[[email protected]]

I'm looking at purchasing an MCI jh110 1/4" 2track with a timecode
track and unit. I was wondering if having the timecode track means
there is less "tape track width" per track in effect lowering the
recording quality. Does anyone know if this is the case? I've read that
the timecode may be recorded on the center track divider or something
like that and it doesn't effect the track width.

I've also never worked with timecode. I've got an Aardvark q10
soundcard that is supposedly capable of syncing, and I record in
cubase. I'm curious to see how this will work with the MCI unit if I
buy it.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I'm looking at purchasing an MCI jh110 1/4" 2track with a timecode
track and unit. I was wondering if having the timecode track means
there is less "tape track width" per track in effect lowering the
recording quality. Does anyone know if this is the case? I've read that
the timecode may be recorded on the center track divider or something
like that and it doesn't effect the track width.

It doesn't. It's fine.
It DOES mean you can only use the American "2-track" standard heads and
not the "European Stereo" format, which has a narrower guard band between
tracks. But you probably don't want to do that anyway.

I've also never worked with timecode. I've got an Aardvark q10
soundcard that is supposedly capable of syncing, and I record in
cubase. I'm curious to see how this will work with the MCI unit if I
buy it.

It's a pain in the ass and I recommend avoiding having to synch analogue
tape like the plague. But you could do it if you had to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Raw-Tracks]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
It doesn't. It's fine.
It DOES mean you can only use the American "2-track" standard heads and
not the "European Stereo" format, which has a narrower guard band between
tracks. But you probably don't want to do that anyway.

Can you elaborate on that Scott. I've always wondered about this too,
and have never really found a definitive answer. For instance, is a
recording on a 1/4" Otari MTR10 with center-track timecode going to play
back fine on a Studer A80 without center track timecode? If there is
timecode on the center track, will it bleed over on the non-timecode
machine?

What machines use the European Stereo vs. the American standard? I've
never heard reference to that before.

Thanks.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Download Our Multi-Track Masters
www.Raw-Tracks.com
www.Mad-Host.com

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
I'm looking at purchasing an MCI jh110 1/4" 2track with a timecode
track and unit. I was wondering if having the timecode track means
there is less "tape track width" per track in effect lowering the
recording quality.

Nope, it's fine. And you don't have to use it if you don't need it.

I've also never worked with timecode. I've got an Aardvark q10
soundcard that is supposedly capable of syncing, and I record in
cubase. I'm curious to see how this will work with the MCI unit if I
buy it.

I assume that the "and unit" means a synchronizer that takes time code
in and synchronizes the deck to that incoming time code. You'll
probably have better success synchronizing Cubase with the MCI than the
other way around. And unless you have an audio interface for your
computer that accepts SMPTE time code, you'll need a SMPTE-MTC
converter (a hardware box) such as the JLCooper PPS-100 to convert the
SMPTE time code coming out of the MCI to MIDI time code that you can
stuff into a MIDI interface on your comnputer and tell Cubase to follow
it.

A good application for this would be if you wanted "that warm fat
analog tape sound" for a track. You could record it to a pre-striped
(with time code) tape, with Cubase running as a cue track, in sync with
the tape. Then you could play the tape back while recording the
playback into Cubase (in sync) and put away the tape deck.

[[email protected]]

Thanks, I appreciate the info. Got one more questions for you. I'm
planning on recording mainly vocals, electric guitar, piano, and
expirementing with dumping comp based vsts to tape. One track at a time
them dumping back digital. I can either get this 2 track mci jh110 with
heads in good shape for about $350 total. Or save up some more and get
a Nagra 4.2 off of ebay for about $600-$700. Size wise the Nagra would
be better for my studio as the mci is pretty massive. Also the Nagra
would be 1/4" full track so twice the track width per track as the MCI.
I've never heard either maching, only spent countless hours reading
about them online. Any suggestions? Thanks



Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
I'm looking at purchasing an MCI jh110 1/4" 2track with a timecode
track and unit. I was wondering if having the timecode track means
there is less "tape track width" per track in effect lowering the
recording quality. Does anyone know if this is the case? I've read that
the timecode may be recorded on the center track divider or something
like that and it doesn't effect the track width.

It doesn't. It's fine.
It DOES mean you can only use the American "2-track" standard heads and
not the "European Stereo" format, which has a narrower guard band between
tracks. But you probably don't want to do that anyway.

