No! Super wide. Don't be afraid and embrace the hard panning of 1960's stereo. Yea, even a narrow stereo would be nice. 10 - 12 - 2 0'clock.
A question for you, Mr. Morris, I digitized some Coke two track reels back in 2006, on a Teac A-3440. The Teac will play two track tapes on tracks 1 and 4. The 4 track width is obviously about half the width of a two track head, so we lost about 3dB in signal to noise. (noise is still very low however, really not an audible problem in this case) My greater concern, I read somewhere (can not find where) that the sound quality may be affected by play on a narrower track head.. that the sound may be "thinner" some reduced bass and midrange. I wonder if this is true? I do find that the archived tapes do sound treble enhanced to me. I experimented by eq compensation, about +2dB at 100Hz, and a gentle curve to about -1.5dB at 7kHz... then flat out from there. Why does the eq'd waveform sound just right, vs the straight transfer too bright? I was careful to align the head azimuth to the tape, to avoid phase coloration and maintain high frequency response. I am thinking much better to fly to SC with a two track deck which obviously the tapes should be played on a two track. (a former colleague at the radio station where I worked... he rescued the tapes from the dumpster) He will not ship them to me.. can not blame him. The tapes probably have developed sicky-shed by now, and must be baked. Why all the fuss? His tapes sound fantastic, despite the brightness. Going online, the same cuts I have found, sound awful. I could post sound clips if interested. In your experience, does play on a narrower track affect the bass and midrange that much, that a total of 3.5dB (treble) attenuation would correct that? Thanks! Steve VK
I cannot lie! Pro analog sounds great. A pain in the ass to maintain but what a sound. I do miss it. I still say that Super VHS HI-FI was some of the best consumer analog I have ever heard for under for $800. I would appreciate any thoughts on this issue.....
You did what with a what?!?! Nooooooooooo!!! (Like Darth Vader at the end of Episode 3) Why? What did that poor tape do to you? Down to the matter at hand..... Is this the Teac A-3440? Or the Teac A-3440S? Your semi-pro Teac has a 4 and 2 channel playback switch yes? Your Teac has a quarter inch 4 track playback head. It can playback a stereo tape but only on tracks 1 and 4. Yes? Unfortunately playing back a quarter inch half track tape on a quarter inch quarter track machine is a no no. I am surprised it even worked. No amount of fiddling or adjusting will help this issue. You really need to play the things back on a quarter inch half track machine. Yes. Bass will be crappy among other things. You got real stones for even trying that! Best of luck.
Naaa! (thanks for your reply) The A-3440 is not a 4 track stereo machine. The A3440 is a multitrack 4 track... trks 1 & 4 are on the tape edges, and yes a half track tape will play reasonably well on a 4 track multitrack. (the A3340 would have the "s" option, the later model A3440 is logic controlled.. no tape handling problems with this machine) As I mentioned, any half track should be played on a half track head, (obviously) and as mentioned we lose 3dB on the 4 track. You're a pro-guy, so I am guessing you're not familiar with the A-3440? It's a semi-pro machine. Ok, we can bypass the question. At that time (2006) I only had the A3440 to archive the radio spots. The transfer sounds great, and was done by all the correct protocols, azim adjusted to tape for max hi freq response and no phase coloration, cleaned demagged heads, minimal head wear, no azimuth drift, and correct pitch. I had assumed the freq response would be the same (and could be) so that was my question. Does play on a narrower laminated gap (narrower track width) cause frequency aberration? Only one source online said YES it does! Not to confuse with a tape recorded on a track width let's say 0.043 inches then played on a wider half track almost twice the width, which would then play some unrecorded parts of the tape, and add a lot of hiss. a no-no, can't do that. I'll run a test tape I made on my former PR-99, and note its freq response on the A3440. No the tape is not a calibrated test tape, however on the PR-99 showed a nice flat response from 40Hz to 20kHz at -20 dBu
To simplify: 1) I archived about 30 cuts from Radio station reels back in 2006, two track tapes 2) I only had my Teac A3440 to play these, which tracks 1 and 4 line up with the two track tapes. 3) Play on a less wide track width results in an increase of 3dB of noise (hiss) although still the noise level is very low at about-58dB (as per audacity referenced to zero signal.... noise isn't part of my question) 4) The sound quality is very good, but does sound a bit bright to me 5) I am just getting around (15 years later) to listen again, reassess, possibly adjust. 6) I read an article that stated a frequency difference when played on a different (narrower) track width (the article states also two tracks can be played on trks 1 & 4 on a four track multitrack) The difference is said to be slightly thinner sound, some mid and bass attenuation. (which would explain why the tapes sound bright on the 4 track) 7) If this is true, I prefer to fly to SC to do his entire box, with my current half track deck 8) I have since thought to run my test tone tape made on a PR-99 to see if there are any noticeable freq aberrations when played on a 4 track multitrack. 9) My question is: does half track played on a four track (lined up) cause frequency response changes? 10) I'll probably answer my own question, and get back on this.... Thanks Mike for your reply, and no I am not a hack recordist!
