Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings

["Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:30 PM 2007-03-25, Tom Fine wrote:
> 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?

Hi, Tom,

If you use a too-narrow track, you get low-frequency fringing 
effects. The worst case of signal-to-noise degradation would be
10 log (1.9/2.8) or about - 1.7 dB.

I am interested in David Lennick's comments as to the wide 
utilization of the DIN heads (2.8 mm tracks) throughout CBC).

I wonder if the EQ was NAB or IEC?

I just cleaned a couple of moldy CBC Toronto tapes and they are 
indeed DIN track width. They sound like NAB EQ, however.

I tend to ignore the 1.9 vs 2.1 mm track width. I prefer to think in 
mils (thousandths of an inch). So we have roughly 75 mils for the 
Ampex original stereo heads (the original half-track mono heads were 
always about 82 mils). Then the 82 mils became standardized for 
half-track mono AND stereo in the NAB standard I think about 1965. 
Then, of course, we have the 100 mil (102?) DIN standard.

I did come across one "half-track" recording that had 60 mil tracks 
on it. Joy. I just used the 82 mil normal head (I don't have any 
Ampexes so I don't have any 75 mil heads).

Anyway, I just dug out my butterfly head assembly and I'll put it on 
my A810 and align it.

I'd love more discussion on the pervasiveness of this. I have some 
machines from CBC-TV in Montreal and they were all NAB Timecode, no 
DIN heads there.

Cheers,

Richard


Richard L. Hess                   email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.