Tape machine questions

R

Robertobly

New member
Hello,

I know these are quite possibly hard questions to answer & perhaps a little 'open ended'. However any help would be greatly appreciated & help a young band of brothers onto the next step of recording their music :)

1. Q when does bouncing have a noticeable effect on the quality (ie if you are using a 4 track 1/4" reel to reel machine when does it stop being the quality u get from just those 4 tracks used with no bouncing)

2. Q is 1" 8 track running at 30ips same as 2" 16 track running at 15ips. (same inch per track)...
we know tape speed changes req response independent of width (ie 30 ips is 'brighter' & 15 ips is less top end & better for lower freqs). does reducing tape width reduce fidelity independent of speed.

3. Q 2 diff mastering scenarios -
A straight out of reel to reel via an a/d into a DAW (then rendering a WAV)
B through a mixer into 2 (stero) track 1/2" or 1/4" tape - then digitizing from the master tape or vinyl made from the master.
what are the implications of these different set ups with regard to the end sound. is it going to be hard to tell the difference or are there any big differences going on?

4. big diff? whats the diff? between 2" 8 track (1/4" per track) & 2" 16 track (1/8" per track) - both runnin same speed (15 or 30 ips)


Regards & thanks in advance for any help you can give,

Rob
 
Last edited:
Robertobly said:
1. Q when does bouncing have a noticeable effect on the quality (ie if you are using a 4 track 1/4" reel to reel machine when does it stop being the quality u get from just those 4 tracks used with no bouncing)
Click to expand...

There are two types of bouncing. One is internal (inside of the recorder) and the other is external (outside to another tape deck and back again). The external bounce works best, to preserve quality, especially when your other recorder is of same or higher quality.

As far as bouncing / no bouncing and its effect on quality. Well, the quality suffers from each bounce, a bit at a time but how much it becomes noticeable depends on several things, some of which were mentioned above. It's best to judge these things yourself.

You can do a lot to negate the effect of bouncing and some of them being externally bouncing to another tape machine (or even your PC or CD recorder - if you're not dead set on having all things done analogue), and adjusting EQ prior to shuttling your mix to a second tape deck.

2. Q is 1" 8 track running at 30ips same as 2" 16 track running at 15ips. (same inch per track)...
we know tape speed changes req response independent of width (ie 30 ips is 'brighter' & 15 ips is less top end & better for lower freqs). does reducing tape width reduce fidelity independent of speed.
Click to expand...

I'll answer it like this: The wider the track & the faster the speed, the more tape oxide is available to store the source signal, which means bigger and more detailed sound, which means a lot more frequency "beef", how I would call it, gets captured on every inch of tape.

3. Q 2 diff mastering scenarios -
A straight out of reel to reel via an a/d into a DAW (then rendering a WAV)
B through a mixer into 2 (stero) track 1/2" or 1/4" tape - then digitizing from the master tape or vinyl made from the master.
what are the implications of these different set ups with regard to the end sound. is it going to be hard to tell the difference or are there any big differences going on?
Click to expand...

If what you mean by (A) is that you wish to mix and master the tape multitrack inside of your computer then, sure, this can be done but it's certainly not ideal, as you lose quality when you begin processing the audio. If then you wish to render a WAV and transfer to Vinyl then there's no point to it 'cause it's not an analogue source anymore. Your best bet would be to totally stay in the analogue domain to make Vinyl. Otherwise there is no point. If for CD distribution then sure but still, I'd advise doing your mixing / mastering in analogue and then dumping the final product to PC or CDR. Having a half track (2 track) master tape of your mix comes in handy 'cause you won't have to pull out your multitrack tapes every-time you wish to put together a mix. It's also future proof to store your mixes on a master tape.

4. big diff? whats the diff? between 2" 8 track (1/4" per track) & 2" 16 track (1/8" per track) - both runnin same speed (15 or 30 ips)
Click to expand...

The biggest difference is $$$ and loads of it on maintenance, servicing and parts. Another difference is track width and track count, which means the 2" 8 track is gonna be more quiet, have more headroom, less distortion and the overall sound picture is going to be larger. That is to say that it also depends on electronics / head design and these do make a big difference in quality. The differences are ones I pointed to in question 1.

