1/2" vs. 1/4" 2 track... is there really that much of a difference?

[bloomboy]

So I'm almost finished recording my first album, and am looking for a recorder to mix down to... It looks like I have two options:

1) get a 1/2" 2-track headstack for my tascam 38

2) get a 1/4" 2-track tape recorder


The second option would be about 100 dollars cheaper at current prices. Does anyone here have experience with both of these formats? Is the difference really that noticeable? Of course I'd love to make the comparison myself, but circumstances don't really permit it at the moment. Also consider that I am mixing down from 1/2" 8 track, so the 1/4" 2-track would already be a step up in terms of track width.

Peace,
Theo

 

[SteveM]

The 1/4" 2 track would do a great job so I wouldn't say it's necessary to go to 1/2" if you want to save the money. Where do you get the 1/2" headstack?

 

[bloomboy]

JFR makes them... they haven't got one specifically designed for tascam recorders but I'm assuming finding a way to mount it wouldn't be too terribly difficult, and hooking it up would be a piece of cake... just attatch tracks one and two and leave the rest. But I'm pretty sure I'll just go with 1/4" anyhow. I might spring for the 1/2 if I was tracking to wide format tape, but with 1/2" 8 track I just can't see that there will be much of a difference, and like you said I'm sure it'll sound great.

Theo

 

[Beck]

Putting a ½” headstack on a ¼” machine is an intriguing prospect that I’ve considered. I would be inclined to start with a half-track (2-track) like the 32 and add the ½” guides, lifters and reel clampers, etc. from a junked 38 or something. Your biggest gains will be in signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). Doubling track width will give you about 3dB better S/N. But the overall performance of the system will depend on how the rest of the machine is designed. You can find ¼” half-tracks that perform better overall than some ½” half-tracks. All things being equal though a ½” machine of the same model will have an advantage over its ¼” little bro.

In practice ¼” half-track (with and without noise reduction) was very common for mastering, and much of our favorite music of every genre from the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s was mastered to ¼” and still is by those that prefer tape for this stage.

Each track on NAB standard ¼” half-track is a bit wider than each track on a 2” 16-track, (approximately 79 vs. 70 mils) so yes you are stepping up in track width compared to most any format people commonly use for multi-track. Think of it this way… with ¼” half-track you have tracks wider than what many people consider the ultimate – 16 on 2” and you also have a wider distance (shield) between the tracks.

So IMO 2 tracks on ½” is more than most people really need. Factor in the difference in price between ½” and ¼” tape and your total cost of ownership for the ½” can end up significantly more than at first look.

Depending on the type of music you’re mastering you may or may not desire noise reduction. Dolby A, C, DBX Type I or a single-ended device will do the trick for all but those recording the sounds of an empty anechoic chamber. (Those are creepy by the way… you can actually hear the blood rushing through your veins).

I get fully professional results with ¼” half-track, and a rather modest machine at that. There is nothing that would compel me to move up to ½” at this time.

There are ultra wide track fans out there though, but even ½” isn’t enough. I think they might do 2 tracks on 2 ft. tape if they could. There is a point of diminishing returns. ½” is reasonable but maybe not necessary.

 

[SteveM]

Check your Craigs list when looking for a half track. I got my 32 for $30 !! and it works great.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Also worth noting about doing a two track conversion of a 38 is that the channel cards don't have the headroom to calibrate cleanly to a 1/2" - 1/2 track standard.

Even switching tape formulations beyond the factory 456 calibration is taking the 38 into dangerous waters so I wouldn't advise going in that direction at all.

Cheers!

 

[Tim Gillett]

You dont say what sort of music it is or give any other details.

The main sonic improvement is maybe 3 or 4 db less noise, noise which depending on the type of music may well be totally masked by the music on 1/4" anyway.

On some program, especially classical, even 1/2" is too noisy. On much pop/rock commercial stuff, 1/4" is more than good enough.

Do a real life test with your material.

The difference between 1/2" and 1/4" is probably negligible compared to the many production decisions made in the course of creating your tracks. Whichever way you go is unlikely to make or break your album.

Regards,
Tim.

