for best quality mix down to all 8 tracks?

[j_u__s___t__i_n]

i read about a guy that would mix down to his 1/2" 8 track using all 8 tracks. for example, record the left channel to tracks 1-4 and the right to 5-8, and he said this would be the equivalent to a 1/2" 2 track master.

does it really work this way? would recording one signal on to all 8 tracks be any better than recording that one signal to just 1 track?

-justin

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by j_u__s___t__i_n

he said this would be the equivalent to a 1/2" 2 track master.

No it would not be.
It would be equivalent (just one example of possible "configurations" ) - to Four Identical 1/4" four-track (two track (stereo) one way) master-recorders sinchronized together and then four of left channels outputs from each recorder mixed together to one "master left channel" and four of right channels outputs from each recorder mixed to one "master right channel" - and there you have your master.
It's fun to do

[Beck]

Originally Posted by j_u__s___t__i_n

i read about a guy that would mix down to his 1/2" 8 track using all 8 tracks. for example, record the left channel to tracks 1-4 and the right to 5-8, and he said this would be the equivalent to a 1/2" 2 track master.

does it really work this way? would recording one signal on to all 8 tracks be any better than recording that one signal to just 1 track?

-justin

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, though I have seen it on the forums from time-to-time. It’s even mentioned in a recent book about using analog in the modern studio, but it’s a misconception.

Each track on a multitrack head has its own element, its own channel and electronics. On an 8-track (or any other multitrack) you will just get more hiss, which is cumulative per track. Some people also think they can push the levels harder because they’re covering more tape, but again, each track is a separate system (a separate recorder) so each track on the head can only affect the magnetic domains on the tape to the listed spec.

Each track on a ½” 8-track is about the same size as on 2” 24-track. You could master using two tracks and be ok, but a ¼” or ½” half-track mastering deck @ 15 ips is the way to go for best results.

On ½” half-track you have two elements, each covering about half the tape, so you get more headroom, less distortion and less background hiss.

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by j_u__s___t__i_n

i read about a guy that would mix down to his 1/2" 8 track using all 8 tracks. for example, record the left channel to tracks 1-4 and the right to 5-8, and he said this would be the equivalent to a 1/2" 2 track master.

It's funny but I recall reading that same post a few days ago and having a bit of a laugh.... (Wouldn't that be the ultimate, to have a 1/2" 8 track and also a 1/2 track mix-down unit, all in one!). Anyway, doesn't work that way (unfortunately), as the guys above already mentioned....

-----

[Richard King]

The main problem is that if you use a 1/2" 8 track to "master" on and send that tape to a plant for CD or album production they will play it back on a real 1/2" two track machine. All the guard bands (space between the 8 tracks) will now be played back as noise and hiss with no real content.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by Beck

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, though I have seen it on the forums from time-to-time. It’s even mentioned in a recent book about using analog in the modern studio, but it’s a misconception.

Each track on a multitrack head has its own element, its own channel and electronics. On an 8-track (or any other multitrack) you will just get more hiss, which is cumulative per track. Some people also think they can push the levels harder because they’re covering more tape, but again, each track is a separate system (a separate recorder) so each track on the head can only affect the magnetic domains on the tape to the listed spec.

Each track on a ½” 8-track is about the same size as on 2” 24-track. You could master using two tracks and be ok, but a ¼” or ½” half-track mastering deck @ 15 ips is the way to go for best results.

On ½” half-track you have two elements, each covering about half the tape, so you get more headroom, less distortion and less background hiss.

Mostly not so. Each time you double the effective track width you increase the signal by 6db but the tape hiss by only 3db. Hence a net s/n improvement of 3db. You get less hiss, not more.
That applies to say a half track 1/4" or 1/2" but also here.
The fact that each track has its own signal electronics etc is irrelevent. Summing the tracks still gives the improvement. Of course you have to sum the congruent tracks on playback to get the benefit. On its own, each individual track will be no quieter.

Richard King is right that it only works if you replay the tape on your summed multitrack, where the guard band noise is not being read.
There is also more risk of azimuth misalignment and instability issues because of potential phase cancellation of highs. Wide tracks arent all good news.


