Does anyone remember 3.25-inch spools?

[Phil G4SPZ]

I can clearly remember seeing three-and-a-quarter inch reels of tape for sale back in 1965. I couldn't afford to buy one then! I wish I had, because nowadays there seems to be no references to them anywhere (well, not on Google anyway).

Please tell me I'm not going dotty in my old age...

[Biggles]

I have a couple of Philips? early solid state reel to reel machines which use those spools, so they can be accommodated in the limited space available. I also have a little Japanese machine which uses them too. I'm not sure how long the recording time is but it can't be very long compared to the full size machines.
Alan.

[Reelman]

If you ever bought the red EMITAPE tape containers in the 3” size they came with a thick cardboard ring that surrounded the 3” spool. If removed the case would then take a 3.25” spool......
Not sure if EMI ever made a spool in that size.
Peter

[ben]

There were all sorts of small reels. I have some 2.5 inch BASF jobs, pretty sure I also have 3.25" and even 4.5 inch Italian made spools. Above 5" things got a bit more standardized!

[G8UWM-MildMartin]

I certainly remember 3" nominal reels.
They may well have lost 0.25" in rough conversion from metric to imperial.

[camtechman]

Here's the 3.25" spool from my Sanyo MR212 Reel to Reel tape recorder and it's even embossed with the Sanyo name (see pic).

Unfortunately, I only have one spool and I've been looking for another spool to complete the machine.

So far I've not been successful in finding another identical one.

[Phil G4SPZ]

Nice to see that example, thanks. Martin, there were definitely two different diameters, 3” and 3.25”, and I’m glad my memory isn’t playing tricks on me as I remember a shopkeeper trying to persuade me to buy the bigger (full) reel of tape. Sadly I don’t remember if it was branded.

The outside circumference of the full 3.25” tape reel is around 17% greater than that of a standard 3” reel. Depending on the thickness of the tape, I guess that it would contribute a worthwhile increase in playing time, although the fact that 3.25” reels have virtually disappeared suggests that few users felt it worthwhile.

[Biggles]

I assume that the small reels were to make the machines more portable i.e. easier to lug around. Most of the large machines were a bit heavy in my experience. Maybe around that time the compact cassette took over the portable market. No spooling up/spilled tape, faffing around I suppose. Quick and easy in the office environment for applications like dictation machines etc. Now then who remembers the micro cassette?
Alan.

[Restoration73]

My Alba R19 (made by Sanyo) uses the 3.25" reels, I only have one. There was a brief
period of machines with capstan drive and small reels that operated at 1 7/8 and 3 3/4
ips, they could sound good at the higher speed. I had one badged Realistic purchased in
the U.S. which took 4" reels c.1970

[TonyDuell]

Originally Posted by Biggles

Now then who remembers the micro cassette?
Alan.

I remember the microcassette which was a Japanese design using a capstan/pinch roller (in record/play mode). Also used for data storage in the Epson HX20, PX8 etc laptops.

I also remember the minicassette which was a Philips design with spool drive only. Totally incompatible with the microcassette.

And the HP82176 cassette which similar to an minicassette (and also just spool drive) but incompatible with it. Used in the HP82161 HPIL tape drive.

And the Grundig Stenocassette which was different again.

I think I have examples of all of them with machines to use them (I certainly do for the first 3 I mentiomed).

Getting back to small tape spools, I remember the 3" spools (and have a Philips EL3586 to use them). One company sold cardboard mailing packages for them, so you could use them to send recorded speech to penfriends and the like. I don't specifically remember 3.25" spools though.

[Tractorfan]

Hi,
I'm sure I've got a few EMI 3.25" spools here somewhere. I could never see the advantage of them, however, because they had a larger hub which must have limited the amount of tape they could hold.
Cheers, Pete.

[emeritus]

I have a 800' spool of Kodak quadruple play tape on a 3 1/4" spool that I bought (at full price) circa 1964. It wasn't cheap, but did provide the longest recording time I could get at the time with my Philips EL3585 battery tape recorder. I never did find an empty spool of the same size, so usually used a 4" take-up spool, although if I wanted to operate it with the cover on, a small hub 3" spool could be used if handled with care when turning over at the tape end.

