Please excuse me if this is a silly question but I have been thinking how 3 head machines have a better frequency response because they do not have a compromised record/replay head but have a head designed for optimum record and one for optimum replay. I think I remember that a narrow gap improves the replay response. I always thought my old cassettes recorded on my 2 head Technics deck sounded better played back on my 3 head Sony - presumably this is one reason why they might. So I wonder if my 4-track recordings made on my Tascam 244 would sound much better played back on a 3-head machine, if one were to exist with this track formatting? It is interesting to think you can possibly get better performance out of old tapes in this way. Am I missing something?
Can you improve tape replay using 3 head recorder?
- Thread starter Findlay
- Start date
Surprised nobody seem interested in this!
I've just found this from Sound On Sound which sort of answers my question:
"It is worth noting that modern machines have far narrower replay head gaps than was possible in the early machines of the 1950s and 60s, and as a result can extract a far wider and flatter frequency response from old archive tapes than was ever possible at the time of their recording. Since the recording process is largely independent of the record head's construction, recordings made in the 1950s and 60s are frequently found to be of extremely good technical quality when replayed on modern machines – the recordings were often of a far higher quality than could be replayed at the time!"
and this:
"Given the very different requirements for the head gap between the recording and replay functions, professional machines are generally equipped with three heads, each optimised for its specific requirements. Some machines have only two heads, erase and a dual‑purpose rec/rep head, although this compromises both the record ability and replay performance. In multitrack machines, where it is necessary to switch some channels of the record head to replay to generate a synchronous overdubbing cue feed, the output is often noticeably duller sounding than when auditioned via the replay head."
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar10/articles/taperecorderadvice.htm
I find it really interesting think we could get better quality out of our old multitrack recordings than when we first made them!
I've just found this from Sound On Sound which sort of answers my question:
"It is worth noting that modern machines have far narrower replay head gaps than was possible in the early machines of the 1950s and 60s, and as a result can extract a far wider and flatter frequency response from old archive tapes than was ever possible at the time of their recording. Since the recording process is largely independent of the record head's construction, recordings made in the 1950s and 60s are frequently found to be of extremely good technical quality when replayed on modern machines – the recordings were often of a far higher quality than could be replayed at the time!"
and this:
"Given the very different requirements for the head gap between the recording and replay functions, professional machines are generally equipped with three heads, each optimised for its specific requirements. Some machines have only two heads, erase and a dual‑purpose rec/rep head, although this compromises both the record ability and replay performance. In multitrack machines, where it is necessary to switch some channels of the record head to replay to generate a synchronous overdubbing cue feed, the output is often noticeably duller sounding than when auditioned via the replay head."
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar10/articles/taperecorderadvice.htm
I find it really interesting think we could get better quality out of our old multitrack recordings than when we first made them!
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I know that most of the professional decks work this way, with record and playback optimised heads, but I don't have any evidence either way as to whether that's better than TASCAM's system of using the same head design and compensating electronically.
I have no idea if there would be any tangible benefit on a cassette system. Personally, I'd expect the system noise from a low tape speed and narrow tracks to be more of a limitation than the head design.
On the subject of improving existing recordings, I remember a few years back some researchers were getting interesting results by constructing a custom head that could actually pick up the bias oscillator. They then monitored this and used distortions in it to compensate for wow and flutter or other velocity errors. IIRC it worked best with the original master tape because multi-generational copies would only contain the bias signal from the last recorder in the chain.
I have no idea if there would be any tangible benefit on a cassette system. Personally, I'd expect the system noise from a low tape speed and narrow tracks to be more of a limitation than the head design.
On the subject of improving existing recordings, I remember a few years back some researchers were getting interesting results by constructing a custom head that could actually pick up the bias oscillator. They then monitored this and used distortions in it to compensate for wow and flutter or other velocity errors. IIRC it worked best with the original master tape because multi-generational copies would only contain the bias signal from the last recorder in the chain.
Thanks for the replies - interesting about the custom head picking up the bias oscillator.
I guess I didn't imagine much interest in playing back '50s and '60s tapes! But I've found my '70s cassettes recorded on a battery Philips machine sound much better played back on my 3-head Sony compared to my 2 head Technics deck - and both are in pretty good alignment. I'd like to get the best possible out of my '80's 244 recordings and would love to fit a 4-track narrow gap replay head if one were available. The existing head seems to lose frequencies much beyond 16kHz - it is about 10dB down at 20KHz on my 3 machines. A narrow gap head might be able to level the playback response somewhat.
I guess I didn't imagine much interest in playing back '50s and '60s tapes! But I've found my '70s cassettes recorded on a battery Philips machine sound much better played back on my 3-head Sony compared to my 2 head Technics deck - and both are in pretty good alignment. I'd like to get the best possible out of my '80's 244 recordings and would love to fit a 4-track narrow gap replay head if one were available. The existing head seems to lose frequencies much beyond 16kHz - it is about 10dB down at 20KHz on my 3 machines. A narrow gap head might be able to level the playback response somewhat.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
For playback "pretty good" alignment is less important that matching alignment. It's better for the playback deck to be off in the same way a given tape was recorded than for it to be correct.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
"Fitting" a head would be the first of your problems...tying it into the existing electronics would make it pretty much a futile effort and a waste of time.