So you're right but as Beck says, why not just get a 2 track?

Tim

[7x7]

How about the other way 'round? Mastering on simply 2 tracks of an 8 track?

How important is bandwith for the master? I ask cause I noticed quite a difference between recording 2 tracks on a consumer Philips 4 track 1/4" recorder and the same 2 tracks on a 2 track 1/4" recorder (Tascam). The stereo recording on the Philips seemed to get more saturated then the one on the Tascam. I have to admit I liked that saturation effect on the Philips, I wouldn't mind knowing how I can push the Tascam to get the same results.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Richard King

if you use a 1/2" 8 track to "master" on ... (and) ...play it back on a real 1/2" two track machine.

aaaaaaaw, I did not think about that possible scenario.
hmmmmmmmm
I thought "we are talking" about recording it that way on 8-tracker and play back then on the same machine.

now, that's a puzzle to imagine, or "think about" in theory how it may practically come out.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by 7x7

I have to admit I liked that saturation effect on the Philips, I wouldn't mind knowing how I can push the Tascam to get the same results.

Here's what I can tell from my miserable experience and in accordance with my "taste" (I guess). - I have to admit that I like more the "sound" of Teac A-4300sx (1/4" four track (two track stereo one way that is) at 7.5ips) than the "sound" of Tascam 32 (1/4" half track, at 15ips) - to put it in primitive words: Tascam 32 does not do much good (sort of) ..heh heh
I never happen to test/experiment/compare Tascam 32 at 7.5ips yet. So have no clue.
I kind of dig the sound of Teac A-3340s (1/4" four track) at both 7.5 and 15 speeds, but I have never really listen to it comparetively to something else while paying close attention.
Also, this is simply subjective "evaluation", and there are other factors (electronics) may having effect in addition to just track width/speed factor.

So? !!!
so, what?

so, - blah blah

[7x7]

Good to know I'm not the only one that noticed this (and has a taste for the results ). I haven't got that Tascam that long so I'm still figuring out how it handles different ways of recording. Maybe I should get that dbx unit I asked about earlier, see if that will do some good... And if all fails, I can still choose to record on the Philips.

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Here's what I can tell from my miserable experience and in accordance with my "taste" (I guess). - I have to admit that I like more the "sound" of Teac A-4300sx (1/4" four track (two track stereo one way that is) at 7.5ips) than the "sound" of Tascam 32 (1/4" half track, at 15ips) - to put it in primitive words: Tascam 32 does not do much good (sort of) ..heh heh
I never happen to test/experiment/compare Tascam 32 at 7.5ips yet. So have no clue.
I kind of dig the sound of Teac A-3340s (1/4" four track) at both 7.5 and 15 speeds, but I have never really listen to it comparetively to something else while paying close attention.
Also, this is simply subjective "evaluation", and there are other factors (electronics) may having effect in addition to just track width/speed factor.

So? !!!
so, what?

so, - blah blah

I must say I had a similar experience. I often dig the sound at 7 1/2 ips, especially so on my TEAC 3440 ('79), even if I have access to 15 ips. Both speeds, believe it or not, sound similar to me, which is damn good. Now, my TASCAM 34 ('83), which is 'newer', while still sounding good, at both speeds, doesn't have the 'punch' and 'dirt' (which I like), of the 3440. I think it may indeed be in the electronics, cause that's the only thing which seemed to have changed in the design. Some people, I noted, dislike the sound of the TEAC 80-8 ('76) and although I've only heard demos made on it, I love the rather distinct character (punchy and warm), which I'd not hesitate to call 'vintage' (although the term is oft times overused ). Your 3340S probably has even more character! The older the electronics the cooler the sound IMHO.

----

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by 7x7

...if all fails, I can still choose to record on the Philips.

I totally dig such logic.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by cjacek

...I had a similar experience.

----

Yeah.
And then we face never ending struggle trying to describe it (in "technical" terms, that is )

Hmmm, Do we really have to?
... or do we really need to?

