Dear Mr. Warren,
Thank you for the helpful information.
Quoting Richard Warren <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear David,
> Experience here suggests that the life of tape depends primarily on
> stock used, secondarily on certain qualities of the recording and
> machine. The principal problem of recording more than one track on a
> is that multiple tracks are narrower than full tracks and thus more
> susceptible to damage and tracking problems. However, with good stock
> equipment, I've noticed little difference, except in print-through
> tape is best stored in "played" position, which is only possible of
> for one of two tracks on a 2-track tape, unless one has recorded the
> signal on two parallel half-track channels.
> Quarter-track tapes on 1/4-inch tape have such narrow tracks as to
> little better than audiocassettes for longevity and are extremely
> to head alignment and differences between machines. So they are
> less reliable than half or full track tapes.
> Sincerely, Richard
> At 11:57 AM 3/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >----- Forwarded message from [log in to unmask] -----
> > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:47:15 -0500
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> >Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Longevity of half-track reel
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >I am writing from Oral History American Music with another
> >about analog reel. Many years ago, some of our recorded
> >were duplicated onto half-track reel. To conserve space, the
> >recorded the first half of the recording in mono in the right
> >then flipped the reel over and recorded the second half on the
> >Are these reels less stable than those recorded full track mono or
> >stereo? Is there a danger of print-through? How about those
> >quarter track?
> >One person advised us that half-track recording is generaly not
> >advised, but I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks in advance
> >any information you can provide.
> >David Heetderks
> >Oral History, American Music
> >----- End forwarded message -----