If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets



"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets



"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

**Nope.


Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

**Nope.


A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

**It should, but:

a) That's not how it works.
b) The reality is far more complex.

The dimensions of the tape head gap, the size of the magnetic domains on the
tape and the speed of that tape, influence the HF response in a fundamental
way. Smaller gaps, smaller particles and higher speeds, all lead to superior
HF response.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

**Nope.


Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

**Nope.


A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

**It should, but:

a) That's not how it works.
b) The reality is far more complex.

The dimensions of the tape head gap, the size of the magnetic domains on the
tape and the speed of that tape, influence the HF response in a fundamental
way. Smaller gaps, smaller particles and higher speeds, all lead to superior
HF response.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I have heard that decreasing that gap size increases HF response but
degrades SNR. Is this true?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...
Smaller gaps, smaller particles and higher speeds, all lead to superior
HF response.

I have heard that decreasing that gap size increases HF response but
degrades SNR. Is this true?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...
Smaller gaps, smaller particles and higher speeds, all lead to superior
HF response.

Both track width and tape speed determine frequency response and SNR
to some extent. AFAIK track width has a greater effect on SNR and a
lesser effect on frequency response, while tape speed has a greater
effect on frequency response and a lesser effect on SNR. Is this true?

"PaulB" wrote in message ...
wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets



"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

Both track width and tape speed determine frequency response and SNR
to some extent. AFAIK track width has a greater effect on SNR and a
lesser effect on frequency response, while tape speed has a greater
effect on frequency response and a lesser effect on SNR. Is this true?

"PaulB" wrote in message ...
wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets



"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

In , on 11/18/03
at 05:57 PM, (Radium) said:

Both track width and tape speed determine frequency response and SNR
to some extent. AFAIK track width has a greater effect on SNR and a
lesser effect on frequency response, while tape speed has a greater
effect on frequency response and a lesser effect on SNR. Is this true?

Don't push this rule too far, but you can rank tape processes by
multiplying track width by the linear writing speed.

The tape formulation is also in the mix. Modern audio tapes are quieter
and have extended highs, compared to the 50's variety tape. Modern
tapes have a very smooth surface. I can recall my first encounter with
a polished, back coated tape. I thought it had been flipped over, but
when I put the "dull" side toward the heads, it wouldn't record or
play. (for 50's tape, the dull side was the oxide)

SNR is also tied to the maximum level the tape will accept and the
equalization used. Modern tapes will accept much higher levels than the
50's stuff, but "0 Vu" is tied to the 50's tape. If you want to honor
the "0 Vu" standard, you'll have exceptional headroom, or a higher SNR
than you could have.

Finally, heads and tape tension control are also important.

---

In my experience, one can optimize a design for extended highs, great
SNR, or low distortion. This doesn't mean that exceptional highs mean
terrible distortion, but making the distortion lower will cost you some
extended highs. The marketing department will advertise accordingly.

---

A difficult to measure characteristic is the longevity of the machine.
I've seen some relatively inexpensive machines that are impressive in
the beginning. But after a few thousand hours of use, they're a mess,
while the really great (and much more expensive) machine is fine.

-----------------------------------------------------------
SPAM:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, SPAMers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 11/18/03
at 05:57 PM, (Radium) said:

Both track width and tape speed determine frequency response and SNR
to some extent. AFAIK track width has a greater effect on SNR and a
lesser effect on frequency response, while tape speed has a greater
effect on frequency response and a lesser effect on SNR. Is this true?

Don't push this rule too far, but you can rank tape processes by
multiplying track width by the linear writing speed.

The tape formulation is also in the mix. Modern audio tapes are quieter
and have extended highs, compared to the 50's variety tape. Modern
tapes have a very smooth surface. I can recall my first encounter with
a polished, back coated tape. I thought it had been flipped over, but
when I put the "dull" side toward the heads, it wouldn't record or
play. (for 50's tape, the dull side was the oxide)

SNR is also tied to the maximum level the tape will accept and the
equalization used. Modern tapes will accept much higher levels than the
50's stuff, but "0 Vu" is tied to the 50's tape. If you want to honor
the "0 Vu" standard, you'll have exceptional headroom, or a higher SNR
than you could have.