[Richard King]

Part of what you are hearing as you go to newer machines is improvements in head design. The older Tascam machines (80-8, 3340, 3440, etc) had a significant head bump "problem" that was "solved" on the next generation machines (3x, 4x, 5x, etc.). For those not familiar, head bump is a bump (exaggeration) in the response in the lower frequencies that gradually smooths out as the frequency increases. This is caused by the geometry of the head design. Add DBX (as I had on my 80-8) and the "problem" is doubled as DBX accentuates any non linearity in frequency response. The newer machines were actually much flatter and accurate in the low end than the older generation machines. The lower speeds are also more prone to exaggerated head bump.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Richard King

..."problem" that was "solved"...

lovely!

[j_u__s___t__i_n]

thanks for the info guys. i figured it couldn't have been that simple. the book about using analog in the modern studio is actually where i got it from.

-justin

[Tim Gillett]

The book is right though. Each time you double the number of tracks used for the same material, you reduce random system noise by 3db.

Cheers, Tim

[Beck]

Lets see if I can help make it a bit clearer. Adding another individual track of the same size is not doubling the track width. The benefits of doubling track width apply to unbroken width increase without a guardband in between. For example, the width of an individual track on ½” 8-track is about .040 inch. Even with ¼ half-track you roughly double the individual track width (more or less depending on manufacturer).

In other words, a track must consist of a wider single element and not two tracks separated by a guardband for the track width rules to apply. A wider track covers more square inches of tape per second, involving more magnetic particles on the tape, manipulated by a wider magnetic element (pole piece). With two or more separate narrower tracks for each left/right feed, the multitrack rules apply, not the track width rules.

That being said it is correct in theory that if two like signals of equal amplitude are added together, the total amplitude is doubled, which is a 6 dB increase. However, they must indeed be of equal amplitude. That means in the example from the OP the four tracks would have to be precisely balanced so that each contributes the same level to the total.

The noise/hiss generated by multiple tape tracks is cumulative and will be apparent as the dynamics of the music drop closer to the noise floor of the tape, such as in quite passages. Multiple tracks don’t help at the other end of dynamic range either. That is, you do not realize an increase in level before distortion by using two or more tracks instead of a single wider one. This is because the tracks are still individual elements covering the same area of tape. You can’t hit two individual tracks with any more level than you can one track of the same width.

For anyone interested in the math the equation is L = 10 log n, where L = noise in dB and n = number of tracks. For each doubling of tracks there is a 3 dB increase in tape noise. So combining four tracks increase noise by 6 dB.

In addition, the fact that you add electronic noise is not only relevant, it is half the issue. Each track has its own op-amp, resistors and other components that generate noise. Add to this the additional mixer channels needed to record and sum the tracks, and you have more hiss than you would using just two mixer channels (left/right). The hiss wouldn’t make the result unusable, but it does demonstrate that combining like tracks is of no benefit.

In summary, the multitrack rules apply here even when several tracks record/reproduce the same material. The track width benefit does not apply because you are adding tracks, not adding width.

Considering the phase issues, which Mr. Gillett mentioned, there are no good reasons to combine multiple tracks in a mastering role. If an 8-track is all you have you will get the best results using two tracks, preferably 2 & 7. Track 2 and track 7 are chosen because they are far apart and are normally used to set azimuth on a ½” 8-track. Yeah tracks 1 and 8 are the farthest apart but edge tracks are more susceptible to high frequency dropouts.

Hope this helps or at least makes it more confusing, which is the first step to figuring it out.

References:

1. Sound Recording Handbook - John M. Woram 1989
2. Practical Recording Techniques - Bruce Bartlett 1997

[Tim Gillett]

Well, here we go again...


If you read my post you will have noticed I said doubling EFFECTIVE track width, distinguishing it from a physically wider single track. Justin's question asked whether adding extra tracks of the same material and then summing them in playback reduces tape noise, just as does having a wider single track. I said "yes" and by up to 3db, per doubling.

No one was suggesting the INDIVIDUAL tracks in this configuration would have better sound quality ON THEIR OWN. Read where I said that this only applies when the playback tracks are SUMMED. That's when the benefit is attained, and only then. Thankyou for telling us what I already stated.

