The 8 Track: I Remember Them Well
Bret Ludwig
The 8 track was the worst prerecorded format available since they did
away with wax cylinders. It would catch, tangle up, break, tear. The
clunker solenoid would burn out a lot. The heads wore out in a couple
of years and replacing them was a fool's errand. The tapes themselves
were dirt collectors. A lot of them were phonies and they sounded even
worse.
Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
terra
@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not true.
8 track tapes were mechanical nightmares, sure. You forgot to mention
the pressure pads that would rip or over time even dissolve.
But the 1/4" tape running at 3.75 ips was still far better fidelity than
cassettes at half the width and speed.
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Uni
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1167280241.517402.69590
> @n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Boy, were they lousy.
>>
>> The 8 track was the worst prerecorded format available since they did
>>away with wax cylinders. It would catch, tangle up, break, tear. The
>>clunker solenoid would burn out a lot. The heads wore out in a couple
>>of years and replacing them was a fool's errand. The tapes themselves
>>were dirt collectors. A lot of them were phonies and they sounded even
>>worse.
>>
>> Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
>>about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
>>a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
>>for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
>
>
> Not true.
>
> 8 track tapes were mechanical nightmares, sure. You forgot to mention
> the pressure pads that would rip or over time even dissolve.
8 Track tapes were like anything else on the market, there's good ones
and bad ones.
>
> But the 1/4" tape running at 3.75 ips was still far better fidelity than
> cassettes at half the width and speed.
Not sure I'd jump in and agree! Machine made a lot of difference and
tape recording technology did improve. Not even sure they had Metal tape
in 1/4". Seem to recall my Sony 7" reel-to-reel having an upper limit
of 11-12kHz at 3.75 ISP. Who was it, Demon?, with the dual capstan cassette?
Uni
>
>
>
>>
>
>
John B.
My favorite feature: the song fade out/in when it was broken up during a
track change. ACK!!!!!!!
John B.
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167280241....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
terra
news:4593828F...@no.email.invalid:
> terra wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1167280241.517402.69590 @n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>> Boy, were they lousy.
>>>
>>> The 8 track was the worst prerecorded format available since they
>>> did
>>>away with wax cylinders. It would catch, tangle up, break, tear. The
>>>clunker solenoid would burn out a lot. The heads wore out in a couple
>>>of years and replacing them was a fool's errand. The tapes themselves
>>>were dirt collectors. A lot of them were phonies and they sounded
>>>even worse.
>>>
>>> Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything
>>> good
>>>about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some
>>>vendors, a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out
>>>of 8 track for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
>>
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>> 8 track tapes were mechanical nightmares, sure. You forgot to
>> mention the pressure pads that would rip or over time even dissolve.
>
> 8 Track tapes were like anything else on the market, there's good ones
> and bad ones.
We're talking about the format, which was fundamentally flawed and only a
temporary stop-gap in the portable music scene.
>
>
>>
>> But the 1/4" tape running at 3.75 ips was still far better fidelity
>> than cassettes at half the width and speed.
>
> Not sure I'd jump in and agree! Machine made a lot of difference and
> tape recording technology did improve.
So? Cassettes AT THE TIME were little more than dictating machine-
worthy. It was nearly another decade before they were used with any
thought to serious fidelity.
Not even sure they had Metal
> tape in 1/4".
No, nor did they need it, as the technology was perfectly fine without
it.
Seem to recall my Sony 7" reel-to-reel having an upper
> limit of 11-12kHz at 3.75 ISP. Who was it, Demon?, with the dual
> capstan cassette?
I can't answer as to what you had or what its capabilities were.
>
> Uni
Bret Ludwig
John B. wrote:
> HATED them. Never bought a ONE.
>
> My favorite feature: the song fade out/in when it was broken up during a
> track change. ACK!!!!!!!
>
Trackus Interruptus! GAWD it's been so long since I listened to those
pieces of shit I'd forgotten!
As for 8 track having better fidelity than cassette, in practice no,
because even though you had equal track area and twice the speed you
had much better tape and head tech by the end of the cassette era. The
cassette had a lot of serious development the 8 track NEVER benefitted
from.
Brett A. Pasternack
> John B. wrote:
>
>>HATED them. Never bought a ONE.
>>
>>My favorite feature: the song fade out/in when it was broken up during a
>>track change. ACK!!!!!!!
>>
>
>
> Trackus Interruptus! GAWD it's been so long since I listened to those
> pieces of shit I'd forgotten!
