What Daniel said is correct, and following that reasoning let me add a couple words…
A 2-inch what? That should be the first question. -- 8, 16, 24, 32?
2-inch is the width of the tape. How we divide that tape into individual tracks is another matter.
Here are a few things to consider for perspective:
- Noise reduction (NR) was designed for and introduced to the professional recording world first with Dolby A. It wasn’t until three years after, a dumbed down version we all know as Dolby B was made available to consumers. NR addressed the tape hiss issue in the largest studios with the finest equipment long before the word semi-pro was spoken. Both dbx and Dolby could (and still can) be found in the finest studios still using analog. Improvements in noise reduction for professional use continued until the end of the analog era, culminating with Dolby SR (1986) and Dolby S (1990).
Ironically (considering the “pro” 2-inch machine mentioned in this discussion) the only monster outboard Dolby unit I ever worked with was a 24-channel Dolby A rack being used with a 2-inch 24-track. Dolby A or SR with 2-inch 24-track was widely used in pro studios that could afford it. The use of NR is really a judgment call, and depends largely on the type of music being recorded. But to say “pro” machines don’t need NR in every case is just wrong. Likewise saying they do need it in every case is wrong.
- 24-tracks on 2-inch was/is considered “narrow track” compared to the old standard of 16 on 2-inch. It was a compromise between fidelity and number of tracks. Otari even introduced 32-track on 2”, but rather late in the game. Though not widely adopted, it was still found in a number of pro studios as the dawn of the digital age was upon us.
- Tracks aren’t spaced the same for all tape widths. 24-track on 2-inch has virtually the same track width as 8-track on ½-inch. Tascam’s track width for the 38, TSR-8, etc is 0.039 inches. The standard 24-track on 2-inch is 0.040 inches. The difference is about the thickness of 1-mil tape. So the argument here is not fat tracks, but rather more tracks. 24 on 2-inch was born out of a need for more tracks not greater fidelity.
As for ½” machines being “hobby machines” I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve used even the lowly 4-track cassette with outstanding results. Far too many professionals have used ½-inch 8 and 16 tracks with truly excellent results. The Fostex E-16 in particular is a living legend. Many a project studio was built around this recorder… Graham Nash even recorded the “American Dream” album on his personal E-16. Walter Becker (Steely Dan) had both the E-16 and E-2 half-track in his home studio in Maui.
Tom scholz laid down the tracks for Boston’s debut album on an old, second-hand Scully 284 1-inch 12-track, and bounced tracks like crazy. Some of the parts on “More Than a Feeling” had been through 3-4 generations. He also owned a TEAC 80-8, (though I don’t know how it was used)… as did the group Kansas.
Bruce Springsteen put down the basic tracks to “Nebraska” (1982) on the original TEAC 144 cassette portastudio, with Dolby B no less. Whatever post-sweetening was done in the studio, the fact remains those tracks recorded at his home are on that album. So the final product you’re hearing began on a 4-track cassette.
I’ve worked with 4-track cassette portastudios, 2” 24-track, ½-inch 16-track, ½-inch 8 track (Tascams and Otaris) and ¼-inch 8 track. I have found no insurmountable limitations with any of these formats. However, there’s no magic in any of them either if there’s no magic in you.
Others that have worked with so-called semi-pro machines include Todd Rundgren, Steve Winwood, and Phil Collins… to name a few.
The terms “Pro”, “Semi-pro”, and “Pro-sumer” are rather ambiguous and may have nothing to do with fidelity in the context they are used. A so-called semi-pro machine can spec out and sound every bit as good as a pro unit. It’s called semi-pro because it operates at a nominal –10 dBv line level rather than +4, and is simply not built for the rigors of a 24/7 working studio.
A pro machine will also have easy accessibility for calibration, which is done weekly, if not daily in a busy commercial studio. These things distinguish pro and semi-pro more than sound quality. But just as with mega-buck 2-inch monstrosities, not all semi-pro narrow format machines are created equal. Just as an Ampex or Studer snob will look down his nose at anything made by Sony (MCI), we all have our favorite semi-pro brands and models as well.
A home or small commercial studio just doesn’t need a monster 2-inch machine to make good music. In fact, I wouldn’t have one. I simply loath lugging around 2” reels of tape. I just don’t care to do that again… ever! Not to mention the cost of tape.
If we were having this conversation in 1966 rather than 2006, track width would be much more significant. Advancements in electronics and head design that made ever-narrowing tracks practical have consigned track width to just another variable in the equation. It’s an important variable, but it’s not make or break for the machines we’ve discussed here.
My TSR-8/MIDI hybrid studio is more than adequate for my needs. There’s nothing that TSR-8 can’t do – including capturing every nuance my wife’s angelic, classically trained coloratura soprano voice. It wouldn’t sound any more or less “hauntingly beautiful”
on a 2-inch 24-track.
If I were to upgrade my personal studio down the road I’ll never use more than 1” tape. A Fostex G-24 or Tascam MSR-24 could be in my future, but anything more is just overkill. I don’t need to surround myself things that say “Pro” to prove anything to myself or anyone else.
Besides, if my wife ever saw me rolling a JH-24 up the drive she’d be really pissed off when she realized it wasn’t a new dishwasher.
Anyway, 2-inch means absolutely nothing without further elaboration – how many tracks? What brand? What model? 30 or 15 ips? What kind of music is being recorded? And most importantly… who’s at the controls?
Pro and semi-pro may be neatly divided in recording 101 college classes and textbooks, but in the real world it’s much more complex. Thus, it’s pretty easy to tell those that have spent some years recording (home or professionally) and those that have just read about it… or possibly those that have mastered the fundamentals of recording and those that are just no good, no matter how much time they’ve spent with it.
and... Thus, it’s pretty easy to tell those that no longer! able to name a bad gear (any gear will do the right thing in the hand of a master) and those that only "know" what gear is great (she knows her sh*t - that hot car - is all she's got).