Finally, heads and tape tension control are also important.

---

In my experience, one can optimize a design for extended highs, great
SNR, or low distortion. This doesn't mean that exceptional highs mean
terrible distortion, but making the distortion lower will cost you some
extended highs. The marketing department will advertise accordingly.

---

A difficult to measure characteristic is the longevity of the machine.
I've seen some relatively inexpensive machines that are impressive in
the beginning. But after a few thousand hours of use, they're a mess,
while the really great (and much more expensive) machine is fine.

-----------------------------------------------------------
SPAM:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, SPAMers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
(Radium) wrote:

If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

ISTR reading a *long* time ago, in a publication by 3M, that tape can
deliver a certain number of octaves (10?) of response -- no matter how
the tape is made, no matter how the machine is made -- and anytime you
do one of the things that increases the HF response, you invariably pull
up the low end also.

Note: that is for "baseband" recorders; not "carrier" ones. That ten(?)
octave limit is one of the reasons that videotape uses carrier methods
-- video requires a wider frequency range than 10 octaves; 60 Hz to ~4
MHz at least, and more for professional work.

Isaac

In article ,
(Radium) wrote:

If all other factors are constant, will smaller tape (w/ smaller
recorder and player too) have a higher frequency response than a
bigger tape (w/ bigger recorder and player)?

Smaller speakers tend to respond better to higher pitches than bigger
speakers. Is the same true for magnetic heads of tape
recorders/players?

A smaller magnet should vibrate faster than a bigger one with the same
amount of power. Right?

ISTR reading a *long* time ago, in a publication by 3M, that tape can
deliver a certain number of octaves (10?) of response -- no matter how
the tape is made, no matter how the machine is made -- and anytime you
do one of the things that increases the HF response, you invariably pull
up the low end also.

Note: that is for "baseband" recorders; not "carrier" ones. That ten(?)
octave limit is one of the reasons that videotape uses carrier methods
-- video requires a wider frequency range than 10 octaves; 60 Hz to ~4
MHz at least, and more for professional work.

Isaac

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:45:39 -0600, "PaulB"
wrote:

wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:45:39 -0600, "PaulB"
wrote:

wrong logic.
wider tape, track width, and faster tape speeds increase high frequency
response.
1/2" 2 track open reel running at 30 ips is as good as it gets

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In , on 11/18/03
at 10:02 PM, (Barry Mann) said:

[ ... ]

If you want to honor
the "0 Vu" standard, you'll have exceptional headroom, or a higher SNR
than you could have.

[ ... ]

Oops, please correct "higher" to read "lower".

Sorry about inverting the sense. (Thank goodness this discussion isn't
part of a space navigation system -- we could have crashed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
SPAM:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, SPAMers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 11/18/03
at 10:02 PM, (Barry Mann) said:

[ ... ]

If you want to honor
the "0 Vu" standard, you'll have exceptional headroom, or a higher SNR
than you could have.

[ ... ]

Oops, please correct "higher" to read "lower".

Sorry about inverting the sense. (Thank goodness this discussion isn't
part of a space navigation system -- we could have crashed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
SPAM:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, SPAMers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

As I thought

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.

As I thought

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.

Radium wrote:

As I thought

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.

Odd thought; it seem to contradict your original question.

R. Capik cynic in training
--

Radium wrote:

As I thought

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Still wrong - only tape speed matters. Track width only affects SNR.

Odd thought; it seem to contradict your original question.

R. Capik cynic in training
--

Everyone:
The original poster is someone who goes all over Usenet asking inane
questions in all sorts of groups. Don't bother with this.

Everyone:
The original poster is someone who goes all over Usenet asking inane
questions in all sorts of groups. Don't bother with this.