Nobody said either that you could now hit the individual tracks harder. Again you are answering a question that nobody was asking, and countering what no one asserted.
Neither was I suggesting that the noise benefit would be as much from summing two or more separate pole pieces, compared to a single track with no wasted space used for guard bands.

The electronic noise is only an issue in the sense that it is, or may be, part of the overall noise that you are wanting to reduce. If you have a mixer whose own self noise is a significant contributor to the overall tape noise in playback, I'd suggest there's something wrong with the mixer or the gain staging which should be attended to. Self noise of mixers in this situation should normally be well below tape hiss on a tape with no NR.
Even so, assuming it is a contributor, that same electronic noise (so long as it is random and not related to the noise in the other channels) will be reduced, along with the tape hiss, more than the congruent sound being recorded. The summing process doesnt discriminate between tape hiss and amp hiss. It discriminates between random and congruent signals, just like "the book" says.

Combining like tracks is of benefit in normal circumstances. Those circumstances presuppose random noise on each track, and common program on those same tracks. You say the recorded levels have to be precisely the same for it to work. That's an exaggeration. Yes, the common signals and their respective random noise floors need to be reasonably similar or there would be no point. Imagine one track with a 50 db s/n and the adjacent one with only 30db s/n. Summing them would just drag the good track down towards the bad. In that case, common sense says only use the better track.

But we are talking about a well maintained machine where the tracks were recorded at similar levels. And why would anyone want to record the same material at different levels on adjacent tracks, especially when your specific aim was to achieve some modest noise floor reduction by this method. You would be negating the whole point of the exercise.

"you are adding tracks, not adding width". Sure, but doing one EFFECTIVELY achieves the other, in noise terms, if not quite as effectively due to guard band losses. No one in their right mind would deliberately buy a recorder with 8 tracks if its intended use was as a 2 track mastering machine. A total waste of money. But Justin was asking about an existing 8 track machine.

Do a simple test, a test I have done a thousand times in remastering old cassette tapes. Listen to a program recorded on a stereo machine, but actually a mono program. Now sum left and right tracks. Now adjust the play head azimuth for optimal tracking. Now alternate listening between left channel, right channel and then mono sum. The summed track will have less random noise. Not a huge difference, but often enough to make a noticeable improvement, especially on an otherwise hissy recording.
This only works when there is reasonable similarity between the tracks. But they dont have to be precisely the same to yield a benefit. Sometimes it's a judgement call whether to sum the two tracks or just pick the better sounding one on its own.

You speak about the azimuth stability issue ( I had raised it first) but then curiously you recommend Justin use tracks 2 and 7 for 2 track mastering. In doing so you create a potential azimuth stability issue that would not have been as bad if using tracks closer to one another!

Why do we use tracks so far apart (2 and 7) for fine azimuth alignment? Because that is a deliberately hard azimuth test for the machine. If we then use those same tracks (2 and 7) for mastering material which will probably include centre sound stage material, (common to both tracks) and which may well end up mono summed in some circumstances, we are testing the azimuth stability of the machine, in a way that would not normally be such an issue. Far better, if we really have to do it this way (but why not just get a proper 2 track machine?) to use adjacent tracks like 4 and 5 - or perhaps 4 and 6 to avoid any chance of crosstalk.
And (I thought of this later) since it's a stereo mixdown, crosstalk between them is hardly an issue anyway. Adjacent tracks would be fine as well as lessen the azimuth error risks.


So you hope your post "helps, or at least makes it more confusing..."
I guess you've got all bases covered.

[Dr ZEE]

Summing is cool.
Soooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!??????????
Uh, I see.
Let's me "sum it up" then,
More tracks - less tape noise!

That's the magic of mixing.

heh heh heh

You never know what you may learn...

/later
*************

P.S.
Two notes for a reader (as reminder):
1. NEVER TRUST A STRANGER.
2. Question Authority.

[FALKEN]

what is the physical cause of hiss ?