Complete with that lovely honking noise on the changeover!
terra
BY THE END of the decade. Once cassettes surpassed or equalled reel to reel
quality the 8 tracks dies a quick death, as they should, due to the
mechanical limitations and annoying program re-shuffles/broken songs. But
at the beginning of the decade, when 8 tracks were more prevalent, they had
much more fidelity than cassettes.
Bret Ludwig
Which decade?
Both products started around '65 or '66 as commercial products and the
8 track was over mostly by the early eighties. They survived long
enough for me to have seen 8 tracks of Madonna's second or third album
and Debbie Harry's first post-Blondie record. In fact IIRC I have seen
them of Nirvana as well. That would be '88 or so?
Uni
> John B. wrote:
>
>>HATED them. Never bought a ONE.
>>
>>My favorite feature: the song fade out/in when it was broken up during a
>>track change. ACK!!!!!!!
>>
>
>
> Trackus Interruptus! GAWD it's been so long since I listened to those
> pieces of shit I'd forgotten!
>
> As for 8 track having better fidelity than cassette, in practice no,
> because even though you had equal track area and twice the speed you
> had much better tape and head tech by the end of the cassette era.
I'd guess it had to do more with the actual tape head moving, rather
than having a stationary cassette tape head. Crosstalk was common in
8-Tracks.
Uni
Uni
Yeah, true, but 8-Track brought us discrete Quadraphonic sound! :-)
Uni
>
>
>
>
terra
>
> terra wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167328854.2...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > John B. wrote:
>> >> HATED them. Never bought a ONE.
>> >>
>> >> My favorite feature: the song fade out/in when it was broken up
>> >> during a
>> >> track change. ACK!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Trackus Interruptus! GAWD it's been so long since I listened to those
>> > pieces of shit I'd forgotten!
>> >
>> > As for 8 track having better fidelity than cassette, in practice no,
>> > because even though you had equal track area and twice the speed you
>> > had much better tape and head tech by the end of the cassette era. The
>> > cassette had a lot of serious development the 8 track NEVER benefitted
>> > from.
>>
>> BY THE END of the decade. Once cassettes surpassed or equalled reel to
>> reel
>> quality the 8 tracks dies a quick death, as they should, due to the
>> mechanical limitations and annoying program re-shuffles/broken songs.
>> But
>> at the beginning of the decade, when 8 tracks were more prevalent, they
>> had
>> much more fidelity than cassettes.
>
>
> Which decade?
the 70's.
Uni
True. But in this world, it depends who has the most money and the most
persuasion to market their ideas. Do you think we'd be listening to
Compact Audio CDs now, if, who was it Phillips and Sony, didn't have the
Bucks$? What happened to those mini, what 3" diameter CDs? Seems they
lasted only about 1 year in stores. Actually, I'm amazed how long it
took us from breaking loose of 3-1/4" floppy discs! Boy, who was it,
Omega, must have made Zillion$ with their HIGH costs Zip discs! :-)
Jump on the bandwagon, 'cause here come 200 MB discs!!
>
> Not even sure they had Metal
>
>>tape in 1/4".
>
>
> No, nor did they need it, as the technology was perfectly fine without
> it.
Perfect technology that forces you to manually flip the reels? Sort of
like flipping vinyl records to hear the other side - though people tried
to conquer that, too.
>
> Seem to recall my Sony 7" reel-to-reel having an upper
>
>>limit of 11-12kHz at 3.75 ISP. Who was it, Demon?, with the dual
>>capstan cassette?
>
>
> I can't answer as to what you had or what its capabilities were.
It was fun to see it used in a James Bond movie!!! :-)
Uni
>
>>Uni
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
musicman
you obviously never had a decent 8-track deck
the 8-track carts have 1/4" analog reel to reel tape in them, with a
graphite backing, at 3.75 IPS, 4 stereo programs
the resolution is much better than any CD and better than
lossful/lossless compressed digital formats
it would take an SACD to even approach the resolution levels of analog
tape at 3.75 IPS- because the theoretical "bit rate" of analog tape, is
the actual magnetically marked MOLECULES of iron oxide on the tape
moving past the tape head- a bit rate of literally millions or billions
of bits per second
you're focused on the format's mechanical reliability, not its
resolution
8-track carts are every bit as good as reel to reel tape at 3.75 IPS-
which is a very high resolution indeed- and a wider bandwidth than
standard CD 44khz sampling/16bit
musicman
yeh, they were so lousy, people are paying $300-500 each for them on
Ebay now
twice what I just paid for my DVD/DVR recorder for Christmas, that only
cost $200
terra
news:1167336600.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
Indeed. One must remember that the car units were at the lower end of
quality, they also made home units that recorded as well as played and
these were comparable to most reel to reels available at the time (except
for the 10 minute per program limit and the stupid track switch). Klunk!
terra
news:45942A6A...@no.email.invalid:
Yup.