The KJ catalogue for 1971 only lists two brands that offer tape on 3 1/4" spools: International (600'), and Kodak, in long play (300'), double play (400') and triple play (600'). Quadruple play was by then only available on a 3" spool (600'), so the extra 1/4" allowed an additional 200' capacity.

The Kodak tapes were being sold cheaply as discontinued items as Kodak were withdrawing from the UK market. Empty EMI 3 1/4" spools were offered, also empty 3 1/2" BASF ones. Empty 2 3/8" and 2 1/2" spools were also available.

The Philips 3" tape that was provided with my EL3585 came in a cardboard box that was designed for posting, with fields for the address and a postage stamp.

[Phil G4SPZ]

Thank you very much, Emeritus, for that comprehensive information. The prices in that catalogue look so cheap, even for 1971! Clearly, the 3 1/4" reel size was being offered by several suppliers at the time, so take up cannot have been great. 800 feet of tape would have given you almost 90 minutes of continuous recording time per side on your EL3585, very impressive by the standards of the day. My experience of those Philips R-R machines is that they were capable of really good sound quality, way better than the early cassette recorders.

My entry into tape recording was with a Japanese Miny 501 rim-drive machine, which would take 3 1/4" reels, and that would also have been around 1964 or thereabouts. Tapesponding with a school chum who had a similar machine was quite fun! I've still got a couple of 3" message tapes but no 3 1/4" ones.

[emeritus]

I found that the quadruple play tape subjectively gave a better high frequency response than thicker tapes, although I never attempted to measure it objectively. Possibly the thinner tape allowed a more intimate contact with the record/playback head. From memory, the user manual for the EL3585 specifies the frequency response as 120Hz to 5,500 Hz. ( I do still have it, and the (presently non-working) recorder, but they are in the shed and our garden is still pretty icy.) I think that the later EL3586 has a better high frequency response.

By the time I discovered the KJ catalogue I had switched to using cassettes with an EL3302 which had a better frequency response (80Hz- 10kHz?). The motor and rubber tyres of the EL3585 needed replacing so I never bothered getting a 3 1/4" empty spool.

I seem to remember that in 1971 you could get a decent pre-war semi in the London suburbs for about £3.5k!

[Phil G4SPZ]

Originally Posted by emeritus

I think that the later EL3586 has a better high frequency response.

80Hz to 8,000Hz, according to a German language service manual I just looked at. I briefly owned an EL3586 and it did sound very good indeed.

[Ted Kendall]

Larger hub sizes ease the problem of end-of-reel wow on most machines, which have constant angular tension.

Kodak Quadruple Play, because of its thin oxide coating, was found on review to have an HF output largely independent of bias level.

[emeritus]

Philips 3" and 4" spools were made with two different hub sizes. I posted photos of them on a thread on this forum some years ago.

[emeritus]

Correction: I did not post the photos, only the dimensions. I had taken photos for reference but did not post them. Emitape was also supplied in large and small hub versions. See #6 of this closed thread.

https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/...d.php?t=100899

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by emeritus

I found that the quadruple play tape subjectively gave a better high frequency response than thicker tapes, although I never attempted to measure it objectively. Possibly the thinner tape allowed a more intimate contact with the record/playback head.

Yes and another factor mentioned by Ted: the thinnness of the oxide layer meant that the bias effect was closer to uniform from the front surface of the oxide layer to the back, the bias having less drop off with the shorter distance. Treble is recorded on the surface of the tape so with a thinner oxide later, there is less oxide available for the lows underneath that surface layer. With an infinitely thin oxide layer, I guess a change in bias would affect all frequencies equally and there would be no trade off between overbiased highs and underbiased lows which is part and parcel of real world tapes.

I bought my first recorder , a battery powered Stuzzi Magnette, back in '68. One of the tapes it came with was a 3.5" Quadruple Play Kodak. I noticed that it seemed to have better highs but now realize it was probably lacking in lows due to the thinner oxide layer. I think I read somewhere that that Kodak tape was acetate.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

I think I read somewhere that that Kodak tape was acetate.

Some of it was - T100 standard play, certainly, but the thinner stuff was Mylar. A review of the original Revox A77 bemoaned the fact that the reviewer now owned several feet of Kodak quadruple play plastic string - although in fairness the same review indicates that he was misinformed about the tension switch. Acetate doesn't stretch, it snaps, which is one reason why some studios stuck with it so long - spooling accidents were more recoverable.