Don't fall into the hype of mega wide tracks and super duper speed. Many classic records have been made with lesser formats and it is true that it's more important what you do in the studio than what you have in the studio, meaning that if someone knows his shit can do wonders on a 1/4" or 1/2" 8 track in contrast to someone who knows very little but has access to a 1" 8 track / 2" 16 track.
 
cjacek said:
There are two types of bouncing. One is internal (inside of the recorder) and the other is external (outside to another tape deck and back again). The external bounce works best, to preserve quality, especially when your other recorder is of same or higher quality.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but how is an external bounce better than an internal bounce? I'm assuming that by 'internal bounce' you mean that the signal comes off the tape, into the mixer, and back to the tape machine. In my mind, the 'internal' bounce is better than the external bounce because there's one less playback involved.

Internal: Original -> Mixer -> Bounce track
External: Original -> Mixer -> External Deck -> Mixer -> Bounce track

I don't get it :(
 
I don't understand all the reasons for this but I've found this to be true and especially so when your other "bounce to" recorder is of better quality. To give an example, you'll get a much better result externally bouncing from a 1/2" 8 track to a 1/4" half track than internally bouncing on the 8 track.
 
2. Q is 1" 8 track running at 30ips same as 2" 16 track running at 15ips. (same inch per track)...
we know tape speed changes req response independent of width (ie 30 ips is 'brighter' & 15 ips is less top end & better for lower freqs). does reducing tape width reduce fidelity independent of speed.
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes, the 1" 8-track is going to have the same track width as the 2" 16 track, so your question could be worded as "is 1" 8 track running at 30ips same as 1" 8 track running at 15ips?", to which of course the answer is "no" all else being equal in the audio path.
 
The other thing to be careful of is that there is this automatic assumption that 30ips is better because its faster = more "tape real estate" = must be better. This all depends on the tape deck really. When you increase the tape speed the response curve of the deck shifts also. For a deck that has a low-frequency knee point (the point where the low-end drops off) of, say 40Hz at 15ips, it will be higher at 30ips. So in other words you will lose some low frequency response at higher speeds at the gain of better high frequency response (also due to the response curve shift). This may not matter in general (i.e. just because a deck is at -3dB at 30Hz does NOT MEAN IT IS A GREAT SOUNDING DECK). A response curve may look okay on paper compared to another deck but the deck with the not so awesome response curve may sound better...you can't hear a response curve...nor do we buy/operate/maintain analog tape decks for the sole purpose of recording and reproducing sine waves either. There's a whole lot more to a deck than a response curve...its what it does with complex material, and on top of that what our ears do to that. What may matter with regard to the response curve is where the humps and dips end up when the curve shifts as you go to 30ips...that fat-sounding 60Hz head bump now sits around a muddy 120Hz and that dip at 400Hz that helped the vocalist from sounding like they had a head-cold now sits at around 800Hz around which the vast majority of your sonic information comes through. You've gone from strong and clear to weaker and less defined all with the flick of a switch...BUT YOU'RE RUNNING 30IPS RIGHT??? It MUST sound better because its faster, RIGHT?

None of this is universal. I'm just citing an example and as cjacek said you're going to have to let your ears be the judge...there was a link to a comparison report on the responses of several different decks around here somewhere...I've seen it several times but last I recall evm1024 put it up...I'll have to look.

big diff? whats the diff? between 2" 8 track (1/4" per track) & 2" 16 track (1/8" per track) - both runnin same speed (15 or 30 ips)
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that 2" 8 track is only going to do a better job of capturing the information. If the information sounds like garbage, your (not you specifically) garbage will come through with arguably more clarity and accuracy. I'm picturing a JRF Ultimate Analog deck with a Behringer mixer in front of it...please, no Behringer bashing...not trying to go there and I often think its unwarranted anyway, but the picture is like trying to run a top-fuel dragster on regular unleaded...

8trk2infull.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top