Difference between 1/4" tape and 1"

[jrdamien]

I recorded my last album on a Tascam 388 (download it free @ www.crookedsaws.com) which uses 1/4" tape. For the next album I want to stay on tape but step up the width. There's a studio near here that uses 1" on a 16 track.

Is the difference between the two significant? Is it as significant as the difference between 1" tape and 2"?

[A.David.MacKinnon]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

[jrdamien]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

Very cool. I'm still looking for a little of the lo-fi quality of the 388. I'd like to step up the quality of the drums some (2" would be ideal for that) but don't want it to be 'too' good.

[kslight]

I'd go for 2" myself.

I used to own a 1" 16 track deck, and still own 2 388s... The 1" deck will not be as noisy but doesn't really have what I call a "great tape sound" to it...the noise should be better mostly just because of the speed difference though, and the frequency response should be somewhat better. It should be even easier to find a studio with a 2" deck in MPLS, at least it was when I was there...not to mention that I would fully expect the same studio with a 2" deck to have a significantly elevated class of other pertinent equipment versus a 1" I'd typically expect a lot of budget gear.

16 tracks on 1" is at that level where I'd rather be using a decent digital system to cut tracks to, at 2" I start to see the advantages of tape. I record to 388 because it sounds not so great but in a cool way that works well for certain types of music, 1" 16 track sounds not so great in just a not very exciting "why am I spending money on tape to get this" sort of way, 2" sounds like a record.

[kslight]

asdf

[kslight]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

Very cool. I'm still looking for a little of the lo-fi quality of the 388. I'd like to step up the quality of the drums some (2" would be ideal for that) but don't want it to be 'too' good.

You could always go for a "hybrid" sort of sound. For example, cut some instruments to 388, dump them to 2", then cut drums and vocals to 2"...

[fossiltooth]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

True. But using 8 tracks on 1" on a great machine at 30 ips? What's the point? May as well just go digital at that point, I say

You wouldn't be losing enough "fidelity" to make it worth my while! It would sound almost identical to what's coming off the board!

[vvv]

I feel compelled to state the obvious: 3/4".

[Nick Sevilla]

Difference between 1/4" and 1" = 3/4"
Difference between 1" and 2" = 1"

I love maths.

Wider tape and less tracks = better representation of the recorded sound, and higher noise floor.

Cheers

[Marc Alan Goodman]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

True. But using 8 tracks on 1" on a great machine at 30 ips? What's the point? May as well just go digital at that point, I say :)

You wouldn't be losing enough "fidelity" to make it worth my while! It would sound almost identical to what's coming off the board!

Come on J, the charm of tape isn't JUST noise. The noise can help, but there's more to it tonally. 1" 8 track has less noise, but it still has a ton of charm. :)

[fossiltooth]

8 tracks on 1/4" is the same as 16 on 1/2" - OK but not great.
8 track on 1/2" is the same as 16 on 1" - great but could be better.
8 track on 1" is the same as 16 on 2" - awesome.

True. But using 8 tracks on 1" on a great machine at 30 ips? What's the point? May as well just go digital at that point, I say

You wouldn't be losing enough "fidelity" to make it worth my while! It would sound almost identical to what's coming off the board!

Come on J, the charm of tape isn't JUST noise. The noise can help, but there's more to it tonally. 1" 8 track has less noise, but it still has a ton of charm.

Bahumbug -- go 15ips or go home I say!

(Unless of course "home" is using tape regardless of sound. Then, carry on. : )

My only point is that some really great machines (when really well-calibrated) can sound almost indistinguishable from source at some settings. At that point, the only solid argument in favor of tape is workflow.

(And I have to admit, it can be a pretty strong argument, depending on your tastes and needs.)

[jrdamien]

Come on J, the charm of tape isn't JUST noise. The noise can help, but there's more to it tonally. 1" 8 track has less noise, but it still has a ton of charm.

Of course you're right. I said noise and meant charm.

It may all be ultimately irrelevant. I'm having no luck finding a 1" 8 track locally. May just get some decent pre's and use the 388 again. Oh, and the 488 MKii I found at a garage sale.

[chris harris]

If you don't have the skills and gear to make things sound great, then luck and/or limitations are your best shot at making things sound "cool". But, if you do have the skills and gear to make things sound great, then making things sound "cool" or "lofi" is a piece of cake.

[Justin Foley]

My only point is that some really great machines (when really well-calibrated) can sound almost indistinguishable from source at some settings. At that point, the only solid argument in favor of tape is workflow.

(And I have to admit, it can be a pretty strong argument, depending on your tastes and needs.)

The most solid argument for tape is the same as always - it is a more durable, permanent format for recording music than any digital alternative.

I realize this is a can of worms that the OP didn't intend to have opened, but the statement above about solid arguments is off the mark.

As for the OP, the same machine running at the same speed will still have better resolution at 1" than 1/4". A 388 devotes 1/32" per track. The 1" 16 track gives 1/16 (obviously). As noted, the largest multitrack width commonly found on pro machines is 1/8" per track. (2 inch 8-track exists, but isn't very common.)

But you're likely running into more than just the track width with your decision. The 1" 16 track puts you on the high end of the pro-sumer side of analog, which will likely mean a better build quality on the machine than the 388. I don't know what the 388 runs at, but something that gives the opportunity to go at 15 and 30ips will likely also have a better sound. And if the alignment options on the 16 track are more comprehensive, you should be able to get the machine in better shape than the 388 allows.

Of course, all of these machines were built a long time ago and the quality of the recording will have a lot more to do with how well the machine's been taken care of compared to the one that you're used to.

It sounds like you're looking for some type of artifact sound, though. Lo-fi. Whether or not you get that with one machine vs the other depends upon what you hear comparing the two of them. For strict fidelity, more track width will tend to be better. Unclear if that's a value that's important to you.

= Justin