(1-7/8 ips) and (3-3/4 ips) VS. (15 ips and 30 ips)

[Derrick]

My Marantz 4 track has two tape speeds: normal (1-7/8 ips) or high speed (3-3/4 ips). That seems WAY different from the 15 ips and 30 ips pro studio machines record at. I'm trying to get sence/understanding for the audiable/sound/characteristics/differences between the speeds at which my Marantz 4 track record, and the speeds at which pro studios use (15 and 30 ips).

I?ve read where some like to record at 15 ips analog rather then 30 ips analog because the bottom end can lack at 30 ips analog. Jack Endino said "It really frustrates the hell out me when I?m trying to get a kick drum sound and it comes back sounding like a basketball. I keep coming back to 15 ips analog for rock. There is a sound there and it?s not as good... the cymbals tend to sound more grainy, the whole thing is a little bit grainier, which is kind of hard to describe to people. Machines always have an extra octave of low end at 15 ips as opposed to 30."

[I'm Painting Again]

I believe that it really depends on the deck as a whole rather than just the speed to make a valid conclusion on this subject..every deck is going to sound different than the next, even ones running the same speed and often the same model deck at the same speed..

[AGCurry]

All other things being equal, higher tape speed results in greater ability to store high frequencies, as the same magnetic image gets spread over more length.

Lower tape speeds should not mean more or better bass, although the lack of high frequencies might change the relative prevalence of low freqs.

[joel hamilton]

Having a kick drum come back sounding like a basketball is not a tape speed issue.

Tuning, baffling, mic choice, drummer.... Not in that order. 15 ips is not the soundof rock. Rock is the sound of rock and should be recorded in a way that suits the band, and overall sound the band/producer engineer is looking for.

To blame something on 30 vs 15 is like automatically saying "protools sucks" or "i hate the d112" which only makes the "engineer" who said it look like a jerk IMO.

[soundguy]

damn, if scapegoating gear makes you sound like a jerk (which I'll agree with to some degree), what the fuck do you look like when you comment on gear's performance before you even listen to it?

shit. Good thing I dont do that.

dave

[ggddcc]

Having a kick drum come back sounding like a basketball is not a tape speed issue.

Tuning, baffling, mic choice, drummer.... Not in that order. 15 ips is not the soundof rock. Rock is the sound of rock and should be recorded in a way that suits the band, and overall sound the band/producer engineer is looking for.

To blame something on 30 vs 15 is like automatically saying "protools sucks" or "i hate the d112" which only makes the "engineer" who said it look like a jerk IMO.

Holy shit Joel- You ARE the man!!!

[kayagum]

Don't be afraid of grainy cassettes or slower tape speeds. I was just listening to cLOUDDEAD yesterday- what a great album, and I'm not even that big on hiphop/rap/spoken whatamacallit.

Or, try Guided by Voices. Who needs 15/30 ips???

[Derrick]

Interesting. Well, this is what I thought. I know it's just a "4 track", but it's a marantz and it doesn't sound like the typical Tascam/Fostex/Yamaha at all. That is why I will never give it up. I like the sound even though I have other unit's/mediums at my disposal. Yea, Guided By Voices has the right idea for sure. I like really great lo fi stuf (boy that's an oxymoron).

So, I guess what I'm asking is: I've noticed a difference between the 1-7/8 ips and the 3-3/4 ips on my Marantz 4 track, but 15 ips and 30 ips is so much faster and are more spread apart from my 4 track speeds. Yet this doesn't seem to put the 4 track's speeds and the pro srudio speeds on a totally different planet. Why are the much slower speeds of the 4 track not so different from the 15 ips and 30 ips speeds? Does the 4 track compensate fro the slower speeds so they sound approx. to the 15 ips and 30 ips speeds?

[auralman]

I won't knock the Marantz 4 track but...

we're not talking apples and apples here...the quality of audio cassette tape vs. 1/4" through 2" tape is chemically not in the same ballpark.
Next, the amps on a Studer 827 are in a totally different league than what is in your Marantz. Comparing 15/30 ips to the 4 track speeds is kinda pointless. The 2 different speeds on your Marantz just make it interesting. Go with whatever sounds best. I've heard some amazing stuff come off those little boxes, and I've heard some real crap come off 827s.
But don't compare the tape speeds.

[Derrick]

Yea, I know. But most of my experiance with a Studer or Otari was with an engineer who didn't know his craft too well (doing stupid crap with compressors set wrong, thin guitar sounds, weirdness on the drums, etc.). Tat and the fact that I think I get better sounds out of my Marantz so It's hard for me to compair the two enviroments. Mostly though, I realize the difference between a $900.00 Marantz and a $3-8 Thousand dollar pro recorder, however, the speeds seemed SO different that I was wondering how this aspect changes things after experimenting with speeds and what I've read. Thanks to all!

