Analog Track Width

silverdisk · 25th March 2005

How does track width coresspond to fidelity?.. If it does.....

For example if I track to 1" 16 track.. then those tracks are only 1/16 of an inch right?

The same as a single track of a 1/8" cassette track?

Is it the higher speed of the 16 track @ 15ips thats makes its fidelity a little higher?

Or are these essentially the same fidelity?

Like an 8 track 1/4" , they will only be 1/32" per track?

thenoodle · 25th March 2005

You've got your math all wrong. Whether cassette or reel, there are guard bands between tracks. You can't just divide the number of tracks into the width of the tape to get sizing.

The actual tape width allocated for a track on a 1" 16 track is far larger than that given on a cassette. Plus the speed of the tape, the path, wow/flutter figures due to the different type of impedance rollers, larger capstan, and fidelity of the far larger head stack/gap makes for a superior track result on the 1". And that's not even considering the vast differences in the audio electronics processing the signal in each type of machine.

toque-eh! · 25th March 2005

not to mention a cassette has 4 tracks allocated within it's puny width...

maxim · 26th March 2005

wide and fast is better than narrow and slow

jbuntz · 26th March 2005

There is a slight comprimise in low frequencies at higher speeds. 15 IPS is also often more flat than 30 IPS. Other than that faster is better in terms of noise and HF response. Wider is better period.

toque-eh! · 26th March 2005

personally, i'm partial to 15 ips if i can do it 16 track. punching is tricky...

lucey · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbuntz

There is a slight comprimise in low frequencies at higher speeds. 15 IPS is also often more flat than 30 IPS. Other than that faster is better in terms of noise and HF response. Wider is better period.

15 ips is more flat than 30? On what machines?

Bob Olhsson · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucey

15 ips is more flat than 30? On what machines?

Every single one I've ever encountered!

JTR · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Every single one I've ever encountered!

Why do you think this is, Bob?

I'm familiar with the physics of magnetic wavelength vs. gap geometry & output, but never thought about this angle.

Would it be correct to assume that head gap design, etc. would be best optimized for specific tape speed, and that if most of the designs were using 15ips as their standard, 30 is a compromise?

Jack Endino has a website with a discussion of this, & lots of response charts from different machines - folks might want to check it out.

lucey · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Every single one I've ever encountered!

Interesting ... on ATR 102 and MM1200 the opposite is true ... 30 is the flatter and 15 has the 125 bump and rolled off top.

Sounds Great · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucey

Interesting ... on ATR 102 and MM1200 the opposite is true ... 30 is the flatter and 15 has the 125 bump and rolled off top.

Rolled off top? At what frequency does this roll off start?

JTR · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Rolled off top? At what frequency does this roll off start?

http://www.jackendino.com/graphs/index.html

Sounds Great · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTR

http://www.jackendino.com/graphs/index.html

Thanks for the link I had seen before but it has been a while. I wish he would have had a chart for a Studer A800. I hear this is the favorite rock and roll recorder for some of the biggies.

lucey · 26th March 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Rolled off top? At what frequency does this roll off start?

Around 12 to 15 k depending on the machine ... I prefer the low bump and gentle roll off of 15ips for tracking and 30 at mixdown (15 for digital)

25th March 2005	#1
silverdisk Gear maniac Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 189 Thread Starter	Analog Track Width How does track width coresspond to fidelity?.. If it does..... For example if I track to 1" 16 track.. then those tracks are only 1/16 of an inch right? The same as a single track of a 1/8" cassette track? Is it the higher speed of the 16 track @ 15ips thats makes its fidelity a little higher? Or are these essentially the same fidelity? Like an 8 track 1/4" , they will only be 1/32" per track?

26th March 2005	#6
toque-eh! Gear nut Joined: Mar 2005 Location: vancouver Posts: 141	personally, i'm partial to 15 ips if i can do it 16 track. punching is tricky... __________________ ciao, marc headphones suck!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best analog 4 track. Best analog 8 track.	eligit	So much gear, so little time!	22	28th August 2006 10:43 PM
Analog 8-track for Tracking OR Analog 2-Track for Mixing Down?	yourmomsp	Low End Theory	7	24th July 2005 05:47 AM
analog 2 track	audiothings	So much gear, so little time!	17	23rd April 2004 05:19 PM

25th March 2005	#2
thenoodle Lives for food Joined: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,170	You've got your math all wrong. Whether cassette or reel, there are guard bands between tracks. You can't just divide the number of tracks into the width of the tape to get sizing. The actual tape width allocated for a track on a 1" 16 track is far larger than that given on a cassette. Plus the speed of the tape, the path, wow/flutter figures due to the different type of impedance rollers, larger capstan, and fidelity of the far larger head stack/gap makes for a superior track result on the 1". And that's not even considering the vast differences in the audio electronics processing the signal in each type of machine.

26th March 2005	#4
maxim Gear maniac Joined: Jul 2002 Posts: 216	wide and fast is better than narrow and slow

26th March 2005	#5
jbuntz Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,716	There is a slight comprimise in low frequencies at higher speeds. 15 IPS is also often more flat than 30 IPS. Other than that faster is better in terms of noise and HF response. Wider is better period.