Open reel prerecorded tapes: 2-Track Stereo and 4-Track Stereo tape history

Does anyone know what year each pre-recorded format was introduced and when the last commercial pre-recorded release in each format occurred?

Did production of both pre-recorded formats overlap for a period of time? Or did 2-track pre-recorded tapes die right around the time 4-track tapes came out?

From a high level, I'm aware the 2-track prerecorded stereo tapes were introduced sometime in the 1950s -- but am not clear on the year introduced and what year the tapes went out of production. Same for 4-track stereo tapes -- were they introduced in the early 60s or late 50s?

 

I believe there was overlap. My 1959 reel of Martin Denny's "Quiet Village" has a sticker indicating that it's 4-track. If there was only one version issued, there would be no need to add a sticker, it would have been integrated into the main cover slick.

I have a hifi book from 1956 that shows some stereo ("binaural") tape decks. This was nearly two years before stereo LPs debuted!

 

RCA introduced pre-recorded 2 track Stereo tapes in 1955, and also there was the "Stacked or In-Line heads or Staggered or Displaced heads" formats. 1961 was the last hurrah for 2 track Stereo tapes. 4 track Stereo tapes were introduced in 1958-1959 to the USA, a format Tandberg of Oslo introduced, and Ampex adopted. 4 track open reel tapes soldiered on to some degree until Barclay-Crocker made their last ones in 1986. 3 3/4 IPS became a more common format for pop titles beginning in 1965.

 

Thanks - so prerecorded 2 track stereo tapes were no longer manufactured after 1961? That must have frustrated folks that purchased 1/2 track stereo decks.

Regarding sound quality, I've read the 7.5 ips pre recorded tapes (whether 2-track stereo or 4-track stereo) could sound very good if duplicated at 4x and if other conditions were optimal.

Were there ever instances in which the slower speed 3 3/4 ips pre recorded 4-track stereo tapes sounded excellent -- or were they universally mediocre sounding?

And if reel to reel was more of an audiophile format (that could in theory provide advantages over an LP), why did record labels undercut the sonic benefits of the tape format by slowing down the recording time, thinning out the tape and bumping up the duplication speeds to 8x / 16x etc? Were the record labels just cheap and they didn't care about negating sound quality?

 

3 3/4 IPS tapes could sound OK if in good condition and you got a quality copy. 7 1/2 IPS tended to be better. The duplication speeds were sped up due to demand and keeping prices down. The Classical, Jazz and adult pop, Broadway Cast, and Soundtrack buyers tended to be most all of the pre 1961 tape buyers. Those buyers tended to be very sound quality minded. Youth Pop and Rock music tapes in this format were always especially really variable, the worse of them being little better than a good LP of the day, on the typical good turntable and cartridge, the better ones being very good. Also, bear in mind some record companies supplied better master sources than others. And the better quality source tape supplied for making duplication masters, the better the tapes were. And also QC varied a great deal, some tape companies did better than others.

 

Is there an online resource that lists all known pre-recorded tape titles released in both formats? And are is there a resource that lists known good sounding tapes as well as tapes to stay away from? (Setting aside that tapes can be variable now depending on how they were treated and stored by the owner).

 

The last two track commercial tape from the '60's most likely was "Meet The Beatles" at 3 .75 ips. Direct To Tape (early 1980's) may have released two track tapes as well. Barclay Crocker released one reel as a two track Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky" that was played in one direction but utilized just one direction at 7.5 ips.

 

But "Meet The Beatles" in that format happened to be mono. Alexander Nevsky on Barclay-Crocker was 4 track, single direction only. So not a 2 track tape.

 

Charles King's list on the Yahoo reeltoreel group does a great job on 2 track releases. There isn't one for 4 track tapes which is complete, as there were many issued. Over a longer period of time.

 

$$$ Economics. The stereo LPs that were introduced were a premium product compared to mono LPs and cost more. The LPs of course cost a lot less than the 2 track reel tape versions or the new four track tapes. The consumers of the time voted with their dollars.
I understood your intent when you said "why did record labels undercut the sonic benefits of the tape format by slowing down the recording time" but the recording time was actually lowered because the duplication speed was increased. The introduction of thinner tape stock allowed for longer program material to be produced.
The music critics of the time who auditioned reel tapes complained about the lower sound quality when the four track tapes were released.

 

I am not an audiophile but have bought tapes since the 1970's and to me they mostly sounded better than vinyl but one problem was that as a teen I did not take the best care of them. I had a functional tape recorder up to the early 1990's but the last tape purchased was in the 1970's. I got onto tapes again about 4 years ago and brought a new machine and thought I only had a handful of prerecorded tapes but more turned up and I purchased a few more over the last few years.

Quality varies and some of the 3.75 actually sound better than the 7.5 but mostly the higher speed ones are better. Reading about the history of these tapes on the internet has been fascinating including binaural and early two tracks. The audiophile format is supposed to be the two tracks but the four track machines can handle any type of tape or recording which the two tracks can't.

Below are some pre-recorded reel to reels from my collection but finding and maintaining a good machine these days can be a challenge:

 

That Duophonic Pet Sounds qualifies as worst ever use of the format.

 

I was thinking about reel-to-reel quality earlier today, but I don't want to start a new thread just to ask a question so I figure I will try asking here first. Does anyone else think reel-to-reel has better quality than digital? I took a "new" sealed BASF tape and made myself a playlist of my favorites from the recent Sgt. Pepper Deluxe Box and it sounds great! At 7 1/2 IPS on my Teac I would say it sounds better than what I ripped to my computer (or it actually doesn't and it's just my imagination). I didn't do anything fancy when I ripped the CDs, I just put them in and they rip automatically with what I assume is middling quality.

 

sounds like you've caught the analog bug in all of it's glory.

 

And if I'm not mistaken there is actually one that's worse--in the UK EMI produced what they called 'tape records' which were half track mono 3 3/4 ips reels. These were 5" reels, but oftentimes they actually used 4" reels and had an insert in the tape box to hold the smaller reel inside the 5" sized boxes they used. And when you consider that the UK PET SOUNDS LP is a fold-down of the Duophonic master, you can imagine what their mono reel tape of it must sound like.

 

No doubt about that! Those sealed tapes must be fairly old but the quality is excellent. Reel to reel is absolutely my favorite format now, nothing beats the sound and look of a well made tape player. Too bad there isn't a resurgence for this like there is for vinyl.

 

Agreed. My old Grundig is feeling left out.

 

Some titles were released in both two-track and four-track formats. They would use the same box and then list the track lineups for both versions on the rear.