You have to accept the fact that those old porta-studios didn't not and will not do anything better or more than what you have. I think you're overestimating the increase in quality you would get...even if you could.
IMO...your time and effort would be better spent simply re-recording those old tracks with something of higher quality...and just use the old tracks for reference.
I know people always imagine some sort of analog "magic" was had with those 4-track cassette recorders...but having used a lot of that kind of lo-fi gear back from the late-70s through the '80s...I know it's mostly nostalgia.
Thanks. It is just that I don't think I would ever be able to repeat those old performances....
I always thought the 244 sounded pretty good though. I took great care with every recording. I never regarded it as lo-fi really. Apart from the odd dbx artefact it sounded very clean and crisp and I'm still amazed at the quality of the refurbs I've done.
I always thought the 244 sounded pretty good though. I took great care with every recording. I never regarded it as lo-fi really. Apart from the odd dbx artefact it sounded very clean and crisp and I'm still amazed at the quality of the refurbs I've done.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I would just transfer those tracks to a DAW, and go from there then...if you don't want to re-record them.
I know what you mean about not being able to repeat the performances 100% as accurately...I've had some old tracks that I never was able to mimic exactly the same way later on...but you know, I found that it wasn't that important, and during the act of re-recording older stuff and mixing it with better gear and more advanced processing than what I had in the past...I found that the newer recordings, while not identical as the old tracks, always sounded better, quality-wise...and I often also found fresh interpretations in the performances.
I never cling to my old stuff...I just like to keep doing new recordings, and sometimes I may even re-record songs from the past if they are worth the effort of another go.
I know what you mean about not being able to repeat the performances 100% as accurately...I've had some old tracks that I never was able to mimic exactly the same way later on...but you know, I found that it wasn't that important, and during the act of re-recording older stuff and mixing it with better gear and more advanced processing than what I had in the past...I found that the newer recordings, while not identical as the old tracks, always sounded better, quality-wise...and I often also found fresh interpretations in the performances.
I never cling to my old stuff...I just like to keep doing new recordings, and sometimes I may even re-record songs from the past if they are worth the effort of another go.
How do you go if say you want to keep some analogue tracks and add new digital ones then? I'd think the sync would be difficult to maintain as it might drift, especially on long songs. Any tips? I will be doing this soon and figure I will just have manually adjust the tempo somehow.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
If you can transfer all your analog tape tracks all at once....like say you have an 8-track tape, you would use an 8-channel converter (or a couple of 4-channel boxes)....after that, adding digital tracks to those transferred tracks is easy, and there's no sync issue.
If you're going to do 1-2 analog tape tracks at a time...then you need some sort of sync mechanism between your deck and your DAW. Trying to sync them by eye/ear will not really work. They will be close, but not in sync...the front may be in sync, but by the time you get toward the end, they will go out. The only way to do this accurately is with a sync mechanism...which takes the whole tape deck/DAW combination to a more complex level.
If you're going to do 1-2 analog tape tracks at a time...then you need some sort of sync mechanism between your deck and your DAW. Trying to sync them by eye/ear will not really work. They will be close, but not in sync...the front may be in sync, but by the time you get toward the end, they will go out. The only way to do this accurately is with a sync mechanism...which takes the whole tape deck/DAW combination to a more complex level.
Thanks for that. Yes, I will record to digital via a Zoom R24 the 4 tracks so hope I can manually sync it to the head but figure I will be able to visually see the waveforms for syncing.
Some of the old cassette 4 tracks we added a sync track using a Tascam MT-30 midi synccroniser which I no longer have...turfed it unfortunately! But figure not much use now anyway as it wouldn't be relevant/ usable now, what do you think? We had that 4th track to sync our original midi synths, drums etc. that's why I will need to try and re-create them once digitized in a Program like ProLogic. (Which I want to learn)
Cheers
Some of the old cassette 4 tracks we added a sync track using a Tascam MT-30 midi synccroniser which I no longer have...turfed it unfortunately! But figure not much use now anyway as it wouldn't be relevant/ usable now, what do you think? We had that 4th track to sync our original midi synths, drums etc. that's why I will need to try and re-create them once digitized in a Program like ProLogic. (Which I want to learn)
Cheers
rob aylestone
Moderator
The thing to remember is that the head gap is a engineering decision. A smaller head gap allows higher frequencies to be recorded, as does increasing tape speed. That's just physics. The problem is the same physics also impacts on the recording science - hence why record and replay heads are different. Any combined one is a compromise - perhaps not much at higher tape speeds, but a narrow head gap means the head saturates more easily, requiring a drop in level and perhaps bias current tweaks. For doing drop ins and other stuff, most recorders would use the other head anyway - so my own belief is that recordings were very often extremely good, and the performance issues often in the replay chain. Hence why some old tapes produce really excellent transfers to digital.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I don't know the technical answer to your question, but I think the reality is that "4-track"/overdub capable cassette machines are based around a two-head design. Adding a third head would cause other issues (with alignment, etc.) that would probably cause more audible problems, even if the fidelity could in theory be calibrated to be "better" technically. If the Tascam 234 doesn't have 3-heads, I can't imagine any 4-track/one-direction machine that would. Cassette recordings are inherently not high fidelity ... I think embracing them for what they are may be a more realistic option.