Question for All Those Tape Experts

[MylesBAstor]

Lot to learn from the old timers! Imagine if Keith Johnson had concentrated his efforts on continuing to develop his tape deck instead of digital? It will be interesting to see if people other than Greg Beron will work on developing a totally new 21st century tape deck. Like Chad did incorporating new technology into his record presses. But like tape, the old timers who knew the presses inside and out, are falling by the wayside.

[JDZA]

Thanks Myles. Every day I learn something new. The more I learn the less I know!

Why can the world not learn? As baffling as all the tape standards were,industry then went and made digital storage,decoding,transmission even more baffling! At least there is only one RIAA curve for vinyl....oh no wait ,there is DIN and Neumann and TELDEC and then there is the can of worms that is MONO vinyl !

[MylesBAstor]

Thanks for all that info!

[MylesBAstor]

Hi Johann,

I guess I just got the idea from reading Bob Morrison's article on the AES website.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/

Scroll down to Magnetic Tape Recording heading and then the second piece "Standard Tape Manual." That was the way Bob described the difference in track widths in section 7-10.

Oh Bruce, if the aforementioned made your head hurt, read Morrison's review of tape technology.

[Asamel]

My head hurts.

[Tunes]

Good post. Nagra t audio used the same distinction, 2-track (broadcast) and stereo versions as you describe for Studer.

[JDZA]

AFAIK it is not a US/European thing but rather what the tape was intended to do.Studer distinguished between the two by calling the 1mm gap heads 2 Track and the narrower gap heads Stereo. On the wider gap setup the erase head would have two tracks allowing for individual recordings ( and erasure) on either track ie multitrack but only 2 channels. Stereo machines would have a mono erase head as it is not possible to erase only one channel with such narrow separation . Both channels had to be recorded simultaneously.

This is of no importance for most of us unless we hit the record button incidentally ( a catostrophe!). It does become important when one records say over a previosly recorded stereo tape with a 2 track machine as the content present in the guard track will not be erased.The 1mm guard track is also the convenient spot for a sync track . This makes playback of a 2 track with sync track on a stereo machine a very unpleasant experience.

I do think that the wider gap provides audibly better stereo separation but cannot comment on S/N . The Tape Project explained that they chose the wider guard for better channel separation with what they regarded as no significant increase in noise or dynamics.

Of course a tape should be played back as recorded which is why any serious Audiophile should have seven machines operational at all times: One each for wide guard NAB,narrow Guard NAB, two for the equivalent IEC, one for mono,one for 1/4 track playback and one to record on.

[MylesBAstor]

Is there a reason why we went with the US and not the European standard for track width for 2-track, 1/4-inch tape? It would seem a wider recorded track would be better but is the spacing between the two tracks more important? I know some European tape companies, for example Quinton comes to mind, ask which configuration you want.

For instance:

US: Track width: 0.075 inches; guard track: 0.084 inches
Eur: Track width: 0.108 inches; guard track: 0.03 inches