half-inch models

FALKEN

FALKEN

*************************
hey all.

i'm gonna bug you with a thousand times over question.

since prices now are probably rock bottom, im going to try to get ahold of a good master reel. So I am thinking 1/2" with XLR inputs.

Might be overkill, But I already have a half inch 16-track, so I could stick to one tape format. Plus I dont care much for NR.

So, opinionated ones..

I know otari, AKAI, etc. etc. etc. made good versions of this type of machine. most ads on ebay don't say which size tape and some don't mention input type. so I am trying to research specific model numbers that would fit my needs.

and if you are truly opinionated, you can try to talk me into getting a 1/4" with rcas. like a tascam 22.

but, the most confusing part is, some of these models (MX5050?) put out different sized tapes and stuff, with the same model number (I think). Since I am getting my info off of ebay, its hard to tell what is accurate or not.

I *almost* bid on a Fostex E2 in great condition a couple weeks ago; didn't. winning bid was $172. kicking myself ever since.

thoughts, anyone?
 
The MX5050 is usually 1/4", but it has balanced inputs and would be a really good mastering deck.

If you want to go really overboard, try finding one that runs at 30 ips!
 
I think most of the machines for 1/2 track are pretty good. But I dont understand why you are concerned with balanced input. Are you going to be running like a 100 feet of cable to get to the machine?
 
nope. not 100 feet. although.......thats not a bad idea! but no; not planning on it. u think RCA's are straight? I am mostly concerned with the quality of the cable (XLR vs RCA).

30 ips would be overkill and too expensive to run. I am recording rock music. From what I hear, it sounds best at 15.
 
A guy needs a machete to cut through Otari's model designations. If you scored a 1/2" half-track you would instantly become master and commander for sure. :) I think I've only actually seen a 1/2" mastering deck in one studio that I can remember and it was a modified 1/4" Otari.

I won't try to talk you into a Tascam 22-2 with a lot of technobabble. However that is what I have and feel no need to replace it. Just remember if you are mixing down from 16 tracks on 1/2" tape to 2-tracks on 1/4" tape at the same speed you're actually "mixing up" to a track width that is 4 times greater -- not bad. The Tascam 22 and 32 are very popular these days in some pretty serious studios for pre-mastering; a process that has caught on over the years to warm up digital tracks. The Fostex units aren't bad either.

That being said, an even wider track format would be quieter and if you don't like NR 1/2" can't be beat. I gate everything though when going from analog to CD so I haven't had any tape hiss issues.

Another thing I considered was tape cost. Even though I'm no longer a struggling musician and can now afford a lot of the toys I used to just drool over I still wouldn't want to try to feed a 1/2" multitrack and a 1/2" mastering deck.

I only record my own stuff now and occasionally a favor for a friend. I don't need more than 1800 feet of tape at a time for mastering. If was still running a day-to-day operation I might choose a 32-2.

I'm sure there are some 1/2" fans on the board that prefer that format and hopefully they will ring in with some pros and cons.

Best of luck

-Tim
 
Last edited:
When you say "master" you're talking stereo, right? I've never seen a stereo machine that uses half inch tape from Tascam, Otari, McI or the other mid level manufacturers. Only multitrack machines.

All stereo machines I've seen and worked with over the decades are quarter inch tape. The defacto speed is usually 15ips, but that's a personal call.

Now... there are plenty of half-track stereo machines on quarter inch tape. Which is better dynamic range than quarter-track, quarter inch stereo.

It's helpful to recap the terminology..which you may already know..I can't tell from your post..

Stereo..quarter inch tape...half track
2 wide track widths taking up the entire the quarter inch tape...ie...you can't turn the tape over and use the "other" side to record more stereo tracks because the half track stereo takes up the whole width of the tape. Turn the tape over and listen..you hear what was already recorded...backwards. This "half-track on quarter inch tape" is the standard for mixdowns in the olden days of things like Ampex (and my 25-2) studio stereo mixdown machines.

Stereo...quarter inch tape...quarter track
2 narrow stereo tracks that only take up half of the available quarter inch tape...ie.. you CAN turn the tape over and record stereo on the other side.
Not as wide dynamic range...is the standard for all the old "consumer" reel to reel decks made over the eons.

I am aware of special order MCI, Ampex and Studer stereo machines in the mid 70's that were stereo on half inch tape at 30ips. As I remember, those machines were not extremely popular although they carried extreme prices of $20,000 and up....for stereo no less.

I haven't mixed to stereo tape for a couple of decades. It's always to computer now. If I want analog...hey I capture it on the analog multitrack machine and the sound is there. By dumping to the pc, I have all the wonderful mastering/mixing tools available...+ the captured analog sound. If I were to mix to tape, I'm just smearing the sound more for no real good reason.

I also don't do 30ips "anything". I switched one of my 8516's to 30ips twenty five or so years ago for a week or so. There is so much low end loss and, to me, no increase in perceptible dynamic range. Plus the tape would run out in 12 minutes instead of 27 minutes. A total drag. So I switched it back to 15ips. I would do the same if I were using stereo analog decks for mixing.
 