But in this world, it depends who has the most money and the
> most persuasion to market their ideas. Do you think we'd be listening
> to Compact Audio CDs now, if, who was it Phillips and Sony, didn't
> have the Bucks$? What happened to those mini, what 3" diameter CDs?
> Seems they lasted only about 1 year in stores. Actually, I'm amazed
> how long it took us from breaking loose of 3-1/4" floppy discs! Boy,
> who was it, Omega, must have made Zillion$ with their HIGH costs Zip
> discs! :-) Jump on the bandwagon, 'cause here come 200 MB discs!!
None of this pertains to what we (or I) was talking about.
>
>
>>
>> Not even sure they had Metal
>>
>>>tape in 1/4".
>>
>>
>> No, nor did they need it, as the technology was perfectly fine
>> without it.
>
> Perfect technology that forces you to manually flip the reels? Sort of
> like flipping vinyl records to hear the other side - though people
> tried to conquer that, too.
Again, fidelity-wise the 8 track was miles ahead of the cassette.
mechanically they were a nightmare, and as to flipping over reels on a
deck, you could easily let a reel run for up to 3 HOURS of music before
having to get up and flip it over. Usually at 3.75 speed you could fit
an hour and a half. Still far and away beyond vinyl OR cassettes!
Uni
CDs were limited to the digital technology of their time. Most found
them satisfactory for music. Some say, why go any further, since most
music was compressed, enhanced, and manipulated in every other way, to
sound impressive, even over a AM car radio, so why bother with perfection?
Wasn't DVD audio around before SACD?
Uni
>
Bret Ludwig
The good reel to reel formats are 1/2", two track, 15 or 30 ips. The
semi-good ones are 1/4 inch two track. You cannot consider most
consumer open reel decks whatsoever but need to look strictly at
professional Ampex or Studer transports (or a Stellavox or Nagra
portable) exclusively. Every day some sonofawhore, much like yourself
in motivation, gets hold of a pro Ampex with tube record/repro
electronics and THROWS THE TRANSPORT OUT because some morons like to
use the vestigal mic pre because Steve Albini, who has recorded many
popular records but never a good sounding one yet, does so. However,
this pro stuff isn't found at yard sales or Salvation Army dumpsters
which is where you get your shit.
The 7.5 ips quarter inch two track uses much better heads and has a
much better transport and uses in effect four times the tape per track
at twice the speed.
Your analogy of buiit rate to tape mag density is pure horseshit and
you know it. I agree CD is not a perfect format but the fact is that
properly mastered CDs beat most of the 60s-70s pop vinyl out there. A
great many are not in fact properly mastered but that is another issue.
Very few prerecorded commercial openreel tapes were any good. Most
prerecorded cassettes weren't particularly good either. Vinyl with all
its attendant problems was the definitive quality release format,
especially between 1956 or 1957 and 1973 when they started cheesing up
on the vinyl.
Bret Ludwig
terra wrote:
> >>
> >> No, nor did they need it, as the technology was perfectly fine
> >> without it.
> >
> > Perfect technology that forces you to manually flip the reels? Sort of
> > like flipping vinyl records to hear the other side - though people
> > tried to conquer that, too.
>
> Again, fidelity-wise the 8 track was miles ahead of the cassette.
> mechanically they were a nightmare, and as to flipping over reels on a
> deck, you could easily let a reel run for up to 3 HOURS of music before
> having to get up and flip it over. Usually at 3.75 speed you could fit
> an hour and a half. Still far and away beyond vinyl OR cassettes!
Four track offset open reel was a pissy format. In my opinion, most
all consumer open reel machines should be sledgehammered. Since PRO
transports are now available very cheap why fuck with anything else? My
preference is for the Ampex or Ampex clones but Studer/Revox, Scully,
MCI were good and Crown passable.
terra
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167342375.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The good reel to reel formats are 1/2", two track, 15 or 30 ips. The
> semi-good ones are 1/4 inch two track.
That was not true of the time period being discussed. 1/4" tape decks were
excfeptionally high-fidelity, generally only studios had 1/2:" (until the
mid-to latter 70's and that was a real audiophile item). Many of the hits
of the 50's and 60's were recorded on nothing more than 1/4" tape.
