Premier Rock Forum

This is a general question and a question about electircal...

what are they main differences between mixing down to a quarter inch deck and mixing down to a half inch deck? I figure it must just sound a little bigger and fatter on the wider tape, but I notice sometimes that bands that could afford either still choose 1/4 inch (white stripes new album in particular)....so there must be more to it. Teach me friends

danny to the carney

i too would like to know, im considering buying a 1/4" ampex machine to mix to and would like to know the differences.

Matt.

Assuming the variables for similar 1/4" and 1/2" machines are roughly the same ie. tape type, replay characteristic, bias etc. Then doubling the track width improves the 'signal to noise ratio' by 3dB.
1/2" is more mechanically resilient too, should your machine spazz out or if someone sits on the box. I would expect the better (torsional) rigidity of 1/2" to help against any modulation noise caused by the tape pulled around the guides. Frequency response is more a factor of tape speed.

Some forums can automatically **** edit out swearing, would it be possible for this one to censor words like fat/fatter? ie.

"I recently rewired my studio with Mogami super mug OFC, it sounds really ****** now."

"Yeah, my friend met Har Mar, apparently he's a real *** cunt."

I'll bet that most of your favorite 60's and 70's awesome sounding rock records were mixed to 1/4-inch .

weston

...and if anyone is looking for one, I am selling a 1/4" two track mastering deck. It is a Studer A-67. It comes with the manual, also, all in German. I live in Chicago. I have never used this deck. I got it on a trade of a bunch of gear. It does power up and seems to be fully functional. I would be happy to answer any questions I can or if you live in Chicago you can come over and check it out. I have been meaning to list it on Ebay but have not gotten around to it yet.

Any takers?

Mark Simms wrote:Assuming the variables for similar 1/4" and 1/2" machines are roughly the same ie. tape type, replay characteristic, bias etc. Then doubling the track width improves the 'signal to noise ratio' by 3dB.
1/2" is more mechanically resilient too, should your machine spazz out or if someone sits on the box. I would expect the better (torsional) rigidity of 1/2" to help against any modulation noise caused by the tape pulled around the guides. Frequency response is more a factor of tape speed.

Well... It is possible to make a "flat" system of any width. There are 16-track 1/2-inch machines and 2-track 1-inch machines. Frequency response is not the only issue, however.

Thinner tape tracks require more playback eq to make the bass level, which increases the LF crosstalk between channels, and aggravates the noise, phase shift and distortion. Speaking purely from anecdotal experience, the wider the track, the better the bass response.

The only real advantages I can see to 1/4-inch are better azimuth stability and (as mentioned above) less demand on the mechanics of the transport.

A good way to understand the correlation between frequency and tape width is to imagine the actual analog waveform on the tape. The wider the track ( the more domains used on the tape itself), the more capable it is to effectively play back the original recorded frequency.

As Steve said, this has mostly to do with Low frequencies, i.e. large waveforms.

This is a VERY SIMPLE way of understanding it. But can help you comprehend why different tape widths are used in various situations, hopefully.

on one of my band's records, we ended up using four rough mixes, done to used ampex 406 1/4" at 15ips. every other mix we've ever done is to 1/2" 30ips, pretty much.

there was something really great about the way they sounded--when we brought up the master tape to do 'proper' mixes, it was less exciting somehow.

those mixes made it to the record, and i still like them a lot. i've always wondered what exactly it is that makes them so appealing. it may be that we just got used to them.

tmidgett wrote:on one of my band's records, we ended up using four rough mixes, done to used ampex 406 1/4" at 15ips.

Really - which record? Firewater? Sorry for derailing the technical conversation with the quasi-fanboy tangent. I'll reserve my other long-standing queries along this line (such as "how the hell did you get the guitar tone on 'Severence Pay'?") for another time.

Thanks,

Dan

A Studer A-810 is an excellent tape machine. You will have no issues at all using 1/4" tape on it if it is properly aligned. The sound quality will be fantastic at either 15 or 30 ips. I mix to an Ampex ATR-102 1/4" machine here and love it. four\_oclocker\_2 wrote:I also know that I'd have to get my own tape for the machine. What would suit this kind of project better given that it wouldn't be a mix-down, but rather a straight up recording with no edits or anything else - EMTEC 900 or 911? The correct answer is ATR Magnetics tape. If you don't know how to properly align the machine for your chosen tape formula, get someone there who knows to help you with it. You're basically wasting your time if you don't do this.