Hi, Mike, I think if you can make 16 kHz flat within 1 dB off a test tape (with few major bumps below that) at 3.75 in/s and still have respectable 20 kHz response (say within 2 or 3 dB) we've got a good-enough head. Few recorders back in the day were able to do that. that demonstrates the wavelength response. Maybe some 1.88 in/s tapes can benefit from going the extra mile with ultra narrow-gap heads, but it's a budget thing, too. I've used some 50 µin heads and don't see a whole lot more coming off the tapes than with 100 µin heads. Studer produced heads with gap lengths of 79 µin (ReVox A77/B77) to about 146 µin (A80). The A810/A807 repro heads were about 118 µin and the special 3.75 in/s head for the A80 RC was about 98 µin. Resonating the head was common practice to increase its high-frequency response and Jay McKnight has a calculator on the MRL website to help with that. The target audience of your message should be the interviewers and the researchers who use(d) the $19.95 drugstore cassette (or reel!) no-name recorders and the equally no-name Bargin-o-rama tapes to record important interviews. With something like the Zoom H1/H2n now there is just no excuse (and thankfully (in the long run) no backlog of work being created for the likes of me) to have anything but good-quality interviews ... well unless they put the unit across the room and under a pillow. With the H2(n) I urge people to use the four-channel mode for most oral histories and I've had people use two of them to record 10-16 person panel discussions where everything had to be intelligible. Oh, and if you're interviewing in a house on a busy truck route, try to keep the windows shut and put the dog out as well (even in the country). Cheers, Richard On 2012-04-16 11:11 AM, Michael Biel wrote: > From: Nigel Champion<[log in to unmask]> >> The drawbacks with this method are: >> 1. It's only suitable for low-bandwidth material (ie speech and not music) > Is there SOME way to rid the audio and video world of this concept that > speech does not need wide-band recording and reproduction??? The human > speaking voice has the widest frequency range of just about any musical > instrument and do not assume that the only reason to record someone > speaking is intelligibility of the words. I grew up reading all the > tape recorder ads that said use 3 3/4 for voice and 7 1/2 for music. > Enough already. That concept should have been ignored in the 1950s and > should be ignored now. > > IF the speech recording you are working with does happen to be low > bandwidth, that is one thing. But don't make it low bandwidth by bad > reproduction techinques because "what the hell, it's only speech". Some > 3 3/4 speech recordings DO have wide bandwidth. > > Mike Biel [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.