I've also never worked with timecode. I've got an Aardvark q10
soundcard that is supposedly capable of syncing, and I record in
cubase. I'm curious to see how this will work with the MCI unit if I
buy it.

It's a pain in the ass and I recommend avoiding having to synch analogue
tape like the plague. But you could do it if you had to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Raw-Tracks wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
It doesn't. It's fine.
It DOES mean you can only use the American "2-track" standard heads and
not the "European Stereo" format, which has a narrower guard band between
tracks. But you probably don't want to do that anyway.

Can you elaborate on that Scott. I've always wondered about this too,
and have never really found a definitive answer. For instance, is a
recording on a 1/4" Otari MTR10 with center-track timecode going to play
back fine on a Studer A80 without center track timecode? If there is
timecode on the center track, will it bleed over on the non-timecode
machine?

No. If it's done properly, the timecode won't bleed at all onto the
non-timecode machine. The timecode is in the guard band, and it's
recorded as a couple out-of-phase tracks so even if you played it back
on a full-track mono head, the timecode tracks would cancel one another
out and you wouldn't hear it.

What machines use the European Stereo vs. the American standard? I've
never heard reference to that before.

Any machine that you ordered European Stereo heads for. I don't think
anything in the US was shipped that way by default, but a lot of Studer
machines in Europe were. The European Stereo format has higher signal
to noise, but more crosstalk between channels. Forget about bouncing
tracks with it... the guard band is too narrow.

European Stereo tapes will MOSTLY play fine on 2-track machines, and
vice versa, but the top end will be a little different due to fringe
effects.

Flux Magnetics will still make you a set of European Stereo heads for
any machine you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the info. Got one more questions for you. I'm
planning on recording mainly vocals, electric guitar, piano, and
expirementing with dumping comp based vsts to tape. One track at a time
them dumping back digital.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is absolutely stupid. Learn how to use
your digital tools. If you wanted to get a multitrack analog recorder,
I'd have more sympathy for you, but this is just absurd. It's
guaranteed to make your recordings sound worse. You can do that much
easier digitally.

I can either get this 2 track mci jh110 with
heads in good shape for about $350 total. Or save up some more and get
a Nagra 4.2 off of ebay for about $600-$700. Size wise the Nagra would
be better for my studio as the mci is pretty massive. Also the Nagra
would be 1/4" full track so twice the track width per track as the MCI.

You so completely don't understand this world. Now if you wanted to try
something cool and phat, buy the MCI and use it as a mixdown recorder.
Buying the Nagra would be mistake. It's much more difficult to maintain
than the MCI and you're limited to mono. The only nice thing I can say
to you at this point is that I applaud your choice of getting a
professional grade analog recorder instead of dumster diving for a home
grade low speed quarter track recorder. For that you get a tin star.

[[email protected]]

Mike, thanks for the reply. I guess it all depends on what sound you're
going for. I've been working in the box, recording with half decent
converters for years and I can get great quality recordings and a
pretty good quality mix. About five years ago I decided to try using
come analog gear... since then I've rotated through various pieces of
equipment. Right now I have a Tascam 38 8 track, an old Studiomaster
16-8-2 mixer, and some other stuff. Anyway, Since I'm working with
mainly underground hp hop material and want a sampled sound without
ripping off other people's music, I find that even on the Tascam I love
the sound I get when tracking straight to tape then dumping digital vs
tracking straight digital on my Aardvark Q10. I initially started
multitracking stuff but more and more I found myself recording one
track at a time and dumping digital to manipulate and arrange the
sounds itb. At this point I don't need an 8 track analog machine...
this brings me to my hunt for something else. Now I realize the Nagra
and the MCI are two insanely different pieces of gear... Right now I
don't plan on using this as a mixdown deck, I'm only looking for
something that will allow me to track the best quality recordings...
one track at a time, to give me the type of sound I'm looking for.

The MCI, designed more for studio recording, tons of them around, lots
of parts available, relatively inexpensive, but very large, and 1/8"
track width per track

The Nagra, designed more for field recording, not really designed for
instrument recording, not as many around, not as easy to work on...
arguably designed and built much better, seem to last a lot longer,
much smaller, Comes with phantom power, two nagra mic pres, and a nagra
limiter built in. 1/4" full track width per track for a bigger sound.
Seems like a lot more for your money in a much smaller package.