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

Καλά, εδώ πηγαίνουμε πάλι…


Εάν διαβάσετε τη θέση μου που θα έχετε παρατηρήσει είπα το διπλασιασμό του ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΣΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ πλάτους διαδρομής, που διακρίνει την από μια φυσικά ευρύτερη ενιαία διαδρομή. Η ερώτηση του Justin ρώτησε εάν η προσθήκη των πρόσθετων διαδρομών του ίδιου υλικού και έπειτα το άθροισμα τους στην αναπαραγωγή ήχου μειώνουν το θόρυβο ταινιών, ακριβώς όπως έχοντας μια ευρύτερη ενιαία διαδρομή. Είπα «ναι» και από μέχρι 3db, ανά το διπλασιασμό.

Κανένας δεν πρότεινε ότι οι ΜΕΜΟΝΩΜΕΝΕΣ διαδρομές σε αυτήν την διαμόρφωση θα είχαν την καλύτερη ποιότητα ήχου ΑΠΟ ΜΟΝΕΣ ΤΟΥΣ. Διαβάστε όπου είπα ότι αυτό ισχύει μόνο όταν ΑΘΡΟΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ οι διαδρομές αναπαραγωγής ήχου. Αυτός είναι πότε το όφελος επιτυγχάνεται, και μόνο έπειτα. Σας ευχαριστώ για την αφήγηση μας τι δήλωσα ήδη.

Κανένας δεν είπε καθένας ότι θα μπορούσατε τώρα να χτυπήσετε τις μεμονωμένες διαδρομές σκληρότερες. Πάλι απαντάτε σε μια ερώτηση που κανένας δεν υπέβαλλε, και αντιμετωπίζετε τι κανένας δεν βεβαίωσε.
Ούτε το Ι πρότεινε ότι το όφελος θορύβου θα ήταν όπως πολύ από το άθροισμα δύο ή περισσότερων χωριστών κομματιών πόλων, έναντι μιας ενιαίας διαδρομής χωρίς το σπαταλημένο διάστημα που χρησιμοποιείται για τις ζώνες φρουράς.

Ο ηλεκτρονικός θόρυβος είναι μόνο ένα ζήτημα υπό την έννοια ότι είναι, ή μπορεί να είναι, μέρος του γενικού θορύβου που θέλετε να μειώσετε. Εάν έχετε έναν αναμίκτη ο ο οποίος μόνος θόρυβος είναι σημαντικός συνεισφέρων στο γενικό θόρυβο ταινιών στην αναπαραγωγή ήχου, θα πρότεινα ότι υπάρχει κάτι λανθασμένο με τον αναμίκτη ή την οργάνωση κέρδους που πρέπει να παρακολουθηθούν. Ο μόνος θόρυβος των αναμικτών σε αυτήν την κατάσταση πρέπει κανονικά να είναι αρκετά κάτω από το συριγμό ταινιών σε μια ταινία χωρίς NR.
Ακόμα κι έτσι, υποθέτοντας είναι συνεισφέρων, εκείνος ο ίδιος ηλεκτρονικός θόρυβος (εφ' όσον είναι τυχαίο και σχετικό με το θόρυβο στα άλλα κανάλια) θα μειωθεί, μαζί με το συριγμό ταινιών, περισσότερο από το σύμφωνο ήχο που καταγράφεται. Η διαδικασία αθροίσματος δεν κάνει διακρίσεις μεταξύ του συριγμού ταινιών και amp του συριγμού. Κάνει διακρίσεις μεταξύ των τυχαίων και σύμφωνων σημάτων, ακριβώς όπως «το βιβλίο» λέει.

Ο συνδυασμός όπως τις διαδρομές ωφελεί στις κανονικές περιστάσεις. Εκείνες οι περιστάσεις προϋποθέτουν τον τυχαίο θόρυβο σε κάθε διαδρομή, και το κοινό πρόγραμμα για εκείνες τις ίδιες διαδρομές. Λέτε ότι τα επίπεδα ρεκόρ πρέπει να είναι ακριβώς τα ίδια για το για να εργαστούν. Αυτή είναι μια υπερβολή. Ναι, τα κοινά σήματα και τα αντίστοιχα τυχαία πατώματα θορύβου τους πρέπει να είναι εύλογα παρόμοια ή δεν θα υπήρχε κανένα σημείο. Φανταστείτε μια διαδρομή με 50 DB s/n και ο παρακείμενος με μόνο 30db s/n. που αθροίζει τα θα έσερνε ακριβώς την καλή διαδρομή κάτω προς τον κακό. Σε εκείνη την περίπτωση, η κοινή λογική λέει μόνο τη χρήση η καλύτερη διαδρομή.

