arsclist mono azimuth

[Tommy Sjöberg <tommy.sjoberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
the aftermaths of a recent discussion, mistitled 'Transfer of 
multiple copies', and the difficulty in correcting azimuth 
electronically, prompted the following thoughts.

When digitizing a full-track 1/4" tape, which is best to use - a 
full-track head or a two-track?

A two-track head permits the setting of the playback-head azimuth 
quite easily using a scope, and gives the required (for CD) 
two-channel result. To minimize the fringeing effect and maximize the 
signal-to-noise ratio, a butterfly head could be used, with its 
narrower gap between channels.

A full-track head eliminates the bass-enhancing fringeing effects and 
gives the highest possible signal-to-noise ration. The resultant 
wave-file occupies just half the space needed by a stereo file. 
Setting the azimuth cannot be facilitated by using a scope, though - 
the ears have to be trusted. Not a bad thing, but it is very content 
dependent. On the other hand, if no treble is present, maybe the 
azimuth doesn't matter so much? After all, what counts is how it 
sounds;-)

Secondary thoughts revolve around the distribution of magnetism 
across the width of the tape track, the flux values commonly used in 
full-track days, the availability today of different configuration 
playback heads, and the consequent choice of electronics. Richard 
Hess also pointed to the speed dependency of reproduction from 
full-track vs. two-track heads.

Any thoughts on the above, pros or cons, would be appreciated.

Happy New Year!
Tommy Sjöberg

-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.