I was only joking about 30 ips. I forgot to add a :D

Don Zientara at Inner Ear used to have a 1/2" stereo mastering deck (which ran at 15 and 30) but I don't remember the make/model. Next time I see him I'll ask.
 
truth be told, that fostex E2 that went for $172 this past month was half inch. although there is a center track for timecode, which would have been useless to me. not sure how much tape that track takes up. man, I should have grabbed that one!

so; to recap.

no tascam 1/2" machines, no otari 1/2" machines?

just the fostex and some other stuff I can't afford?

as to mixing to digital, I have had some good results with this. only issue is that I really can't stand the sound of digital gain (to get it to cd level). I would like to try experimenting with a mixdown reel; and a half inch one would approach the digital quality anyway.

beck - are you sure mixing down from my half inch 16 track would effectively be mixing up??? I figure going half inch to half inch would preserve the quality, and going to quarter inch would actually be mixing down. I guess that all depends on the physics of analog summing, of which I know nada.

the tape won't be that expensive; anything recorded just for jamming or note taking i can do digitally. the only thing that turns me off about the tascam 32 is the rca inputs.
 
The E2 was a half-track machine on quarter inch tape. Not a half-inch tape machine. If an ad says it uses half-inch tape, that's wrong.

The E2 had a center time code track for smpte which further squashed the track width on that quarter inch tape, so I was never too sure it was actually a real half track format.
 
BRDTS said:
The E2 was a half-track machine on quarter inch tape. Not a half-inch tape machine. If an ad says it uses half-inch tape, that's wrong.

The E2 had a center time code track for smpte which further squashed the track width on that quarter inch tape, so I was never too sure it was actually a real half track format.
Click to expand...

great! now i don't feel so bad!

ok. so.

otari mx5050 or tascam 32???????
 
FALKEN said:
beck - are you sure mixing down from my half inch 16 track would effectively be mixing up??? I figure going half inch to half inch would preserve the quality, and going to quarter inch would actually be mixing down. I guess that all depends on the physics of analog summing, of which I know nada.
Click to expand...

The track width and not the tape width is the issue. For example all other things being equal, 8 tracks spread across 1/2" width tape is better than 16 tracks spred across the same tape. That's because each individual track has more tape area for the signal.

Likewise 2 tracks divided equally across 1/4" tape gives more area to each track than does 16 tracks divided equally across 1/2".

1/2" divided by 16 theoretically gives each track a width of 1/32" though it's actually less due to spacing. Dividing 1/4" by 2 gives each track a width 1/8". Again its actually less than 1/8" because tracks on a head don't actually cover the entire tape.

So although 1/2" tape is wider than 1/4" tape each of the individual 16 tracks occupy less space than two tracks on 1/4".

Hope that makes sense.

Here's a nice link with some visuals:

http://www.tangible-technology.com/media/media_2.html

-Tim
 
hey man, I understand all that. I just thought that maybe the sum of all 16 tracks might be greater fidelity than each one separately. how much greater, is the question (for which I have no answer). from what you are saying, it sounds like none.
 
I am about to start using an Otari MTR-12II, which is 1/2" and designed for mastering. It looks pretty professional, maybe to much for me. I got mine for $400. Dont try shipping, they are like washing machines.
 
FALKEN said:
hey man, I understand all that. I just thought that maybe the sum of all 16 tracks might be greater fidelity than each one separately. how much greater, is the question (for which I have no answer). from what you are saying, it sounds like none.
Click to expand...

Yeah, That's pretty much right in my estimation. However, my explanation is a simplification of a fairly complex issue involving other performance considerations of specific machines. If you have a 38, TSR-8, Fostex R8, E-16 and certainly any cassette multitrack, mixing down to a 22-2 or 32 should be just peachy. Same goes for the Otari and Revox 1/4" half-tracks.

Though as some have stated they prefer to go directly to a digital master. So I'm only pondering the narrower issue of 1/4" analog vs. 1/2" analog and what is adequate vs. what might be considered overkill.

-Tim
 
Speaking of mixing-down ....

Is there any benefit to doing a mix-down from a cassette portastudio to an open reel recorder ? :confused:

~Daniel
 
cjacek said:
Is there any benefit to doing a mix-down from a cassette portastudio to an open reel recorder ? :confused:

~Daniel
Click to expand...

Definitely a good thing if you mean as opposed to cassette mastering. You can think of it the same way as say, making a copy of a VHS tape to Super VHS. You are copying to a superior format so you have less degradation of the signal than if you just made a standard VHS copy. The copy is not better than the original, but it is better than if you copied it to an equal or lesser format.

If you're weighing mastering to open reel vs. CD or other digital, I guess it depends. You may want to master to open reel half-track if you want to get a really hot signal to tape with some added compression. You can't hit cassette like you can open reel, so you can actually add some qualities that the original cassette tracks don't have on their own. And of course you can't hit digital with anything at all. So the impression of loudness or power must be created in the analog realm. ;)
-Tim
 
Beck said:
Definitely a good thing if you mean as opposed to cassette mastering. You can think of it the same way as say, making a copy of a VHS tape to Super VHS. You are copying to a superior format so you have less degradation of the signal than if you just made a standard VHS copy. The copy is not better than the original, but it is better than if you copied it to an equal or lesser format.

If you're weighing mastering to open reel vs. CD or other digital, I guess it depends. You may want to master to open reel half-track if you want to get a really hot signal to tape with some added compression. You can't hit cassette like you can open reel, so you can actually add some qualities that the original cassette tracks don't have on their own. And of course you can't hit digital with anything at all. So the impression of loudness or power must be created in the analog realm. ;)
-Tim
Click to expand...

Thanks Tim! Much appreciated!

~Daniel :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top