[kayagum]

Speed is only one of a myriad of variables. Try track width, quality of recording medium (like the amount of oxide on the tape), quality of the electronic innards, etc. etc. To think that speed is the only factor determining quality is like saying the Dow Jones average is the only means of dtermining the overall health of the economy.

Let's put it another way.... if you sampled somebody talking at 8 bits and 22khZ, you can still probably understand that person, even though it will sound different from 24/96. The amount of that difference may depend on the quality of your speakers, your monitoring chain, etc. etc. etc.

Speed (or bit depth / sampling rate) is not a linear relationship to quality. It actually gets into a "diminishing return" curve- to get that 1% quality improvement in audio quality, you may have to improve the specs by doubling it. That's why the pissing wars we see on this site is so pathetic and meaningless. Bats may hear the difference, but will the buying public care? Probably not, and that's why I think the audio industry has lost money. Who cares about SACD? Who cares about DVD Audio quality? In fact, customers are willing to sacrifice quality for portability and ease of downloading (i.e. mp3). Or, for us cassette junkies (I use a Tascam 238 myself), we not only use cassette because it's cheaper, but it has a sound quality we like, straight up.[/i]

[joel hamilton]

Well said.

Any pursuit of the "ultimate" is going to have a response curve like the one described above.

If you wanted to set a land speed record, you probably wouldnt start with a ford pinto, but that car may do everything else the ferrari does on a day to day basis.

I love the sound of 30 IPS on my Studer, and I have also tracke using 4track pre's straight to an MCI 2" machine just for the sound of it.

Ruling out ANY tool, be it pro level, or home recordist is bad policy for someone interested in manipulating, and capturing sounds.

Sometimes I need to just get groceries in my ferrari, ya know?

[Derrick]

Speed is only one of a myriad of variables. Try track width, quality of recording medium (like the amount of oxide on the tape), quality of the electronic innards, etc. etc. To think that speed is the only factor determining quality is like saying the Dow Jones average is the only means of dtermining the overall health of the economy.

Speed (or bit depth / sampling rate) is not a linear relationship to quality. It actually gets into a "diminishing return" curve- to get that 1% quality improvement in audio quality, you may have to improve the specs by doubling it. That's why the pissing wars we see on this site is so pathetic and meaningless. Bats may hear the difference, but will the buying public care? Probably not, and that's why I think the audio industry has lost money. Who cares about SACD? Who cares about DVD Audio quality? In fact, customers are willing to sacrifice quality for portability and ease of downloading (i.e. mp3). Or, for us cassette junkies (I use a Tascam 238 myself), we not only use cassette because it's cheaper, but it has a sound quality we like, straight up.

Well, nobody's saying speed is the only variable. But I think you answered my origional question of tape speed's effect on sound which was brought on by noting the extream difference in speed from my 4 track and a pro studio's tape machine.

Ruling out ANY tool, be it pro level, or home recordist is bad policy for someone interested in manipulating, and capturing sounds.

Exactly where I stand. That is the only reason I even keep using my Matantz 4 track for stuff. It's sounds better to me then many of the recordings I do at pro studio's that are several hundreds of thousands of $$$$. Studio's just don't get the kind of guitar tones I get, and drum and bass sounds are hit or miss from studios where rules and slickness get in the way of tone and feel/innovation... or just really using your ears instead of what you were genericlally taught.

[mellowtune]

Some of the manufacturers kept the slower 1 7/8 ips speed so you could play back your existing stereo cassettes in your Portastudio. You can also use the two speeds to pitch up & down in a pretty radical fashion (1 octave). All things else being equal, the 3 3/4 speed should give clearer highs than the slower speed because twice the tape is being used to record the signal. When Philips debuted mono cassette recorders, they were originally intended for dictation due to their obvious sonic limitations in comparision to reel to reel decks.

Hey, if you like the sound of your deck then you're good to go. Little 4 track machines can certainly capture a charming vibe as many great musicians have proved. Used within their limitations (poor signal to noise, wow & flutter and crosstalk specs, minimal headroom preamps and summing amps etc) one can still record great music. But I hope that folks don't knock recording on a pro format machine if they haven't ever gotten a chance to really work on one.

[@?,*???&?]

Your Marantz unit is likely using Dolby noise reduction or dbx, in which case you are barely hearing the tape and/or speed quality but rather are hearing the noise reduction circuitry clearly.

Think of it this way, you go from mushy-to-clear when you travel from 1 7/8 IPS to 30 IPS and you get a better signal to noise ratio by about 12-14 db which equates to less noise.

My only comments on 15 IPS are unless the material is immpeccably recorded, the additional eq you do when mixing is going to enhance the noise. Also, the machine punch-in characteristics change dramatically and you really have to anticipate your punches. I did an album with a classical guitar player 2" at 15 ips and Dolby SR and punching 32nd notes cleanly that are finger-picked is an onerous task indeed.