You cannot consider most
> consumer open reel decks whatsoever but need to look strictly at
> professional Ampex or Studer transports (or a Stellavox or Nagra
> portable) exclusively.
Horsefeathers. We're talking about consumer itmes here, not pro equipment.
Home reel to reel decks were the best fidelity you could get at the time, at
home, bar none.
Every day some sonofawhore, much like yourself
> in motivation, gets hold of a pro Ampex with tube record/repro
> electronics and THROWS THE TRANSPORT OUT because some morons like to
> use the vestigal mic pre because Steve Albini, who has recorded many
> popular records but never a good sounding one yet, does so. However,
> this pro stuff isn't found at yard sales or Salvation Army dumpsters
> which is where you get your shit.
>
> The 7.5 ips quarter inch two track uses much better heads and has a
> much better transport and uses in effect four times the tape per track
> at twice the speed.
>
> Your analogy of buiit rate to tape mag density is pure horseshit and
> you know it. I agree CD is not a perfect format but the fact is that
> properly mastered CDs beat most of the 60s-70s pop vinyl out there. A
> great many are not in fact properly mastered but that is another issue.
> Very few prerecorded commercial openreel tapes were any good. Most
> prerecorded cassettes weren't particularly good either. Vinyl with all
> its attendant problems was the definitive quality release format,
> especially between 1956 or 1957 and 1973 when they started cheesing up
> on the vinyl.
Again, that is absolute nonsense. You have it all pretty much
ass-backwards.
Bret Ludwig
musicman wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
> > about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
> > a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
> > for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
>
> yeh, they were so lousy, people are paying $300-500 each for them on
> Ebay now
>
> twice what I just paid for my DVD/DVR recorder for Christmas, that only
> cost $200
>
Sadly the American public is incredibly gullible. They were gullible
when they bought 8 track the first time and even more now.
terra
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167342651.9...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Try and stick with the time period, shall we? Your opinion is your opinion,
but as to facts on fidelity is is quite incorrect. In the 50's, 60's and
70's, open rell (yes, consumer decks) were the best quality fidleity
available.
Bret Ludwig
terra wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167342375.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The good reel to reel formats are 1/2", two track, 15 or 30 ips. The
> > semi-good ones are 1/4 inch two track.
>
> That was not true of the time period being discussed. 1/4" tape decks were
> excfeptionally high-fidelity, generally only studios had 1/2:" (until the
> mid-to latter 70's and that was a real audiophile item). Many of the hits
> of the 50's and 60's were recorded on nothing more than 1/4" tape.
>
>
> You cannot consider most
> > consumer open reel decks whatsoever but need to look strictly at
> > professional Ampex or Studer transports (or a Stellavox or Nagra
> > portable) exclusively.
>
> Horsefeathers. We're talking about consumer itmes here, not pro equipment.
> Home reel to reel decks were the best fidelity you could get at the time, at
> home, bar none.
If you were a Sinatra or a Bernstein you had pro decks at home. Even
then people knew consumer decks were third best.
>
> Every day some sonofawhore, much like yourself
> > in motivation, gets hold of a pro Ampex with tube record/repro
> > electronics and THROWS THE TRANSPORT OUT because some morons like to
> > use the vestigal mic pre because Steve Albini, who has recorded many
> > popular records but never a good sounding one yet, does so. However,
> > this pro stuff isn't found at yard sales or Salvation Army dumpsters
> > which is where you get your shit.
> >
> > The 7.5 ips quarter inch two track uses much better heads and has a
> > much better transport and uses in effect four times the tape per track
> > at twice the speed.
> >
> > Your analogy of buiit rate to tape mag density is pure horseshit and
> > you know it. I agree CD is not a perfect format but the fact is that
> > properly mastered CDs beat most of the 60s-70s pop vinyl out there. A
> > great many are not in fact properly mastered but that is another issue.
> > Very few prerecorded commercial openreel tapes were any good. Most
> > prerecorded cassettes weren't particularly good either. Vinyl with all
> > its attendant problems was the definitive quality release format,
> > especially between 1956 or 1957 and 1973 when they started cheesing up
> > on the vinyl.
>
> Again, that is absolute nonsense. You have it all pretty much
> ass-backwards.
