[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings

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

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 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

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]