1/2 track tape played on a 1/4 track deck-What am I really getting?

[ansermetniac]

I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track

What did I really get?

Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
side two was avant garde Jazz:-)

Abbedd

[Richard Crowley]

"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>
> What did I really get?
>
> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)

If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?

If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
"other side" and should be ignored.

Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
should really play it on a proper head.

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:54:05 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>>
>> What did I really get?
>>
>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>
>If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>
>If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>"other side" and should be ignored.
>
>Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>should really play it on a proper head.
>


Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?

Abbedd

[Richard Crowley]

"ansermetniac" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>>> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>>> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>>>
>>> What did I really get?
>>>
>>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>>> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>>
>>If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>>
>>If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>>of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>>already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>>"other side" and should be ignored.
>>
>>Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>>should really play it on a proper head.
>>
>
>
> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.

If side two was playing backwards, then it is 1/2 track MONO.

> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?

It played on a 1/4 track deck because the left channel of the 1/4
track head is contained entirely within track 1 of the 1/2 track
tape (i.e. at the "top edge" of the tape). Typically the right channel
of a 1/4 track head catches the inner margin of track 2 of the
1/2 track format, and partly the center guard-band. Which is why
it is unsuitable for playing 1/2 track STEREO (which fortuately
you don't have here)

Whether it played "well" is a different matter. You would likely
hear better SNR if you played it on a proper 1/2 track head.

[Eeyore]

ansermetniac wrote:

> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> >"ansermetniac" wrote ...
> >>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
> >> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
> >> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
> >>
> >> What did I really get?
> >>
> >> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
> >> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
> >
> >If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
> >
> >If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
> >of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
> >already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
> >"other side" and should be ignored.
> >
> >Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
> >should really play it on a proper head.
>
> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?

Because the 1/4 track heads lie where the 2 1/2 track recordings are on the
tape. They just get half the flux.

Graham

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:26:21 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>>>> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>>>> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>>>>
>>>> What did I really get?
>>>>
>>>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>>>> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>>>
>>>If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>>>
>>>If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>>>of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>>>already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>>>"other side" and should be ignored.
>>>
>>>Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>>>should really play it on a proper head.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
>
>If side two was playing backwards, then it is 1/2 track MONO.
>
>> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?
>
>It played on a 1/4 track deck because the left channel of the 1/4
>track head is contained entirely within track 1 of the 1/2 track
>tape (i.e. at the "top edge" of the tape). Typically the right channel
>of a 1/4 track head catches the inner margin of track 2 of the
>1/2 track format, and partly the center guard-band. Which is why
>it is unsuitable for playing 1/2 track STEREO (which fortuately
>you don't have here)
>
>Whether it played "well" is a different matter. You would likely
>hear better SNR if you played it on a proper 1/2 track head.
>


It is stereo

Abbedd

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:34:32 +0000, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>ansermetniac wrote:
>
>> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
>> >"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>> >>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>> >> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>> >> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>> >>
>> >> What did I really get?
>> >>
>> >> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>> >> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>> >
>> >If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>> >
>> >If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>> >of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>> >already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>> >"other side" and should be ignored.
>> >
>> >Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>> >should really play it on a proper head.
>>
>> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
>> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?
>
>Because the 1/4 track heads lie where the 2 1/2 track recordings are on the
>tape. They just get half the flux.
>
>Graham


And how much of the music

Abbedd

[Richard Crowley]

"ansermetniac" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>>>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>>>>> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>>>>> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>>>>>
>>>>> What did I really get?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>>>>> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>>>>
>>>>If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>>>>
>>>>If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>>>>of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>>>>already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>>>>"other side" and should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>>Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>>>>should really play it on a proper head.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
>>
>>If side two was playing backwards, then it is 1/2 track MONO.
>>
>>> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?
>>
>>It played on a 1/4 track deck because the left channel of the 1/4
>>track head is contained entirely within track 1 of the 1/2 track
>>tape (i.e. at the "top edge" of the tape). Typically the right channel
>>of a 1/4 track head catches the inner margin of track 2 of the
>>1/2 track format, and partly the center guard-band. Which is why
>>it is unsuitable for playing 1/2 track STEREO (which fortuately
>>you don't have here)
>>
>>Whether it played "well" is a different matter. You would likely
>>hear better SNR if you played it on a proper 1/2 track head.
>>
>
>
> It is stereo

If it is really 1/2 track (as YOU claimed) and if you are hearing
the "other side" backwards (as YOU claimed) then it is impossible
for the tape to be "stereo". If there are ONLY TWO TRACKS,
then there is only ONE track *in each direction*. One track = mono.
It has been this way since before you were born.