Αλλά μιλάμε για μια καλά διατηρημένη μηχανή όπου οι διαδρομές καταγράφηκαν σε παρόμοια επίπεδα. Και γιατί καθένας θα ήθελε να καταγράψει το ίδιο υλικό σε διαφορετικά επίπεδα στις παρακείμενες διαδρομές, ειδικά όταν ο συγκεκριμένος στόχος σας ήταν να επιτύχετε κάποια μέτρια μείωση πατωμάτων θορύβου μ' αυτό τον τρόπο. Θα αρνούσαστε ολόκληρο το σημείο της άσκησης.

«προσθέτετε τις διαδρομές, μην προσθέτοντας το πλάτος». Βέβαια, αλλά να κάνει το ένα ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΣΜΑΤΙΚΑ επιτυγχάνει άλλου, στους όρους θορύβου, εάν όχι αρκετά όπως αποτελεσματικά λόγω των απωλειών ζωνών φρουράς. Κανένας στο σωστό μυαλό τους δεν θα αγόραζε σκόπιμα ένα όργανο καταγραφής με 8 διαδρομές εάν η προοριζόμενη χρήση της ήταν δεδομένου ότι 2 ακολουθούν την κατοχή της μηχανής. Μια συνολική σπατάλη των χρημάτων. Αλλά ο Justin ρωτούσε για μια υπάρχουσα μηχανή 8 διαδρομής.

Κάνετε μια απλή δοκιμή, μια δοκιμή που έχω κάνει χίλιες φορές στο ρεμίξ των παλαιών ταινιών κασετών. Ακούστε ένα πρόγραμμα που καταγράφεται για μια στερεοφωνική μηχανή, αλλά πραγματικά ένα μονο πρόγραμμα. Τώρα αθροίστε αριστερά και σωστοί δρόμοι. Τώρα ρυθμίστε το επικεφαλής αζιμούθιο παιχνιδιού για τη βέλτιστη καταδίωξη. Τώρα εναλλάξτε το άκουσμα μεταξύ του αριστερού καναλιού, του σωστού καναλιού και έπειτα του μονο ποσού. Η αθροισμένη διαδρομή θα έχει το λιγότερο τυχαίο θόρυβο. Όχι μια τεράστια διαφορά, αλλά αρκετά συχνά να κάνει μια αξιοπρόσεχτη βελτίωση, ειδικά σε μια ειδάλλως hissy καταγραφή. Αυτό λειτουργεί μόνο όταν υπάρχει λογική ομοιότητα μεταξύ των διαδρομών. Αλλά δεν ειναι απαραίτητο να είναι ακριβώς οι ίδιοι για να παραγάγουν ένα όφελος. Μερικές φορές είναι μια κλήση κρίσης είτε για να αθροίσει τις δύο διαδρομές είτε να επιλέξει ακριβώς την καλύτερη ήχο από μόνος του.

Μιλάτε για το ζήτημα σταθερότητας αζιμουθίου (το είχα αυξήσει πρώτα) αλλά αφ' ετέρου περίεργα συστήνετε τις διαδρομές 2 χρήσης του Justin και 7 για 2 ακολουθούν την κατοχή. Με αυτό τον τρόπο δημιουργείτε ένα πιθανό ζήτημα σταθερότητας αζιμουθίου που δεν θα ήταν όπως κακό εάν χρησιμοποιώντας τις διαδρομές πιό κοντά στο ένα άλλη!

