Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How much quality/fidelity do you use if you play back something recorded with a 2.8mm head on a 
1.9mm head? It would seem like you'd be safest using the narrowest track width as it should play 
everything at least OK and not pick up any outside-of-track garbage from a tape, no?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Parker Dinkins" <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings


> on 3/25/07 3:25 PM US/Central, Richard L. Hess at arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
>
> > We have four possible combinations of track width and EQ if we stick
> > with standards:
> >        NAB Head, NAB Eq (assumed to be standard)
> >        NAB Head, IEC Eq
> >        DIN   Head, IEC Eq (assumed to be standard)
> >        DIN   Head, NAB Eq
>
>
> > From 5.2.3.3 of Choosing and Using MRL Calibration Tapes, [etc.]:
>
> Effect of Track Width on Two-track Recorders:
>
> There are three different "standard" widths for two tracks recorded on 1/4
> inch (6.3mm) tape; the Ampex Standard (the original two-track de facto
> standard), 1.9mm, the NAB standard (used by almost everyone else but Ampex),
> 2.1mm; and the IEC "stereo" format, 2.8mm. Put more cynically, the track
> widths for two tracks on 1/4 inch tape are _not_ standardized.
>
>
> --
> Parker Dinkins
> MasterDigital Corporation
> Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
> http://masterdigital.com