But if you think you know more about your tape than you told
us here, then you don't need our advice.

[Richard Crowley]

"ansermetniac" wrote ...
> Eeyore wrote:
>>Because the 1/4 track heads lie where the 2 1/2 track recordings are on
>>the
>>tape. They just get half the flux.

> And how much of the music

What does that mean?

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:41:36 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>>>"ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>>>>I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but it turned out to
>>>>>> be half track. It sounded well. But I have seen the pictures of the
>>>>>> specs for 1/4 track and 1/2 track
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did I really get?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the Gang on Cook. But
>>>>>> side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you take only the left channel, that will be a nominal representation
>>>>>of what the 1/2 track width actually sounds like. As you may have
>>>>>already discovered, the right channel will likely track part of the
>>>>>"other side" and should be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that if you have some sort of serious project in mind, then you
>>>>>should really play it on a proper head.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is half track stereo.
>>>
>>>If side two was playing backwards, then it is 1/2 track MONO.
>>>
>>>> Why did it play well on a 1/4 track deck?
>>>
>>>It played on a 1/4 track deck because the left channel of the 1/4
>>>track head is contained entirely within track 1 of the 1/2 track
>>>tape (i.e. at the "top edge" of the tape). Typically the right channel
>>>of a 1/4 track head catches the inner margin of track 2 of the
>>>1/2 track format, and partly the center guard-band. Which is why
>>>it is unsuitable for playing 1/2 track STEREO (which fortuately
>>>you don't have here)
>>>
>>>Whether it played "well" is a different matter. You would likely
>>>hear better SNR if you played it on a proper 1/2 track head.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is stereo
>
>If it is really 1/2 track (as YOU claimed) and if you are hearing
>the "other side" backwards (as YOU claimed) then it is impossible
>for the tape to be "stereo". If there are ONLY TWO TRACKS,
>then there is only ONE track *in each direction*. One track = mono.
>It has been this way since before you were born.
>
>But if you think you know more about your tape than you told
>us here, then you don't need our advice.
>


SO when you play side two, if it is stereo, what should we hear.

Abbedd

[Dave Platt]

In article >,
Richard Crowley > wrote:

>> It is stereo
>
>If it is really 1/2 track (as YOU claimed) and if you are hearing
>the "other side" backwards (as YOU claimed) then it is impossible
>for the tape to be "stereo". If there are ONLY TWO TRACKS,
>then there is only ONE track *in each direction*. One track = mono.
>It has been this way since before you were born.

Richard,

Half-track stereo tapes certainly did (and do) exist. There's nothing
"sacred" about having to use one track in each direction - a tape deck
can quite easily record both tracks simultaneously, using half the
width of the tape for the left channel and the other half for the right.

A brief Google search turns up

http://www.pastmasters.us/2track/index.html

which has a wealth of information about these sorts of tapes.

They were apparently produced for only a few years - the Columbia
catalog page states that Columbia produced and sold such tapes
commercially between 1958 and 1961. Manufacturers seem to have
switched over to the 4-channel format around 1961, as this allowed for
more music on the tapes for a given media cost.

--
Dave Platt > AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Richard Crowley]

"Dave Platt" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> It is stereo
>>
>>If it is really 1/2 track (as YOU claimed) and if you are hearing
>>the "other side" backwards (as YOU claimed) then it is impossible
>>for the tape to be "stereo". If there are ONLY TWO TRACKS,
>>then there is only ONE track *in each direction*. One track = mono.
>>It has been this way since before you were born.
>
> Richard,
>
> Half-track stereo tapes certainly did (and do) exist. There's nothing
> "sacred" about having to use one track in each direction - a tape deck
> can quite easily record both tracks simultaneously, using half the
> width of the tape for the left channel and the other half for the right.

Of course there are 1/2-track stereo tapes. I have recorded
hundreds of hours of them. It is still a popular format for "mastering'
among the die-hard fans of magnetic tape recording.

But if the OP is hearing "avant garde jazz" on the right channel
of his 1/4 track head (and *backwards*) then he has a 1/2-track
mono tape with one program on each "side". He can flip the tape
over and hear his avant garde jazz recording in his left (mono)
channel.

If the OP really heard a 1/2 track STEREO tape, then he would
be hearing the other channel of the same program (but maybe not
terribly good) out of the right channel of his tape machine.