May I suggest the Studer A800 Mark 1, 1 inch 8 track. A nice vintage machine. But not too vintage... Not cheap but then quality never is. If you can find a better 1 inch 8 track then let me know. Make sure you get a head report.
Here is my best answer. Can you play back a quarter inch full track tape back on quarter inch half track machine? Sure. But you really shouldn't do it. Can you play back a Dolby B encoded tape without the Dolby B decode? Sure, people did it all the time. But it is incorrect and will lead to extra noise and frequency imbalance. I have even played back DBX Type 2 tapes without DBX decode. But then my IQ was measured at 70. No joke. Don't ask. Long story. But a really bad idea. Play your tapes back on the proper machine. Then you will get the best sound out of them. What you are doing now is a compromise.
There's something inspiring about using an old, simple and tactile workflow. I only had 4 tracks. Someone cautioned you it sounds good only if you don't bounce. That'd be news to the Beatles! I get the romantic notion of retracing the Lewis and Clark Expedition using a canoe, and foraging food you find along the way. (Someone did this recently) Yes, analog sounds different from analog-style digital. It's more than sound. It's the tactile workflow. Blade editing. Countless causes and effects that influence the final result. Best wishes on your quest. Sounds fun and your results may end up sounding terrific. It's art you're pursuing and the analog sound and workflow definitely has a role.
Big thing to know about the Beatles and EMI in the UK. The Studer 4 track machines they used, used 1" wide tape. Far better S/N ratio, twice the tape real estate the USA 1/2" wide 4 track machines used in professional recording had then. They could bounce a little more than we could before quality went downhill.
Oh yes. I know. The class system is in full swing using analog. Good, better, best, as an Olson catalog used to say. I had beer budget gear only. Later, when I got a chance to use other people's higher tier gear, I came to appreciate the beauty of the best professional level gear. And I never got my hands on one-inch sound recorders!
It's also in this case, the difference between European professional practice (Telefunken and Studer, both 1" wide 4 track companies) versus the USA professional tape machine industry and it's professional practice (4 track on 1/2" wide tape the USA standard. Which replaced 3 tracks on 1/2" wide tape. Then popular with Ampex, Scully, and 3M/Mincom). We used 1" wide tape on 8 tracks as the professional standard format in studios in the 1960's.
Thanks for your attention, John, very much appreciated! Yes, I simply didn't have a half track to play these, and so I compromised with the four track. It is wishful thinking on my part that the freq response and sound would be the same, except for signal to noise. I am now baking the half track test tape (Ampex 456) so see how the A-3440 does, just to satisfy my curiosity. All of that aside, my friend still has the Coke reels, most of which we did not archive back in 2006. So I'll have a half track deck to to the job right... this time! By the way, even the wrong way sounds light years better than any examples found online. The Supremes, The Troggs, Petula Clark... (with Wrecking Crew) SHOULD sound amazing, but tragic that these commercials have otherwise been poorly digitized, -or- from lossy sources -or- done by amateurs.
Mmmm.....True. except The Fab 4 bounced from one 4 track to another 4 track. There was no internal bouncing. A Studer J-37 is 30 - 15 000 hz +1 / -2db @ 15 ips Record / Play. Now the frequency response for sync mode is something else. This is assuming the J-37 could internally bounce. Because of design limitations many pro machines cannot internally bounce. And if they can, not usually to adjacent ffĺĺtored you would get distortion and feedback. There is a good0 reason why pros don't internally bounce. For argument's sake let us say that the J-37 could internally bounce. You won't be getting 30 - 15 000 hz +1 / -2db on the bounce. If you are lucky 70 - 12 000 hz. And that would great if the machine could do that! More like 90 - 10 000 hz. This is done for overdubs and adding new tracks but not for a bounce down. It was on good reason digital multitracks were so embraced by the industry. The lossless internal bounce. Now the impossible was possible.
Half inch 4 track was pretty standard over here in the mid 1960's. Those early half inch Ampex 3 tracks machines could not do punch ins or over dubs. You had to record all 3 tracks at once. That is the way Motown did it until they modified their Ampex 3 track in 1960 . Correct me if I am wrong. I believe the 3M 23, 1 inch 8 track came out April 1966, followed by Dolby Labs - Dolby A in May 1966, then the Scully 284 (later to renamed the 284-8) 1 inch 8 track; finally followed by the Scully 1 inch 12 track in August of 1967 (284-12). I don't think Ampex and other companies brought out an 8 track model until 1968. But not sure. Considering the competition you would think both Studer and Ampex would have an 8 track model out by 1967 at least. Any thoughts guys??
