 |
 |
Dear David, Experience here suggests that the life of tape depends primarily on the stock used, secondarily on certain qualities of the recording and recording machine. The principal problem of recording more than one track on a tape is that multiple tracks are narrower than full tracks and thus more susceptible to damage and tracking problems. However, with good stock and equipment, I've noticed little difference, except in print-through (since tape is best stored in "played" position, which is only possible of course for one of two tracks on a 2-track tape, unless one has recorded the same signal on two parallel half-track channels. Quarter-track tapes on 1/4-inch tape have such narrow tracks as to be little better than audiocassettes for longevity and are extremely sensitive to head alignment and differences between machines. So they are certainly 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 question >about analog reel. Many years ago, some of our recorded interviews >were duplicated onto half-track reel. To conserve space, the staff >recorded the first half of the recording in mono in the right channel, >then flipped the reel over and recorded the second half on the other >channel. > >Are these reels less stable than those recorded full track mono or in >stereo? Is there a danger of print-through? How about those recorded >quarter track? > >One person advised us that half-track recording is generaly not >advised, but I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks in advance for >any information you can provide. > >David Heetderks >Oral History, American Music > >----- End forwarded message -----