I remember consumer open reel very well. I had relatives who had big
consoles with consumo open reel transports and they would get open reel
tapes of classical and easy listening music from the record clubs. The
wow and flutter were audible even to me. At that time if you had a
decent table and had good vinyl the sound was substantially better
even through Mickey Mouse Japanese receivers brought back from Thailand
and Japan by troops.
Uni
Feel free to correct me, but the tape speed increase was necessary, for
extended fidelity, because of the limitation of setting the tape head
gap precisely. Later, cassettes recorders, with manufacturing
improvements, were able to satisfy these demands.
Uni
Uni
Still believe Metal cassette tapes, especially Sony's, were the best
invention since sliced bread! :-)
Uni
>
>
>
>
terra
>
> terra wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167342375.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > The good reel to reel formats are 1/2", two track, 15 or 30 ips. The
>> > semi-good ones are 1/4 inch two track.
>>
>> That was not true of the time period being discussed. 1/4" tape decks
>> were
>> excfeptionally high-fidelity, generally only studios had 1/2:" (until the
>> mid-to latter 70's and that was a real audiophile item). Many of the
>> hits
>> of the 50's and 60's were recorded on nothing more than 1/4" tape.
>>
>>
>> You cannot consider most
>> > consumer open reel decks whatsoever but need to look strictly at
>> > professional Ampex or Studer transports (or a Stellavox or Nagra
>> > portable) exclusively.
>>
>> Horsefeathers. We're talking about consumer itmes here, not pro
>> equipment.
>> Home reel to reel decks were the best fidelity you could get at the time,
>> at
>> home, bar none.
>
> If you were a Sinatra or a Bernstein you had pro decks at home.
So what? They were PRO's, not consumers!
Even
> then people knew consumer decks were third best.
Third best to what?
Then your memory is shot.
Sturgeon's Lawyer
> it would take an SACD to even approach the resolution levels of analog
> tape at 3.75 IPS- because the theoretical "bit rate" of analog tape, is
> the actual magnetically marked MOLECULES of iron oxide on the tape
> moving past the tape head- a bit rate of literally millions or billions
> of bits per second
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. It would be true if, and only if,
the tape head wrote/read those Fe2O3 molecules individually, in
fact linearly; of course, it did not, but rather read all the molecules
in a "strip" of one track at one time.
To find a meaningful equivalent bit level, you have to apply the
Shannon-Nyquist formula -- determine the response bandwidth (i.e.,
subtract the lowest reliably reproduced frequency from the highest),
double to get the necessary sample rate, then multiply by the
number of bits per sample.
If you assume perfect clarity to the limit of human hearing, you're
talking maybe 40K samples per second.
To determine the number of bits per sample, you have to ask
yourself how accurately the medium reproduced the original
signal. I'm not looking up the accuracy, but I think we're being
extremely generous if we suggest that the reproduction was
accurate to one part in ten thousand -- one hundredth of one
percent maximum distortion. This would require log2(10000),
or 14 bits per sample.
But let's go whole hawg and give each sample 32 bits -- you're
still talking an equivalent bit rate of 40K*32 = 1,280,000 bps.
Roughly one Mbps; hardly "millions or billions of bits per
second."
--Dan'l
Uni
> musicman wrote:
>
>>it would take an SACD to even approach the resolution levels of analog
>>tape at 3.75 IPS- because the theoretical "bit rate" of analog tape, is
>>the actual magnetically marked MOLECULES of iron oxide on the tape
>>moving past the tape head- a bit rate of literally millions or billions
>>of bits per second
>
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. It would be true if, and only if,
> the tape head wrote/read those Fe2O3 molecules individually, in
> fact linearly; of course, it did not, but rather read all the molecules
Metal tape improved this linearity, as the particles were more uniform
in size and better aligned.
Just though I'd toss in my two cents! :-)
Uni
Uni
> musicman wrote:
>
>>it would take an SACD to even approach the resolution levels of analog
>>tape at 3.75 IPS- because the theoretical "bit rate" of analog tape, is
>>the actual magnetically marked MOLECULES of iron oxide on the tape
>>moving past the tape head- a bit rate of literally millions or billions
>>of bits per second
>
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. It would be true if, and only if,
> the tape head wrote/read those Fe2O3 molecules individually, in
> fact linearly; of course, it did not, but rather read all the molecules
>
> in a "strip" of one track at one time.
>
> To find a meaningful equivalent bit level, you have to apply the
> Shannon-Nyquist formula
NyQuil? Yeah, great cold formula! :-)
Just tossing in a bit of humor, before people start taking punches! :-)
Uni
BobbyM
news:45946922...@no.email.invalid...