Thanks for the tin star.

[Steve King]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Snipped Experience Summary


The MCI, designed more for studio recording, tons of them around, lots
of parts available, relatively inexpensive, but very large, and 1/8"
track width per track

The Nagra, designed more for field recording, not really designed for
instrument recording, not as many around, not as easy to work on...
arguably designed and built much better, seem to last a lot longer,
much smaller, Comes with phantom power, two nagra mic pres, and a nagra
limiter built in. 1/4" full track width per track for a bigger sound.

I've worked with both these machines. I don't believe I could justify the
description "bigger sound" for the Nagra. The small difference in signal to
noise between mono and two-track is pretty insignificant. However, the mic
pres might give you a flavor you may like.

Seems like a lot more for your money in a much smaller package.

Or, a lot less. For instance you cannot mixdown to a master on the Nagra,
unless you are trying to revive the idea of monaural recording. As far as
value, maybe (he said skeptically) until you need to service the Nagra.
You'll pay and pay for the benefit of that small size.

Steve King

[[email protected]]

Went ahead and made an offer on the MCI. It's a lowboy machine so not
quite as massive as the standard which is good for my setup. I
appreciate the info.



Steve King wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Snipped Experience Summary


The MCI, designed more for studio recording, tons of them around, lots
of parts available, relatively inexpensive, but very large, and 1/8"
track width per track

The Nagra, designed more for field recording, not really designed for
instrument recording, not as many around, not as easy to work on...
arguably designed and built much better, seem to last a lot longer,
much smaller, Comes with phantom power, two nagra mic pres, and a nagra
limiter built in. 1/4" full track width per track for a bigger sound.

I've worked with both these machines. I don't believe I could justify the
description "bigger sound" for the Nagra. The small difference in signal to
noise between mono and two-track is pretty insignificant. However, the mic
pres might give you a flavor you may like.

Seems like a lot more for your money in a much smaller package.

Or, a lot less. For instance you cannot mixdown to a master on the Nagra,
unless you are trying to revive the idea of monaural recording. As far as
value, maybe (he said skeptically) until you need to service the Nagra.
You'll pay and pay for the benefit of that small size.

Steve King

[[email protected]]

wrote:
Went ahead and made an offer on the MCI. It's a lowboy machine so not
quite as massive as the standard which is good for my setup. I
appreciate the info.



I think that you're nuts too. You're buying a lot of maintenance and
upkeep, and you're going to spend a lot of time figuring out how to get
1960s technology to talk to 2006 technology.

Even if you get it to work, you might be overestimating the degree of
accuracy of the synchronization. At best, you'll never be able to
transfer something like drums across, because you couldn't split them
in two passes because the sync wouldn't be tight enough. Even with
DA-88s synced together you couldn't split drums across two tapes. And
the half-dozen people who still use analog tape use it primarily for
drums.

At least with the MCI, you might be able to send/return a stereo track,
unlike with the mono Nagra. I say might, because it might not even be
tight enough to bring the tracks sent separately back together due to
the minor tape speed variations, though I might not know what I'm
talking about here. But I've known people try this kind of thing and
then end up chopping and editing the tracks to bits in order to get
them to line up.

Lastly, it sounds like it would take a long time - setting the levels
for the tape transfer for each track separately (because you want to
adjust the level of saturation for each track) and then playing and
re-recording them 2 at a time.

It sounds to me like you'd get the same result cheaper by buying a
software tape emulator and a hammer to hit yourself on the head with.
But if you go forward, let us know how it turns out. I'd be interested
to know if it would work.



Steve King wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Snipped Experience Summary


The MCI, designed more for studio recording, tons of them around, lots
of parts available, relatively inexpensive, but very large, and 1/8"
track width per track

The Nagra, designed more for field recording, not really designed for
instrument recording, not as many around, not as easy to work on...
arguably designed and built much better, seem to last a lot longer,
much smaller, Comes with phantom power, two nagra mic pres, and a nagra
limiter built in. 1/4" full track width per track for a bigger sound.

I've worked with both these machines. I don't believe I could justify the
description "bigger sound" for the Nagra. The small difference in signal to
noise between mono and two-track is pretty insignificant. However, the mic
pres might give you a flavor you may like.

