 'Fluff' fan )

[paulsherwin]

You can digitize the 1 7/8 ips tapes by playing them back at 3 3/4 ips and halving the playback speed in software. There is a theoretical loss at the HF end but this is unlikely to be significant with typical domestic recordings and good quality playback recorders. You can also digitize stuff playing backwards and reverse it in software. The only thing you can't (easily) sort out is 4 track tapes played on 2 track equipment.

[julie_m]

That's the way I have done it in the past -- played a 2-track mono tape on my 4-track stereo Akai deck, recorded it in Audacity, split it into 2 mono tracks and reversed the one that used to be the right-hand one. The Akai only does 19 and 9.5 cm/s, but it's possible to play back recordings at 9.5 that were made at 4.8 and halve the speed in software. Of course this limits the theoretical maximum frequency to 11.25 kHz, but it's unlikely for there to be much HF content at that speed anyway.

[Restoration73]

I have all speeds and track formats for quarter-inch tape playback if this is of any help to
you. I prefer to master to CD or Minidisc. Do the tapes have dates marked - this can easily
be researched if not. I spoke to Fluff on the phone a few times.

Tony

[ricard]

Originally Posted by ajs_derby

That's the way I have done it in the past -- played a 2-track mono tape on my 4-track stereo Akai deck, recorded it in Audacity, split it into 2 mono tracks and reversed the one that used to be the right-hand one.

Isn't there a fairly large gap between the two tracks on a two track tape, so that the tracks don't completely cover track 3 (or 2) on a four-track machine, worsening the SNR as half the track read is just silence, i.e. tape noise?

Or is it only two track stereo that has a fairly wide gap between the tracks?

[Michael Maurice]

I've got machines that will run at 1 7/8 and I can digitise them for you.

Being a huge fluff fan, I'd be very happy to do that for you.

Please PM me your details.

[julie_m]

Originally Posted by ricard

Isn't there a fairly large gap between the two tracks on a two track tape, so that the tracks don't completely cover track 3 (or 2) on a four-track machine, worsening the SNR as half the track read is just silence, i.e. tape noise?

Not as I've noticed; certainly the signal level has always seemed about the same on both tracks (I'd expect it to be down, if the head was seeing some unrecorded oxide alongside the recorded bottom track).

But you've got me thinking, now! Was there ever an official standard for the widths of recorded tracks and guard bands between them, or was it all left to the whim of the head manufacturer?

[TIMTAPE]

Yes there definitely were standards laid down for most if not all tape formats, be it CCIR, IEC, NAB or whatever, going from cassette width tapes, to 1/4", 1/2", 1" and 2" tapes, carrying various numbers of tracks.

I think Ricard is right, at least for the US NAB 2 track format but possibly even for the euro standards whose 1/4" 2 track standard was more generous with track width. Play a 1/4" tape recorded on an NAB 2 track machine on a 4 track 4 channel machine and the same track will appear considerably lower on track 2 re track 1, or track 3 re track 4, of a 4 track machine.

It's an easy workaround to play 2 track tapes on a 4 track machine and often there may not appear to be much of a fidelity loss but there will always be some loss, even if it is only more signal dropouts, as not all of the original signal is being read.

Tim

[emeritus]

Thr 1975 edition of the "ITT reference data for radio engineers" gives the NAB specifications (from a 1965 NAB standard document) for 1/4" audio tape as follows:

Tape width: 0.246" ± 0.002"

Track widths/ centre-to-centre

Full track: 0.238"
Two track: 0.082" / 0.156"
Four track: 0.043" / 0.134"

No other mechanical dimensions given, but electrically:

"Adjacent track signal-to-crosstalk ratio shall not be less that 60dB from 200Hz to 10 kHz. Stereophonic channel separation shall be not less than 40dB from 100 Hz to 10 kHz".

[Diabolical Artificer]

I have a pretty simple to use DAW dick that you can have Andy FOC if you want it. Its an old version of Cakewalk. Easy to set up and use. If not I'll be happy to pop your tapes onto CD for you.

Andy.

