Width of master tape - any rules of thumb?

[Fidelity Castro]

I have a 1/4" 8-track (Fostex R8) and am shopping for a mastering deck.

Just wondering if I'd be best mastering to the same tape width? Or doesn't it matter? Is there any benefit mastering to wider tape? If not, is there any drawback?

Ultimately I would like be able to master from other multitrack machines (yet to be acquired) using the one mastering deck, if possible. Just not sure if there are any issues I should be aware of.

Many thanks.

 

[Tim Gillett]

If you're firm on mastering to analog tape rather than to digital, I wont try and talk you out of it.

1/4" 2 track (half track) has a much wider track width than each of your R8's individual tracks. But to complicate things I think the R8 has Dolby C, meaning even those very narrow tracks can be surprisingly quiet -if set up properly!
In your situation I'm sure most on this site would say that mastering to 1/4" 2 track stereo would be fine. The next step up is 1/2" 2 track which really only gives you about an extra 3 or 4db of tape quietness and potentially some reduced tape drop out. Azimuth errors are also more likely but on properly set up gear shouldnt be an issue.
But going to 1/2" will probably also cost you a lot more. I'd stick with 1/4".
On a previous thread they were saying some mastering houses dont have ANY facility to master from reel to reels.
I guess it depends what you want to do with the finished masters.
Tim

 

[jpmorris]

Pretty much everything from the 60s until the 80s would have been mastered onto 1/4" 2-track. If it was good enough for Pink Floyd, shouldn't it be good enough for you?

Personally I mix to computer for draft versions and 1/4" when it's ready. Yes, I then digitize the tape, but it does mean that I can digitize it again if I get a better soundcard in future.

 

[Fidelity Castro]

1/4" 2 track (half track) has a much wider track width than each of your R8's individual tracks.

True that's a good way to look at it.

The next step up is 1/2" 2 track which really only gives you about an extra 3 or 4db of tape quietness

OK. Do you mean the signal can be 3-4db louder? And therefore the noise floor drops?

Thanks for advice.

 

[Fidelity Castro]

If it was good enough for Pink Floyd, shouldn't it be good enough for you?

Yes! Yes it should!

 

[Tim Gillett]

True that's a good way to look at it.



OK. Do you mean the signal can be 3-4db louder? And therefore the noise floor drops?

Thanks for advice.

Well, whichever way you want to look at it, it comes out that way.

Actually, the hiss is louder too, as there's now more tape width to create it! But the recorded signal is even louder still! So overall the signal is 3-4db higher than the hiss and that's what's important.
I expressed it in terms of less tape hiss but you can express it in terms of louder signal if you like. Two ways of expressing the same truth!
Cheers Tim

 

[Beck]

Mastering to ¼” half-track @ 15 or 30 ips was a standard even well into the 90’s. Mastering to ½” tape was just slightly less common.

A surprise to many... the first +9 tape, 3M 996, wasn't even introduced until 1990, followed by Ampex 499 in 1992, BASF 900 in 1995 and Quantegy GP9 in 1998. The 90's was a decade of tape formulation refinement, which gave analog mastering an industry-wide boost, right in the midst of the digital revolution.

Even today mastering to tape is the biggest analog holdout in this predominantly digital industry, especially in the larger, well-established studios. So yes, it worked in the past for any classic hit you can name, and still works today for engineers that won’t do it any other way.

Even if one tracks in digital, getting a ¼” half-track analog mastering deck is probably the best single step you can take to improve the quality of the final product.

~Τιμόθεος

 

[ofajen]

Well, whichever way you want to look at it, it comes out that way.

Actually, the hiss is louder too, as there's now more tape width to create it! But the recorded signal is even louder still! So overall the signal is 3-4db higher than the hiss and that's what's important.
I expressed it in terms of less tape hiss but you can express it in terms of louder signal if you like. Two ways of expressing the same truth!
Cheers Tim

In theory, doubling the tape track width (actually going from 1/4" to 1/2" will more than double track widths for most machines, because the gaps are about the same on both... you do the math) doubles the recorded signal on the tape (net signal increase of 6 dB on playback) since the recorded signal is coherent (all the same and just adds up). otoh, doubling the track width doubles the amount of noise, but it is incoherent and (again, the math is left as an exercise for the reader) increases the total noise level only by the square root of two (3 dB), leaving a net increase in S/N of at least 3 dB. It can be more than 3 dB, since the typical 1/4" track width is about .075" or .080" for American machines and about .200" for 1/2" machines (European 1/4" tracks were generally wider and the gaps were smaller).

Bear in mind, your machine's erase, record and playback circuitry has to be able to handle the higher levels. This can get to be a problem with an old machine running 1/2" 2-track on a modern, thick, high level tape and you may have to mod some of the circuits. If you don't, the machine may have a hard time giving you a full erase at a high calibration level (say 500 nW/m), the erase head might even get hot and you may have a hard time setting the bias.

Otto

 

[ofajen]

I have a 1/4" 8-track (Fostex R8) and am shopping for a mastering deck.

Just wondering if I'd be best mastering to the same tape width? Or doesn't it matter? Is there any benefit mastering to wider tape? If not, is there any drawback?

Ultimately I would like be able to master from other multitrack machines (yet to be acquired) using the one mastering deck, if possible. Just not sure if there are any issues I should be aware of.

Many thanks.

If you're just making yourself happy, 1/4" 2 track will probably be just the ticket and at reasonable cost. I recommend getting a machine that has the option to run IEC1 (CCIR) eq at 15 ips, and preferably with the other speed being 30 ips.

If you were making other people happy, you might be compelled to have a 1/2" machine, but if you have that type of client, you'd probably also need either a ProTools rig or a 2" analog machine. A friend of mine, Mitch Easter, is another 3M-o-phile and though he likes his 1/4" machines just fine, to most of his clients, mixing to analog means 1/2" tape, so that's what he does. I think his projects these days are some ProTools only and some with 3M or Otari machines synced to ProTools, but he pretty much always mixes to 1/2" tape as the primary mix.

I personally do my mixing now to a digital compact flash recorder, because I sold the M-79-2 and haven't got the M-23-2 wired up yet. I suppose I could set the M-79-4 up as a 2-track by putting in the 1/4" tape guides, but then I couldn't use it as a 4-track!

Otto

 

[Dr ZEE]

surprise to many... the first +9 tape, 3M 996, wasn't even introduced until 1990, followed by Ampex 499 in 1992, BASF 900 in 1995 and Quantegy GP9 in 1998...

... immediately followed (or simultaneously?) by Diamond Multimedia's Rio PMP300. And what a Christmas that was! heh heh heh ... or was it rather Halloween forever since then ?

The 90's was a decade of tape formulation refinement, which gave analog mastering an industry-wide boost, right in the midst of the digital revolution.

Yep... right in the midst of it.

 

[Fidelity Castro]

Cheers all. This has been really helpful.