Why did 2-head recorders persist so long?

[julie_m]

Given how much easier it is to build a three-head tape recorder than a two-head tape recorder (at least in the case of reel-to-reel machines), and the serious disadvantage of not being able to listen to the signal you have just recorded, how come two-head machines persisted for so long?

Was all that complicated switching really cheaper than an extra valve?

[DOFFERY]

In the main, cost!

Colin.

[GMB]

COST!

Tape heads were quite expensive I seem to remember, and also a 2-head machine only needed one high-gain amplifier - so much cheaper.

[brenellic2000]

Third opinion? Cost!

The vast majority of tape decks were sold to 'domestic' users who had little interest in monitoring a signal nor in 'hi-fidelity' - just like today when people buy digital radios and get awful sound - but hey!, its still 'music'.

Marriotts (and others) even produced all-in-one erase/record/playback heads for ultra cheap/compact decks; not many were made.

Barry

[ALANS ANITAS]

Of course Collaro did make a deck with four heads, but only two on each track.

ALAN

[TIMTAPE]

Not forgetting that these days when the overwhelming use of analog tape machines is mere replay, even audio professionals involved in this work actually get by with a modified one head machine. Not only that, it works better.

Not much need for record and erase heads any more.
Tim

[DOFFERY]

Tim,
I think AJS was thinking of the vast majority of older machines using two heads in the "olden" days before R/R lost favour to all the modern recording medias, alas. It was purely cost & in my humble opinion I will take analogue recording before digital any day.

You are quite right in your last sentence however , as quality is a last thought today with all the technical "advances" of recent years. Present requirements remind me of the days of the introduction of 4 track & lower speeds enabling much more info. to be recorded on the medium, as per today ie. cram.

I for one regret DB & would much prefer good FM on radio in particular.

Colin.

[julie_m]

Hmm ..... so consensus is that it was all about cost, then? Maybe the "race to the bottom" isn't such a new phenomenon after all! Has anybody got a parts catalogue with tape head prices in it?

@ Alan -- I think I know the deck you're talking about, the Collaro "Transcriptor" (two-way transport). The later Collaro "Studio" tape deck (one-way transport) had space for a third head, though this was unpopulated on the example I saw.

[DOFFERY]

AJS,
That would depend on the year you have in mind, however back in the 60's a Grundig head might cost £3. 00 in the 8o's £24. 00

The same with most firms, although firms such as Teac, Tandberg, Revox, you would not get much change out of £100.00 in the later years.

Colin.

[brenellic2000]

Don't forget that when an optional head was offered, such as on Brenells, it bore little relationship to the true cost of the head as companies made more profit from spares than on the initial outlay on the tape recorder. This is especially today with printers and ink/toner.

Even at their peak in the late 1960s, a good quality tape deck cost a lot of pocket-money when compared to today.

As Colin says, imported German heads cost a fortune, not helped by 20%+ import tariffs, compared to high quality, high volume UK made Marriotts or low volume Branch & Appleby heads.

Barry

[dave walsh]

Interesting. Undoubtedly the overwhelming expert answer supplied here [by people who know] ie "Cost" is correct. Looking at it from the other side though, perhaps manufacturers weren't just lowering quality. They were trying to make a simpler technology for use by people unlikely to be more technically inclined and often buying a Xmas present in the way you might get an I-Player today. There were cost implications between 2 and four track, soaring even more with an extra head [as mentioned] it's true. Consumers like me though, didn't know the overall level was that bad and it seemed magical to record anything! 4 track wasn't such a poor alternative as may be suggested. I remember being particularly keen to have this configuration as the amount of tape I could afford was limited and using 4 Tr mono was a boon in recording length.

Perhaps the three head costing issue was overcome by scale when the 4000 series came out in the 70's but it's clever design meant that very acceptable results could be obtained from 4 tracks and the slowest [standard domestic?] speed. Well I think so anyway. They sold a few!
Dave W

[brenellic2000]

Dave is spot on about cost of tape being a deciding factor in 2 vs 4-track domestic models, well into the mid-1960s. Good tape was not cheap and whereas a stereo tape-record was playable on 4-track mono, the cost of a 2nd 'stereo amp' attachment was high and a full stereo domestic tape recorder was beyond the reach of most households until the early 1970s Japanese influx.

Few domestic users noticed a significant difference between 2 and 4 track sound quality.

As to quality, the 'Value Engineering' which destroyed the British motor industry of the 1970s was kept at bay by Thorn at their dedicted Newhaven plant, but few others used the Thorn deck, sticking to BSR and Magnavox-Collaro whose quality suffered in the face of better Japanese design and quality.

Barry