[ben]

I also have some good Pick of the pops recordings from 1969-1972, most of the links are still present - not 'arf! I also have some Radio Luxemburg from the same era.

Before taking the trouble to digitise the tapes, check on you tube in case someone has already made a clean copy.

[julie_m]

Those figures don't seem to make sense. If the 4 tracks are spaced 134 thou apart, that would make the tape at least 43 + 3 * 134 -- which is self-evidently bigger than 250 without even bothering to work it out.

So I suppose it must be time for some experimentation!

I shall play the same 2-track tape on my Akai, both ways up, and see whether the levels are the same for each track in each direction. If the right-hand head is missing and picking up some of the guard band, I should expect less signal, yes?

[emeritus]

Bearing in mind that, unlike compact cassettes, the tracks are interleaved in reel-to-reel 1/4" tape, so that you use tracks 1 and 3 in one direction and tracks 2 and 4 in the other, I assume the figure of 0.134 refers to the distance betwen the two tracks of a stereo pair and not the distance between physically adjacent tracks, ie the respective 1-3 and 2-4 centre distances. This leaves a possible ambiguity as the distance of a pair relative to the centre of the tape is not stated. Presumably it will in practice be such as to provide equal gaps between all tracks.

[TIMTAPE]

The information I have here is:

1/4 track 0.043" tracks with 0.025" guard bands.

1/2 track 0.075" tracks with 0.84" guard band. (NAB I assume)

Note that on the NAB 2 track specs the guard band is wider than the actual tracks, I guess to allow for a time code track which would not bleed into the audio recordings.

From a book on magnetic recording written by Marvin Camras.

Tim

[ricard]

Originally Posted by ajs_derby

Those figures don't seem to make sense. If the 4 tracks are spaced 134 thou apart, that would make the tape at least 43 + 3 * 134 -- which is self-evidently bigger than 250 without even bothering to work it out.

Actually, the 1965 NAB standard found here http://www.richardhess.com/tape/hist...searchable.pdf seems to say this:

"...four track recordings shall be 0.043 +0.000 -0.004 in width. The center-to-center distances between Tracks 1 and 3, and between Tracks 2 and 4 shall be 0.134 +0.002 -0.000 inches. The four tracks shall be equally disposed across the tape with a tape width of 0.244 inches and the outer edge of Tracks 1 and 4 coincident with the edges of the tape." (my italics/bold).

A bit of an odd way of putting it but I guess the crucial measurement is the spacing of the actual tracks used for stereo reproduction (i.e. 1 and 3, or 2 and 4) with the total layout across the tape playing second fiddle.

(Also note that quarter inch tape isn't; a quarter of an inch would be 6.35 mm but "quarter inch tape" actually is 6.25 mm. Very early tape was 6.35 which can lead to problems when played on modern machines. The 0.244 inches specified comes out at 6.1976 mm which confuses me however; the closest measurement in inches corresponding to 6.25 mm would be 0.246 inches, which equates to 6.2484 mm. A separate discussion though.)

Richard Hess has a diagram here http://richardhess.com/notes/formats...025-reel-tape/ with various reel-to-reel formats, which differentiates between a couple of different two track spacings.

Another one can be found a third of the way down this page http://www9.dw-world.de/rtc/infotheq...magrec_03.html which also has two distinct two-track spacings.

'Tis a jungle, as usual when diving in to the details.

[steve56]

Do you have list whats on the tapes?

[Mgmaudio]

If it is useful for anyone, I have a Sony TC377 tape deck and a Tascam prof. CD recorder and can do transfers to CD.
I also have a Tascam prof. MD recorder which I sometimes utilise, recording from R to R to MD, editing if required, and then to CD.

[Jimmyhaflinger]

by the way, are there some vintage episodes of pick of the pops available for online listening?

[AC/HL]

Same answer as usual, Google:https://www.google.com/search?q=pick...msg=NCSR&noj=1

[Restoration73]

With regard to found recordings, you can only derive the ultimate results from an unknown recording source if the head height and azimuth can be continuously adjusted.
Then of course they can be dsp'd to your preference.