If he had a 1/4 track stereo tape, then he would hear BOTH
channels of his big band program on the first side, and BOTH
channels of his jazz program on the other side. But then it
would not be a "1/2 track tape" as the OP claims.

[Richard Crowley]

"ansermetniac" wrote ...

> SO when you play side two, if it is stereo, what should we hear.

Well, by your description, it is NOT stereo so...
If you play side two, you will hear your avant-garde jazz program
*forwards* on your left channel, and the big-band program
*backwards" on your right channel. That is because you have
a 1/2 track mono tape with a different program on each side.
(Based on the assumption that your description was accurate.)

If you want stereo from two different programs (big-band on
side 1 and jazz on side 2), then you need to have a 1/4 track
stereo tape. And then you would truly be hearing stereo on
each side, and your subject line would be incorrect.

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "ansermetniac" wrote ...
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >>Because the 1/4 track heads lie where the 2 1/2 track recordings are on
> >>the tape. They just get half the flux.
>
> > And how much of the music
>
> What does that mean?

I assumed it was a tongue in cheek joke. Could be wrong though.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Dave Platt" wrote ...
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
> >>> It is stereo
> >>
> >>If it is really 1/2 track (as YOU claimed) and if you are hearing
> >>the "other side" backwards (as YOU claimed) then it is impossible
> >>for the tape to be "stereo". If there are ONLY TWO TRACKS,
> >>then there is only ONE track *in each direction*. One track = mono.
> >>It has been this way since before you were born.
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > Half-track stereo tapes certainly did (and do) exist. There's nothing
> > "sacred" about having to use one track in each direction - a tape deck
> > can quite easily record both tracks simultaneously, using half the
> > width of the tape for the left channel and the other half for the right.
>
> Of course there are 1/2-track stereo tapes. I have recorded
> hundreds of hours of them. It is still a popular format for "mastering'
> among the die-hard fans of magnetic tape recording.

I know a studio that can master 1/2 track stereo on 1" tape ! Ampex ATR100 of
course. Very rare headblock.

Graham

[Dave Platt]

In article >,
Richard Crowley > wrote:

>Of course there are 1/2-track stereo tapes. I have recorded
>hundreds of hours of them. It is still a popular format for "mastering'
>among the die-hard fans of magnetic tape recording.
>
>But if the OP is hearing "avant garde jazz" on the right channel
>of his 1/4 track head (and *backwards*) then he has a 1/2-track
>mono tape with one program on each "side". He can flip the tape
>over and hear his avant garde jazz recording in his left (mono)
>channel.

My reading of his post, is that he was being a bit sardonic... the
"avant garde jazz" he was referring to, when he flipped the tape over,
was the actual jazz program played backwards.

If so, then his posting might deserve a few points of penalty for not
having the obligatory smiley in it :-)

--
Dave Platt > AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:13:08 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

>My reading of his post, is that he was being a bit sardonic... the
>"avant garde jazz" he was referring to, when he flipped the tape over,
>was the actual jazz program played backwards.
>
>If so, then his posting might deserve a few points of penalty for not
>having the obligatory smiley in it :-)

It did

Abbedd

[Arny Krueger]

"ansermetniac" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:34:32 +0000, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ansermetniac wrote:
>>
>>> "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
>>>> "ansermetniac" wrote ...
>>>>> I just played a tape that I assumed was 1/4 track but
>>>>> it turned out to be half track. It sounded well. But
>>>>> I have seen the pictures of the specs for 1/4 track
>>>>> and 1/2 track
>>>>>
>>>>> What did I really get?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice Latin Big Band Jazz by Wilie Rodriguez and the
>>>>> Gang on Cook. But side two was avant garde Jazz:-)
>>>>
>>>> If it has a "side two" then it must be 1/2 track MONO?
>>>>
>>>> If you take only the left channel, that will be a
>>>> nominal representation of what the 1/2 track width
>>>> actually sounds like. As you may have already
>>>> discovered, the right channel will likely track part
>>>> of the "other side" and should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Note that if you have some sort of serious project in
>>>> mind, then you should really play it on a proper head.

>>> Side two was a joke. It was playing backwards.It is
>>> half track stereo. Why did it play well on a 1/4 track
>>> deck?

>> Because the 1/4 track heads lie where the 2 1/2 track
>> recordings are on the tape. They just get half the flux.

> And how much of the music

All of the frequencies, but there is a slight and usually inconsequential
loss of dynamic range.