tape width and track limits

  • Thread starter Thread starter arjanitor
  • Start date Start date
A

arjanitor

New member
I was wondering...

With my computer, the only thing that limited the number of tracks was the beefiness of my computer. In theory, I could have an infinite number of tracks with no quality loss.

But lately, I've been wanting to use something a little more protable, and I'm also wanting to get my hands dirty with some analog equipment. So, here's my question....

Being that there is a finite amount of room on the width of a cassette tape, does audio quality start to degrade simply by trying to cram too many tracks onto the tape? The way I understand it, the only way to get more tracks on a tape is to narrow the alotted width that each track can occupy on the tape. Am I correct here? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but my understanding of analog recording is "elementary" at best.

I was looking at a TASCAM 488 MKII. It's not too expensive, and seems like it would work well for me. But there's just something about cramming 8 tracks on a strip of cassette tape that seems unnatural...like it just shouldn't be.

Am I crazy?
 
No, you're not crazy......... tape width and on-board "mixer" electronics are the very reasons analog portastudios have such crippled fidelity.........................!
 
"In theory" you can have unlimited track with your PC you say? Well, thats some theory. :-)

Tape area is like processor power. The more tape, the better the sound. Then there are loads of tricks to make the sound better without increasing the amount of tape used.

If an 8-track casette is good enugh for you is your call. Listen too it and see.
 
Yes, this situation is most definately in theory...not in reality. Well, at least according to the software documentation. :)

So is that what causes "crosstalk" between tracks -- having the tracks so close together that the recording heads can't accurately focus their magnetic effect on a specific track?
 
Yes, crosstalk is caused by not having enough space between the tracks. And bad frequency response is caused by not running the tape fast enough, and bad dynamics by not having wide enough tracks.
 
The recording head on the 488 MkII uses a staggered arrangement severely limiting the amount off cross-talk on this machine. Along with DBX noise reduction you can make some very quiet recordings.

If you are interested in the technical part, I can list track width, separation width, and guard width later this evening when I get home from work.

Regardless of the badmouthing that these machines receive, you can turn out decent quality recordings on them if you know what your doing and can learn to work around the limitations.

If you are just using it for ideas and notes, I don't think there is a better Porta that you could buy in that price range.

It is definately not digital. It doesn't sound that way either.
 
Absolutely right, Sennheiser! Working around limitations is actually part of the fun. It definitely has drawbacks (tape speed, limited frequency response, the need to rewind, fastforward, clean & degauss), but people can talk specs till they're blue in the face; the proof of the pudding is, as the saying goes, in the eating. You CAN get some surprisingly good, high-quality recordings from a 488mkII with a little pre-planning and careful attention to each part of the recording/mixdown processes. Granted, it ain't digital, and it totaly lacks the editing capabilities that are taken for granted in digital recording. Ever try to edit a cassette tape? Hard enough w/2 or 4 tracks, but impossible with the staggered-head 8-track format. But then again, it goes back to using your noodle to work around these kinds of limitations.

Bruce
 
I agree. Anyone who has never learned to use an analog tape recorder has no appreciation for the amount of forethought and planning involved in the recording process using these machines.

I won't go into the details as you are well aware of that fact youself.

But you're right, it is half the fun. Being able to turn out something that sounds almost as good as a commercial analog recording gives me a lot of satisfaction and says alot about the capability of these machines when you know what you're doing.

It's been said that a great engineer can record a grammy-winning album on a four track Porta, and a newbie just starting out sitting at a Neve or SSL console with a 24 track ATR will still turn out something that sounds like it was made on a desktop conference recorder.

I would never attempt a physical edit with a cassette format, but I have been tempted in the past. There is just no way to rock the tape on the head to an accurate locate point.

Analog has been around a lot longer than digital and I doubt it will be going away anytime soon. I get a kick out of people using the digital medium that want that "warm analog sound" and proceed to by tube emulators, tube mics, tube pre's, etc. Anything but a dreaded ATR.

I am still saving for a Tascam MSR16 or ATR60 and either a Tascam or Mackie eight buss console. Not meaning to brag or anything, but judging from my cassette tracks and mixes, I should be able to turn out some really good stuff on a larger format machine. I long for 15 or 30 IPS.
 
I think the best sounding machine I have encountered is the 2" tape 16 track format. Although money wise waaaay out of reach for most of us, there is definitely 'something' to the idea of recording everything to an analog machine, then dumping everything to ProTools, Samplitude, whatever...

The biggest downfalls IMHO are media costs and maintenance. Those machines need replacing, aligning, calibrating, etc., and quality 1 or 2 in tape ain't no bargain...

DERNIT! Now I gotta start looking around for a 16 track machine!
 
This is EXACTLY why I want to start working with analog equipment.

I'm not trying to say that digital makes it "easy", but it just seems that the analog format forces you to really work the creative side of the recording process. Sennheiser make a few really good points. I think it's the KNOWLEDGE and talent about the recording process that makes or breaks a good recording. KNOWLEDGE RULEZ...with a "z"!!

That's it, I'm an analog convert!!!
Although, it's about 2:00 in the moring and I've had several beers. So who knows what I'll be saying tomorrow. :)
 
Yes, media cost is very high when getting into the 1" and 2" formats.

Amazingly enough I have seen the 1/2" MSR selling for more than the 1" ATR60 and I think the long-range cost of the media may have something to do with the lower price. Then again, it could just be time for a re-lapp too.

The ATR60 running at 30IPS is gonna suck up a lot of 1" tape in a very short time and it ain't cheap. But man, the sound is incredible.

So the trade off between the MSR and the ATR is sound quality vs. media cost. The MSR only runs at 15 IPS tops but tape is a lot cheaper.

Alignment isn't a weekly or even monthly affair with most machines unless they have been abused or otherwise treated roughly or transported from one location to another. A check-up every quarter or semi-anually usually will be fine with most machines. Though I've never done it, I've been told that it is a fairly easy skill to learn and worth the cost savings to do so provided you have the proper technical skill and alignment procedures and the test tape.

You guys come on over to the TASCAM web site forum. A lot of analog heads hang out over there. Larry Robinson is the resident expert at the Analog and Vintage forum and knows 10 times what I know about these machines. He's no slouch in the Porta forum either. You got a question, someone will answer it.

TASCAM Forums
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top