Seems like a lot more for your money in a much smaller package.

Or, a lot less. For instance you cannot mixdown to a master on the Nagra,
unless you are trying to revive the idea of monaural recording. As far as
value, maybe (he said skeptically) until you need to service the Nagra.
You'll pay and pay for the benefit of that small size.

Steve King

[Romeo Rondeau]

Even if you get it to work, you might be overestimating the degree of
accuracy of the synchronization. At best, you'll never be able to
transfer something like drums across, because you couldn't split them
in two passes because the sync wouldn't be tight enough. Even with
DA-88s synced together you couldn't split drums across two tapes. And
the half-dozen people who still use analog tape use it primarily for
drums.

You can split tracks all you want on DA-88's as long as you are using
the built in proprietary Tascam sync. They are sample accurate. I used
them for years, I never had a problem with sync, they work fine as one
big unit.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the info. Got one more questions for you. I'm
planning on recording mainly vocals, electric guitar, piano, and
expirementing with dumping comp based vsts to tape. One track at a time
them dumping back digital.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is absolutely stupid. Learn how to use
your digital tools. If you wanted to get a multitrack analog recorder,
I'd have more sympathy for you, but this is just absurd. It's
guaranteed to make your recordings sound worse. You can do that much
easier digitally.

I can either get this 2 track mci jh110 with
heads in good shape for about $350 total. Or save up some more and get
a Nagra 4.2 off of ebay for about $600-$700. Size wise the Nagra would
be better for my studio as the mci is pretty massive. Also the Nagra
would be 1/4" full track so twice the track width per track as the MCI.

You so completely don't understand this world. Now if you wanted to try
something cool and phat, buy the MCI and use it as a mixdown recorder.
Buying the Nagra would be mistake. It's much more difficult to maintain
than the MCI and you're limited to mono. The only nice thing I can say
to you at this point is that I applaud your choice of getting a
professional grade analog recorder instead of dumster diving for a home
grade low speed quarter track recorder. For that you get a tin star.

Did you read that _TapeOp_ article about the guy who tracked an album on
all kinds of truly vintage machines? Why wouldn't something like this be
just another way of playing around with music and sound? I can't see
this is something to discourage unless we're against art itself. After
all, we allow banjos.

Now, as to the technical realities this fellow may well face once he's
into it, yeah, he has some research to do. Just for starters, there's
more to a tape deck than just whether or not the heads are good.

But let's encourage him. He may find out he needs a good big multitrack,
that this whole way of going about it suits him well. For twenty grand
plus tax and shipping he could have a brand new A827.

--
ha

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

Did you read that _TapeOp_ article about the guy who tracked an album on
all kinds of truly vintage machines? Why wouldn't something like this be
just another way of playing around with music and sound? I can't see
this is something to discourage unless we're against art itself. After
all, we allow banjos.

Well, yeah, but I don't come around asking if I should buy a Frank
Profitt fretless banjo or a Vega Little Wonder when I want to see what
my songs would sound like when played on a banjo. The fact that he
asked about an MCI stereo recorder and a Nagra mono recorder in the
same breath, and asked if the Nagra would be better because its track
was wider leads me to believe that it will be a loooooooong time before
he gets any use out of either of them.

I have nothing against experimentation, and I probalby would have
answered differently if he had asked the question differently.
Sometimes I try to guess what they really want, sometimes I call 'em
like I see 'em. I just didn't see much promise in this one. I could be
wrong. He could be the next Pierre Schaeffer or Karlheinz Stockhausen
(though they mostly used tape for loops - there was only one sound back
then).

[[email protected]]

I've read a lot of TapeOp articles like that! As far as the criticism
goes I definitely understand that it's easy to see someone's questions
as misguided and foolish. To randomly pull an MCI JH110 and a Nagra 4.2
out of a hat though, i mean come on. Most people, including engineers,
don't know what a Nagra is. At least the young engineers. Anyway, all
of this is so subjective. I've definitely done a ridiculous amount of
reading online about these things, unfortunately I don't really know
anyone in person who has had experience with them so I've posted some
questions here. Regardless, I've been expirementing with recording to
my tascam 38 and dumping digital one or two tracks at a time and like
the results to a certain extent. I just want to try it with a different
machine. I'm expecting to get a sound closer to what I'm looking for on
the MCI (actually it is a Sony model, 110C). Very clean electronics,
heads in great shape. I figure it is worth a shot for $300. Anyway,
I'll follow up with how it goes.