Γιατί χρησιμοποιούμε τις διαδρομές μέχρι τώρα χώρια (2 και 7) για τη λεπτή ευθυγράμμιση αζιμουθίου; Επειδή αυτή είναι μια σκόπιμα σκληρή δοκιμή αζιμουθίου για τη μηχανή. Εάν χρησιμοποιήσουμε έπειτα εκείνες τις ίδιες διαδρομές (2 και 7) για την κατοχή του υλικού που θα περιλάβει πιθανώς υλικό κεντρικών το υγιές σταδίων, (κοινό και για τις δύο διαδρομές) και που μπορεί καλά να καταλήξει μονο που αθροίζεται σε μερικές περιστάσεις, εξετάζουμε τη σταθερότητα αζιμουθίου της μηχανής, που με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε δεν θα ήταν κανονικά ένα τέτοιο ζήτημα. Πολύ καλύτερα, εάν πρέπει πραγματικά να το κάνουμε αυτός ο τρόπος (αλλά γιατί όχι μόνο πάρτε κατάλληλα 2 ακολουθούν τη μηχανή για να χρησιμοποιήσει τις παρακείμενες διαδρομές όπως 4 και 5 - ή ίσως 4 και 6 για να αποφύγει οποιαδήποτε πιθανότητα της λογομαχίας.
Και (Ι σκεπτόμενο αυτόν τον πιό πρόσφατο) δεδομένου ότι είναι ένα στερεοφωνικό mixdown, λογομαχία μεταξύ τους είναι μετά βίας ένα ζήτημα οπωσδήποτε. Οι παρακείμενες διαδρομές θα ήταν λεπτές καθώς επίσης και θα ελάττωναν τους κινδύνους λάθους αζιμουθίου.


Έτσι ελπίζετε οι μετα «βοήθειές σας, ή το κάνετε τουλάχιστον συγχέοντας…»
Υποθέτω ότι έχετε όλες τις βάσεις που καλύπτονται.

As usual, I'm simply presenting established audio engineering orthodoxy.

1. I wasn't answering only your post, but issues raised by other members.

2. The author of the book that was mentioned by the OP claims that adding tracks will give you greater dynamic range (I read it last year and I laughed out loud right in the middle of Barnes & Noble). The author of the book is mistaken (though the book on the whole isn't bad). He has track width confused with track count and apparently isn't familiar with gap scatter on multitrack heads, or the other issues I already mentioned. Not only will it do you no good you are likely to get cancellation and thus attenuation of certain frequencies, which is the opposite of what you’re trying to do.

3. Often people don't have enough understanding of an issue to even know what questions to ask. I address subjects in my posts based on what I think people should know in order to grasp the broader issues they may not have been aware of. So you're just going to have to deal with it when I answer questions that haven't been asked, as you say.

4. It's common knowledge (at least it used to be) that when two outer tracks on a multitrack head are in perfect alignment, the tracks in between them will not be, due to "gap scatter." Setting azimuth on a multitrack head is a compromise and the more tracks on a head the worse it is. It's not the same as setting azimuth on a 2-track mastering deck, so your "experiments" won't do you much good.

Even the better consumer bi-directional stereo decks have separate heads for each direction because of this phenomenon. If you have a single 4-track playback head you can only get the azimuth spot on for one direction.

Using a multitrack for mastering is not recommended, but if you do, the tracks that are used for setting azimuth are the logical choice… in this case 2 and 7. And tracks that far apart will have zero crosstalk. You might get away with using tracks 3 and 6 if you want but 4 and 5… eh, that's a bad idea for stereo material because of crosstalk and the aforementioned azimuth issues.

5. It's also common knowledge (at least it used to be) that every stage in a signal path adds noise, and adding more paths adds noise…so the noise is cumulative in series and parallel. It doesn't matter that the noise floor of the tape is higher than the noise of a given mixing console. Hiss is not masked by hiss… it is added to the total noise generated by a system. Proper gain staging is assumed.

[Dr ZEE]

How many tracks were used for mastering Gillett's quote?

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

How many tracks were used for mastering Gillett's quote?

Just the railroad tracks by my house.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Beck

...I laughed out loud right in the middle of Barnes & Noble. ....

-How are you , Sir
-Soooo?
-Sir, are You purchasing the item or just looking?
-Please, take the item and bring it to the cashier, Sir.
-Thank You, Sir!