 

[Dr ZEE]

- Option 2. Get Half-Track And face the music.
**********
If the 'noise' is such an "issue" here, then I'd say, for the real life test do this: get 1/4" half track 15ips deck (assuming in good working order), tascam 32 will do. Record some silence. Play back the recorded silence and struggle trying to hear that "nasty noise" (also, assuming, that the amplifier you are listening through is "noiseless" at the volume level that would require to make the tape noise audible , or you may face the conflict of noises in there). Do not do such test with some music program that follows the silence section under "investigation", becuse when the music will hit - it may permanently damge your ear (assumingly that the speaker (or phone driver) survives the blast)
********
specific note in case of tascam 32 - DO NOT use its headphone output for critical monitoring of material. It's only good for cue-ing. That headphone amp has its own "noise generator" built in or something, I suppose
**********

On some program, especially classical, even 1/2" is too noisy.

Yeah. OK.
well, I never heard 1/2" master. so can't really say how noisy it may be. maybe it can be pretty damn noisy. oh boy -

 

[MCI2424]

..........

I get fully professional results with ¼” half-track, and a rather modest machine at that. There is nothing that would compel me to move up to ½” at this time.......
.

What is the definition of "fully professional results?"

 

[Dr ZEE]

from zeepedia:

fully professional result (definition) - the client is foolly happy and the professional's wallet is full.

 

[MCI2424]

from zeepedia:

fully professional result (definition) - the client is foolly happy and the professional's wallet is full.

So any paid work is fully professional?

 

[Dr ZEE]

So any paid work is fully professional?

no.
***********
from zeepedia:
fully professional work (definition) - a work the purpose of which is achieving a fully professional result.
***********
see post#10 for fully professional result definition

 

[MCI2424]

no.
***********
from zeepedia:
fully professional work (definition) - a work the purpose of which is achieving a fully professional result.
***********
see post#10 for fully professional result definition

Sounds like circular logic to me.

 

[ofajen]

So I'm almost finished recording my first album, and am looking for a recorder to mix down to... It looks like I have two options:

1) get a 1/2" 2-track headstack for my tascam 38

2) get a 1/4" 2-track tape recorder


The second option would be about 100 dollars cheaper at current prices. Does anyone here have experience with both of these formats? Is the difference really that noticeable? Of course I'd love to make the comparison myself, but circumstances don't really permit it at the moment. Also consider that I am mixing down from 1/2" 8 track, so the 1/4" 2-track would already be a step up in terms of track width.

Peace,
Theo

I'd suggest you start with the 1/4" machine. Should be adequate for mixing down from your 1/2" 8 track. Try it first. After that, if you still think you need a 1/2" machine, too, you can always get one later. Besides, it's just a good thing to have at least one 1/4" machine around.

I have a friend who runs a studio in North Carolina and often mixes projects to 1/2" tape, but he generally does so because his clients insist on it because, to them, "analog" only means 1/2" tape at 30 ips, though they'd probably be hard pressed to really explain why. He'd just as soon use one of his 1/4" machines in a lot of cases, but he needs to keep his clients happy. My suggestion is that you try the 1/4" machine first and see if it makes you happy.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[evm1024]

The question is....

What is the definition of "fully professional results?"

You know, I think that it is quite obvious what he meant. Were you asking the question in good faith or are you picking a fight? What is the point of your question?

 

[MCI2424]

You know, I think that it is quite obvious what he meant. Were you asking the question in good faith or are you picking a fight? What is the point of your question?

I am doing what Dr. ZEE does everytime I mention the mere word "professional". If it works for Dr. ZEE, why not others?

Not picking a fight. Go read some of Dr. ZEES rants and you will be better informed.

 

[evm1024]

I am doing what Dr. ZEE does everytime I mention the mere word "professional". If it works for Dr. ZEE, why not others?

Not picking a fight. Go read some of Dr. ZEES rants and you will be better informed.

Dr Zee does make sense. It is not just babble. Try parable. Ever look at a Miro and have it jump into focus?

 

[Dr ZEE]

Go read some of Dr. ZEES rants and you will be better informed.

amen.
**********

 

[MCI2424]

Dr Zee does make sense. It is not just babble. Try parable. Ever look at a Miro and have it jump into focus?

???????????????

Makes sense how?