By the way.... anyone know where to get some test tape for this? I'm
guessing Blevin's is my best bet.

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

I've been expirementing with recording to
my tascam 38 and dumping digital one or two tracks at a time and like
the results to a certain extent. I just want to try it with a different
machine. I'm expecting to get a sound closer to what I'm looking for on
the MCI

I think that you're at least 90% there with the TASCAM 38. It's not a
bad machine. If you had said you had been doing it with your
grandfather's Sony I'd say that you would notice quite a difference
with a pro tape deck, but it would be more than one difference. You'd
hear less noise and less distortion, and probalby fewer mechanical
artifacts like flutter and dropouts. Some things would improve, others
may not.

$350 for an MCI-vintage JH-110 is a great price. I'd gladly pay that,
but it would replace the Otari MX-55 that's in my studio which is very
difficult to work on because things are so packed in (and it needs a
little work). But there isn't a big market for these machines today
(which is why you can buy it for about 10% of its original cost) so if
it doesn't float your boat you might have trouble getting rid of it.
I'd take it off your hands if you'll deliver it, but I won't pay for
shipping on something that heavy and hard to pack safely.

By the way.... anyone know where to get some test tape for this? I'm
guessing Blevin's is my best bet.

"Some" test tape? You should have an alignment tape, which you can get
from Magnetic Reference Laboratory (http://www.mrltapes.com) where
you'll also find several application notes about recorder alignment.
You'll also need some basic test equipment, at least a generator and
reasonably accurate AC voltmeter. A computer will do for some of it,
but an oscilloscope is the best way to do a head alignment.

If by "some test tape" you mean freesh recording tape, actually, some
Guitar Center stores are carrying Quantegy tape. You'll need to adjust
the electronics to match whatever brand of tape you use.

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the info. Wow, I was thinking this would be a huge step up
from the Tascam. I imagined being able to hit the tape a lot harder
with theh JH110 (the Tascam electronics seem to clip pretty quick).
Thought the 110 would give me a much fuller, more aggressive sound.
Maybe that's not the case. About the Nagra 4.2... one of the main uses
would be for recording expiremental hip hop style rap vocals. I know
the Nagras are great for dialog recordings and I thought it would be
interesting to see how this would translate for this type of vocal
recording.

On Dec 5, 7:01 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
wrote:
I've been expirementing with recording to
my tascam 38 and dumping digital one or two tracks at a time and like
the results to a certain extent. I just want to try it with a different
machine. I'm expecting to get a sound closer to what I'm looking for on
theMCII think that you're at least 90% there with the TASCAM 38. It's not a
bad machine. If you had said you had been doing it with your
grandfather's Sony I'd say that you would notice quite a difference
with a pro tape deck, but it would be more than one difference. You'd
hear less noise and less distortion, and probalby fewer mechanical
artifacts like flutter and dropouts. Some things would improve, others
may not.

$350 for anMCI-vintage JH-110 is a great price. I'd gladly pay that,
but it would replace the Otari MX-55 that's in my studio which is very
difficult to work on because things are so packed in (and it needs a
little work). But there isn't a big market for these machines today
(which is why you can buy it for about 10% of its original cost) so if
it doesn't float your boat you might have trouble getting rid of it.
I'd take it off your hands if you'll deliver it, but I won't pay for
shipping on something that heavy and hard to pack safely.

By the way.... anyone know where to get some test tape for this? I'm
guessing Blevin's is my best bet."Some" test tape? You should have an alignment tape, which you can get
from Magnetic Reference Laboratory (http://www.mrltapes.com) where
you'll also find several application notes about recorder alignment.
You'll also need some basic test equipment, at least a generator and
reasonably accurate AC voltmeter. A computer will do for some of it,
but an oscilloscope is the best way to do a head alignment.

