LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2011

ARSCLIST January 2011

Subject:

Re: 15/16 Recording Speed

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:47:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (97 lines)

Hello, Stephanie,

You certainly created an interesting thread on this list!

I agree with just about all of the information already posted.

Let's look at the numbers a bit.

The 20 kHz loss at 3.75 in/s of a head with a typical gap length of 100 
in or 2.54 m is about 6 dB without any gap loss compensation. If we 
use a narrow-gap head of about 50 in or 1.27 m, the 20 kHz gap loss at 
3.75 in/s is about 1.3 dB.

The gap length in your Studer A807 is about 3 m which, uncompensated, 
would provide an 8.67 dB loss at 20 kHz. That's what the "Treble" 
adjustment is for, more or less.

So, if we take a nice round number of 20 kHz as the highest frequency 
that we can reliable reproduce with common heads at 3.75 in/s, it then 
stands to reason that at 1.88 in/s, we have a 10 kHz ceiling and at 
15/16 in/s, the ceiling falls to 5 kHz. That is still better than the 3 
kHz limit on hardwired telephones.

If we look at the digitization equipment, 96 ks/s provides about 45 kHz 
of bandwidth. When that is slowed down by a factor of four, the sampling 
frequency becomes 24 kHz with an effective bandwidth of about 11 kHz. 
So, the head gap length is more restrictive than the digitization system.

In the example with the 3 m Studer head, there is a null at about 27.85 
kHz so when slowed down four times, that null corresponds to about 7 
kHz. The audio between 5 and 7 kHz will be rolled off. For example 6.25 
kHz will be down about 18 dB.

Certainly digitizing this yourself will work to at least ascertain what 
is on the tape. These could be quarter track or half track.

While the Uher was pleasant to listen to at 15/16 in/s, I don't think it 
has any phenomenal frequency response.

The ReVox C270 logging series manual claims an upper frequency response 
(at - 3 dB) of:
15/32 in/s -   3 kHz
15/16 in/s -   6 kHz
1.88 in/s   - 12 kHz

This provides little opportunity for anything approaching high fidelity 
until you get to 1.88 in/s. Typically (and for many reasons including 
coating thickness and overall optimization of the format and heads for 
7.5 and 15 in/s) 1.88 in/s never performed as well in open-reel machines 
as it did in cassette machines, with Nakamichi, by and large, leading 
the pack in cassettes.

The ReVox (by Studer) C270 was the last model manufactured that 
addressed these speeds and is a cousin of the A807 in some respects. I 
know some people on this list have C27x loggers (x=track format, they 
were available in 4- and 8-track versions).

While IASA TC-04 section 5.4.10 lists 15/16 in/s as "undefined" the 
Studer manual, at least, informs us that the EQ for 15/16 in/s (though 
the manual has a typo saying "5/16" but that speed does not appear to be 
otherwise offered) is
      15/16 in/s EQ = 200 & 3180 s
      15/32 in/s EQ = 400 & 3180 s

So, the math is in line and if  you digitize at 96 ks/s you probably 
will not degrade the high-frequency response of the recording as the 
repro head gap length is the limiting factor.

Cheers,

Richard

On 2011-01-12 1:04 PM, George, Stephanie wrote:
> Hello, All -
>
> I've run up against an interesting scenario (for us, anyway) and I'm asking for some feedback from the collective wisdom of this group.
>
> We've been doing a lot of our own digitization, but we've now run across a reel to reel tape that was recorded at 15/16 speed.  It doesn't appear as if any of our reel to reel recorder/players offer that as an option, so, obviously, we'll need to send it out.
>
> How common was this recording speed and are there any general assumptions I might be able to make about the circumstances of the recording (i.e., Were there consumer-grade recorders available with this speed option?  Years it might have been a popular option?)
>
> Thanks in advance --
>
> Stephanie George
> Archivist
> Center for Oral and Public History
> California State University, Fullerton
> (657) 278-3693
> [log in to unmask]
>

-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager