Hola !
So to make it short
both the 234 and the 238 got some great specs and lots of love in the analog 'scene'. but one issue that hasn't been adressed afaik is the significant difference in track(s) width use on both machine.
the 234 uses the 4 tracks on the cassette just as any other fourtrack.
but the 238 divides the tape into 8 tracks, that means half of the tape surface area for a given task, compared to the 234.
thats, basically, as if i woul'd record at 1 7/8 ips ..half of the surface area. (not quit, as theres other factors regarding tape speed, but you get my point eh)
Has anyone got some experience putting these two machines head to head, or can shed some light over the facts? how's the relationship between track width to quality can be explained?
have a good one folks
So to make it short
both the 234 and the 238 got some great specs and lots of love in the analog 'scene'. but one issue that hasn't been adressed afaik is the significant difference in track(s) width use on both machine.
the 234 uses the 4 tracks on the cassette just as any other fourtrack.
but the 238 divides the tape into 8 tracks, that means half of the tape surface area for a given task, compared to the 234.
thats, basically, as if i woul'd record at 1 7/8 ips ..half of the surface area. (not quit, as theres other factors regarding tape speed, but you get my point eh)
Has anyone got some experience putting these two machines head to head, or can shed some light over the facts? how's the relationship between track width to quality can be explained?
have a good one folks