If by "some test tape" you mean freesh recording tape, actually, some
Guitar Center stores are carrying Quantegy tape. You'll need to adjust
the electronics to match whatever brand of tape you use.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate the info. Got one more questions for you. I'm
planning on recording mainly vocals, electric guitar, piano, and
expirementing with dumping comp based vsts to tape. One track at a time
them dumping back digital. I can either get this 2 track mci jh110 with
heads in good shape for about $350 total. Or save up some more and get
a Nagra 4.2 off of ebay for about $600-$700. Size wise the Nagra would
be better for my studio as the mci is pretty massive. Also the Nagra
would be 1/4" full track so twice the track width per track as the MCI.
I've never heard either maching, only spent countless hours reading
about them online. Any suggestions? Thanks

I cannot imagine anything more excruciatingly painful than flying in
parts from analogue tape one track at a time.

Get the right tool for the job and find a real multitrack recorder.
Something like a 440-8 will give you eight tracks for not too much more
money than the Nagra or JH-110, it will be a lot easier to maintain than
the Nagra and not much harder than the JH-110, and it will actually do the
job properly without any screaming and hair-pulling about synchronization.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Well... all I'm doing is recording a few quick guitar riffs, then
dumping digital, same thing for piano, and maybe melodica or
something... then in Cubase I'm chopping up the parts and arranging
them into loops, the same way I would sample vinyl. Then Sequencing my
full instrumental arrangements in Cubase. I really don't need a tape
multitrack for that. Having a 2 track deck would give me the option of
then running 8 or 16 tracks back out of my DAW, through my studiomaster
mixer... incorporating some outboard gear, then printing to tape. Only
then I'd have to dump back to digital. Not sure if it's worth all of
those conversions though.


On Dec 5, 2:04 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate the info. Got one more questions for you. I'm
planning on recording mainly vocals, electric guitar, piano, and
expirementing with dumping comp based vsts to tape. One track at a time
them dumping back digital. I can either get this 2 trackmcijh110 with
heads in good shape for about $350 total. Or save up some more and get
aNagra4.2 off of ebay for about $600-$700. Size wise theNagrawould
be better for my studio as themciis pretty massive. Also theNagra
would be 1/4" full track so twice the track width per track as theMCI.
I've never heard either maching, only spent countless hours reading
about them online. Any suggestions? ThanksI cannot imagine anything more excruciatingly painful than flying in
parts from analogue tape one track at a time.

Get the right tool for the job and find a real multitrack recorder.
Something like a 440-8 will give you eight tracks for not too much more
money than theNagraor JH-110, it will be a lot easier to maintain than
theNagraand not much harder than the JH-110, and it will actually do the
job properly without any screaming and hair-pulling about synchronization.
--scott
--
"C'est unNagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Notton]

In article , says...
Raw-Tracks wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
It doesn't. It's fine.
It DOES mean you can only use the American "2-track" standard heads and
not the "European Stereo" format, which has a narrower guard band between
tracks. But you probably don't want to do that anyway.

Can you elaborate on that Scott. I've always wondered about this too,
and have never really found a definitive answer. For instance, is a
recording on a 1/4" Otari MTR10 with center-track timecode going to play
back fine on a Studer A80 without center track timecode? If there is
timecode on the center track, will it bleed over on the non-timecode
machine?

No. If it's done properly, the timecode won't bleed at all onto the
non-timecode machine. The timecode is in the guard band, and it's
recorded as a couple out-of-phase tracks so even if you played it back
on a full-track mono head, the timecode tracks would cancel one another
out and you wouldn't hear it.

What machines use the European Stereo vs. the American standard? I've
never heard reference to that before.

Any machine that you ordered European Stereo heads for. I don't think
anything in the US was shipped that way by default, but a lot of Studer
machines in Europe were. The European Stereo format has higher signal
to noise, but more crosstalk between channels. Forget about bouncing
tracks with it... the guard band is too narrow.

European Stereo tapes will MOSTLY play fine on 2-track machines, and
vice versa, but the top end will be a little different due to fringe
effects.

Flux Magnetics will still make you a set of European Stereo heads for
any machine you want.
--scott

Ciao RAPsters,

All quarter inch machines in Europe came in Stereo or Two-track format.
I think even Ampex/3M/Scully etc. had an IEC stereo option for the
European territories.
The big give away is that Stereo machines have a mono erase head. It was
very common for customers to order Stereo when they actually wanted Two-
track )).
The Stereo option was cheaper too!

Pip pip & seasons Bah-humbug to you all!
--
Chris Notton
Replace "nospam" with my surname to reply by email
Sostituisca il "nospam" con il mio cognome per rispondere
}////(*