4 inch tape. tee hee.

M

Muckelroy

Member
I was running sound at Cheatham Street Warehouse, here at San Marcos, TX (my new part time job,) and the artist singing that night was telling me about his first recording sessions in the 80's, and he described the "4-inch tape machine."

I told him that I was pretty sure that tape was only made on max width of 2" format -- ever.

He laughed, and said, "well, the tape looked pretty damn wide from where I was sitting, looking at that thing!"

Made me grin. out loud.

-callie-
 
Muckelroy said:
TELL ME MORE, PLEASE!

or are you just pulling my leg?

:rolleyes:

-callie-
Click to expand...
He's not pulling your leg or any other appendage! :)

They really did make an attempt to build such a machine back around the late 60's, early 70's. It was supposed to be a 24 track that maintained the same track width as a normal 1/4", half track stereo deck - from what I remember of an article in Mix magazine I read on it several years ago.

The basic problem they experienced was in the reel motors not having enough balls to properly handle the substantially heavier reels and the ensuing control problems with tapes being eaten and gummed up in the transport.

I'm sure if they would have put more time, money and research into the format, it would have gone on to become a viable format but I guess they were concerned with trying to promote a deck that would add substantial costs to the hardware and to the tape costs as well.

2", 24 track proved to be stable, high fidelity format and to this day, it is still used in many professional facilities that still do their initial tracking in analog.

Cheers! :)
 
The Ghost of FM said:
He's not pulling your leg or any other appendage! :)

They really did make an attempt to build such a machine back around the late 60's, early 70's. It was supposed to be a 24 track that maintained the same track width as a normal 1/4", half track stereo deck - from what I remember of an article in Mix magazine I read on it several years ago.

The basic problem they experienced was in the reel motors not having enough balls to properly handle the substantially heavier reels and the ensuing control problems with tapes being eaten and gummed up in the transport.

I'm sure if they would have put more time, money and research into the format, it would have gone on to become a viable format but I guess they were concerned with trying to promote a deck that would add substantial costs to the hardware and to the tape costs as well.

2", 24 track proved to be stable, high fidelity format and to this day, it is still used in many professional facilities that still do their initial tracking in analog.

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...
Edit;
--------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading the post above this one, I stand corrected on the number of tracks the 3" MCI offered. I wrote from memory only.

Cheers! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top