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  February 2012

ARSCLIST February 2012

Subject:

Re: Unidentified track format

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:08:24 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (114 lines)

Gregorio,

We really need to make certain that we are understanding this correctly. 
I BELIEVE this is what you now mean.

track 1: Signal A
track 2: Signal A + B
track 3: Signal A + B backwards
track 4: Signal B backwards


I do not understand how you can B forwards on track 2 and backwards on 
track 3.

I am assuming that you are playing this on a 4-track inline machine like 
a Teac 3340S

Let's look at
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/quarterinch_lrg.gif
which is approximately to scale.
(It is normally accessed from
    
http://richardhess.com/notes/formats/magnetic-media/magnetic-tapes/analog-audio/025-reel-tape/  
)

It could be a DIN tape with a narrow guard band, but I don't think that 
would explain everything.

I had been thinking all along it is what Mark D said...but even that 
does not make complete sense.

But here is an example of a two-track tape overwritten by a 
malfunctioning 1/4 track machine.

http://richardhess.com/notes/2009/09/02/dangers-of-old-tape-recorders-for-playback-using-the-elevator-head/

I really have to say if you're doing this type of work you need a method 
of magnetic tape development. Yes, it's pricey...but so is spending time 
guessing. I would not have figured out the above example nearly as fast 
without the developer and a calibrated loupe.

Cheers,

Richard


On 2012-02-28 10:28 AM, Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> you definitely spotted the problem at first glance. It should have been indeed 1, 2, 3, 4, in that order and I would say it is clear that it is a half-track tape. There is still the question of the extremely high crosstalk between channels which only occurs on two or three tapes out of the six hundred. I know it would be much easier but I can't develop the tape, so I have to go back to my original question. Which machine would record with such a narrow guard band, or otherwise what could be an alternative explanation?
>
> Huge thanks again
> G
>
> On 27.02.2012, at 15:19, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>
>> Gregorio,
>>
>> This is why I'm such a fanatic about developing tapes and looking at them. The fact that track 3 has B NOT backwards confuses me.
>>
>> Also, I'm surprised you are writing 1/3/2/4 because visually on the tape you'd see 1/2/3/4 and that helps understanding.
>>
>> You could use 1 + 4 to capture, but I'd rather fully understand why as the narrow tracks, especially at the edge, are not the most desirable unless that's all you have.
>>
>> With track 3 B NOT backwards, I'm at a loss to explain.
>>
>> http://richardhess.com/notes/category/audio/magnetic-tape-developing/
>>
>> Develop the tape and post a photo and link to it from the reply message to the list.
>>
>> Do not rule out misaligned heads. Also, some machines used 1/2 and 4/3 as stereo recording and they might have been UK machines instead of the more common US practice of 1/3  4/2 (in all instances L/R and SideA SideB).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On 2012-02-27 5:39 AM, Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote:
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> looking forward to the beginning of a new digitization week: everything is going well in Cambridge thanks in great extent to the support of the members of the list. Huge thanks!
>>>
>>> Now, I have a small group of 1/4 inch tapes in the collection on which I am working (ca 1950s-70s, recorded mainly on Ferrographs) which seems to have a track format, which I haven't met before. On those tapes standard half-track and half-track butterfly Studer blocks consistently produce a dual mono signal with unacceptable crosstalk on both channels (bleeding of about -20 dB referring to the signal on the other channel).
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the output of a quarter-track headblock is as follows:
>>>
>>> track 1: Signal A
>>> track 3: Signal A + B
>>> track 2: Signal A + B backwards
>>> track 4: Signal B backwards
>>>
>>> It would seem that this very small group of tapes would have been recorded on a machine with a very narrow guard-band in comparison to the rest of the tapes I have. What is your opinion about transferring those tapes on a quarter track headblock and keeping tracks 1 and 4?
>>>
>>> I would also be curious about which machine could have had a track format that would agree with the former observations.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments!
>>>
>>> Gregorio Garcia Karman
>>> [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.
> Gregorio Garcia Karman
> [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

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
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