I'm confused about internal bouncing. What would anyone want to bounce in sync mode? (If I understand this correctly?) It is entirely possible to bounce tracks from the PLAY head to any other track ( ie: 4 track stereo Lch to Rch, to add an instrument or vocal -or- multitrack to any other track.. of course this would be out of sync with other existing tracks.. .) When internally bouncing tracks, only the first mixed track, such as drums could be mixed with live tambourine, maybe bass.. a stereo mix on tracks 1 and 2. This frees up the remaining tracks for everything else. The bounce will always be lossy, but less of that on a fatter track. In my semi-pro recording experience, I always discouraged bouncing for the sake of creativity, to favor higher quality! Exceptional would be The Beatles from the Revolver era and later. The Beatles conquered the world with a little help from their friends!
Finally baked some Ampex 456, success! How refreshing to play these as they once were, no shedding, no "edge slivers" on the table, no dropouts. I'm much happier I stopped digitizing them back in 2004, as then it was thought the sticky problem was limited to a few bad batches. Listening through headphones, I noticed some "thumps", faint but there. I blamed this on the deck, maybe a bad cap in the signal path. Soon after I read that the sicky-shed problem wasn't just a few bad batches.... but like a viral outbreak thought to be only regional, this was at pandemic level, and my tapes showing the early symptoms. Fast forward to 2021, to answer my question, "Can a 2 track tape be played on a 4 track multitrack head without frequency response loss? I played the half track test tone tape on the A-3440. The result is the opposite of what I expected. The tape isn't calibrated, and recorded my former Revox PR-99 on factory cal. It was recorded at 0dB, I presume, not -20dB as I had thought. The meter cal would also factor in, can not assume accuracy here. But anyway, I am seeing -5dB at 1kHz, both tracks (1 &4) dead on. (a good indication the A3440 is performing well) 1kHz -5dB (referencing this to 0dB) 100Hz -3dB (net +2dB) 10kHz -6dB (net -1dB) 20kHz, -7dB (net -2dB The frequency sweep confirms the spot frequency tones. So, the digitized Coke tapes sound bright to me, which I expected to see the test tones also to be bass deficient. Just the opposite, we have +2dB at 100Hz, and a slight bump to +3.5dB at 60 Hz So according to my uncalibrated test, I see no major frequency deviation. Also to mention, decks with interchangeable head assemblies, 2 track to 4 track, still operate on the same NAB or IEC curves. However still in question, despite my test result, does a half track recorded tape play exactly the same on a four track multitrack head? I must assume it doesn't... not recommended anyone does... (and given signal to noise degradation of 3dB) however it (should) play reasonably well without any major surprises.
Yes, out of sync. You got it. Hence the sync mode. If you wanna bounce with all your tracks in sync you have to use it. But frequency response will suffer major big time. And this is why no one in the Pro industry (might be some crazy fool!) do not internal bounce. Semi pro multitracks are designed to internally bounce. But you will seriously kill your frequency repsonse. I have seen sync response as bad as 7.5 khz! Long story. When you take tracks 1, 2 and 3 and try to bounce them to 4 your are using what is called sync mode. Assuming you can the frequency response will suck and blow. Most Pro multitracks cannot do this. And if they can, not adjacent tracks Feedback and distortion is a real issue. One way of dealing with this is to alter the top and bottom end response in sync mode. This was a major issue Ampex had to overcome in their first 8 track. Back in the 1950's all we had were the Ampex half inch 3 track machine. These tape machines were NOT multitrack. You could not record on Tracks 1 and 2. Then record on 3 while playing back 1 and 2. No punch ins either. Seems crazy today but back then this was a major obstacle. We take this for granted today on analog machines but back in the 1950's it was, "You wanna do what!?" Just playing back pre-recorded tracks while recording a new one and being able to hear all the tracks at once in sync and not get feed back and distortion is tricky. We take it for granted today. So when a member suggests, "Maybe it was an internal bounce" i laugh. Why not right? Most pro multitracks cannot internally bounce. And if you could you would seriously compromise the sound. This is what made the 4 track cassette recorder so remarkable back in 1979. 40 - 12 500 hz +-3db even in sync mode for a 4 track cassette recorder was remarkable back in 1979. Many semi pro reel to reels couldn't pull that off. I am talking about frequency response on sync mode. Not Record/Play response. I am not saying that a 4 track cassette recorder is better than a quarter inch 4 track either.
You got it. Not in sync. You had to bake a Ampex 456? Really? I know most of the Scotch/3M were SSS. I am not saying I have never baked a 456 but not too often.
Yep, my first Ampex 456 squealed on FF just to get to the first cut. How one can tell otherwise if a tape is sticky? Just allow the tape to fall off the pack on its own weight. If the tape "sticks" or adheres even slightly, it is sticky or statically charged. As you know, the tape may or may not play normally. If it sticks, chances are oxide has been ripped off the base, and the tape irreparably damaged. I have discovered two types of shedding, the oft reported general shed which deposits gunk on the heads, and edge shedding. I do have a Scotch 206 with a 1978 WVKR (Vassar College) radio program from my father's Grundig radio. I don't know how, but "Ext speaker out" to "Line In" worked. The Grundig was EL-84 class A, specs terribly but sounds pretty darn good. My tapes have always been stored in their boxes, reasonably well controlled environment, never subjected to adverse humidity nor temp variation. You may recall awhile back, I inquired here about the best baking method/ devices.. you suggested a food dehydrator. But instead, I gave it a try in my Nesco electric oven, and ventilated accordingly, no fan, just simply a slightly jogged lid. I arranged the tapes vertically in the supplied rack, and rotated once or twice during a 10 to 12 hour bake time. To keep an eye on the temp, I purchased a precision thermometer. The Nesco worked like a charm for me, although I can not argue the effectiveness of a food dehydrator. I found a higher temperature much more effective, at 150F, vs the recommended 140F... my first attempt at 140F for 16 hours still shed some oxide on FF/ REW on the tape edges (a non-critical tape of course) This was with the thermometer bulb placed on the tape, very important since you'll get a different reading when suspended in air, or on the oven rack. (higher reading on the steel rack) Dialing back a few weeks, I had a problem with a Maxell 35-180B that I thought was ok, assumed to be not a SSS candidate.. a mistake as it shed tiny shards of oxide (or back coating) at the base of the deck. (edge shedding, no deposits on the heads however) But worst of all, this tape contains some valuable material, which now suffers drop outs, apparently some pieces "hanging on" to the edge and compacted in the tape pack. I was able to recover the tape 99% by cleaning it on slow advance with microfiber soaked with isopropyl.. yeah I know... not recommended, but determined with reckless abandon, this worked. (I have used IPA to clean splices without issue, which STILL after 3 decades play through without a dropout) Cleaning was followed by baking. The remaining few drop outs were dealt with via 2 to 3 passes, and via digital editing cut/paste good sections into a seamless cut.
Try kissing your tapes. That worked for me....Once. when I was drunk. I hope it all works out. At present I have a live show that was recorded on two 24 track MCI JH24 machines back in 1979. Problem is the sync pulses won't read on the tapes. The level is too low or something. I told the client NO PROBLEM.
Digital recording matured a long time ago. The age of low resolution 16 bit digital is over. I would forget analog unless you have $10 000 to spend. Other idea. The Tascam Model 12. The Tascam 10 track recorder. (Not really 12) You can record 8 mono tracks at once or 6 mono tracks and 2 stereo tracks at once. This means you can record at once: 1 - bass 2 - lead guitar 3 - rhythm guitar 4 - vocal 5 - kick 6 - snare 7/8 - stereo overheads 9/10 - stereo keyboard. And in perfect digital 20 - 20 000 hz +- 0.5 db quality with 120 db of dynamic range and unmeasurable wow and flutter. Try that with analog! The Tascam comes with ultra quiet - 128 dba mic preamps. That is beyond 21 bit of dynamic range! Forget computer screens and the mouse.... Each channel has - Fader with MUTE, MAIN , SUB and SOLO buttons. - 2 Aux sends. (1 and 2 can be set either for post of pre fader level) - 3 band EQ. +- 15 db low..... 100 hz Mid..... sweepable High....10 khz - Low cut bottom - Compressor level knob. - trim level. On Amazon.ca it is going for $1300 but you can get it a lot cheaper. The 24 track version has 3 Aux sends and it does for $100 more. Here is DAW that is digital but is exactly like using an analog mixer and tape recorder. That big drum sound you are looking for when the tape is overloaded is what you get from a 2 on 24 track machine when you hit the meters hard to the end. You will not get that sound from a half inch 8 track. And for God's sake DO NOT touch any quarter inch 8 track or a half inch 16 track. If you must buy analog stick to a 1 inch 8 track. This will get you the sound you are looking for. Forget internally bouncing beyond vocals. And NEVER internally bounce to adjacent tracks. Buy your 1 inch tape in mass bulk. Then you will get a good price.