> Just though I'd toss in my two cents! :-)
"Keep the change" - ( Billy the Kidd to a deputy sheriff he'd just killed
with a shotgun shell loaded with dimes - from the movie "Pat Garrett & Billy
the Kid")
Uni
LOL! Pretty good, Mr. M! :-)
Uni
>
>
John B.
type of novelty deal or something.
John B.
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167332666.2...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duty-honor-country
that tapes had recording lengths of up to 100 minutes- which would
yield 4 programs, 25 minutes each- you obviously are not very familiar
with the old 8-track format
it was produced around the clock, 7 days a week, 3 shifts, in factories
throughout the USA, for 20+ years, from 1966 until late in the 1980's
how bad could it be ?
from 1966 until c. 1980, 8-track tape was THE modern format of the era-
and certainly gave better sound resolution than a lowly cassette !
Uni
Don't think I remember many (2) LPs on 8-Track, but extended length was
available for recording! Probably bad news for 8-Track players,
especially car, due to the thinner media!
Uni
terra
news:1167400056.1...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
Obviously you are totally without a clue. Most LP's were only 40 minutes
long; there -were- extended doubleplay tapes but most only allowed ten
minutes per program. Get a fact or two before you try and correct
someone else.
Uni
THINK they had up to 180 minute cassettes!
Uni
>
duty-honor-country
and those "gullible" professional studio musicians prefer to record on
2" reel to reel analog tape at 30 IPS, instead of studio masters
just ask Bob Dylan- he said digital sound hasn't produced a single
listenable release in the past 20+ years- and they should let people
download it for free- because it's not worth anything in digital CD
format
his words, not mine
is Bob Dylan "gullible" too ? I think not...he's a pretty sharp guy...
duty-honor-country
what do you think a tape head is reading ?
iron oxide particles that are magnetically charged
they are very small- billions and trillions of them on a 1-inch piece
of tape
that's a mighty bit (no pun intended) more resolution than digital CD
has.
Marc Dashevsky
@hotmail.com says...
It's clear you didn't understand what Sturgeon's Lawyer wrote.
It's also clear that you don't have the technical knowledge to
participate fruitfully in this discussion.
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
duty-honor-country
I understand what he posted- the problem is, what he posted is a false
statement and misleading- here's why:
If you are trying to state that digital has better resolution than
analog, you're wrong- plain and simple.
ANY knowledgeable electronics engineer, or sound engineer, or studio
expert will tell you- analog has higher resolution than digital.
Digital is just easier to manipulate and edit, and cheaper to mass
produce in copies, and a smaller format.
that doesn't make it better
try telling the Japanese tycoons that spend $60,000 on speakers and
$100,000 on tube amplifiers, that digital is better
these are the same guys that MASS PRODUCE the digital components and
sell them on the market- yet their home stereos are ANALOG
Marc Dashevsky
@hotmail.com says...
> ANY knowledgeable electronics engineer, or sound engineer, or studio
> expert will tell you- analog has higher resolution than digital.
I don't understand how the concept of resolution applies to analog.
NudoCruncher
scammer and mental case. Go check out his history on Google by
searching on +"Charlie Nudo" +66fourdoor...the guy's a complete mental
case! Also, see what other people who are into that hobby think of him
at:
Bret Ludwig
duty-honor-country wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > musicman wrote:
> > > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
> > > > about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
> > > > a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
> > > > for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
> > >
> > > yeh, they were so lousy, people are paying $300-500 each for them on
> > > Ebay now
> > >
> > > twice what I just paid for my DVD/DVR recorder for Christmas, that only
> > > cost $200
> > >
> >
> > Sadly the American public is incredibly gullible. They were gullible
> > when they bought 8 track the first time and even more now.
>
>
> and those "gullible" professional studio musicians prefer to record on
> 2" reel to reel analog tape at 30 IPS, instead of studio masters
Bob Dylan, aside from being a terrible singer and a mediocre-at-best
songwriter, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground technically.
(Like his pal Neil Young.) Most modern releases do suck, but given
their production values they'd suck just as hard if they were analog.
I absolutely encourage audiophiles to buy PRO open reel decks. Not
consumo suck ass piece of shit ones nor 8-track, 4-track, broadcast
cart, Elcaset, or DAT.
Bret Ludwig
duty-honor-country wrote:
How many goddamned aliases do you have, Sonofawhore 66fourdoor???
Uni
> duty-honor-country wrote:
>
>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>>musicman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
>>>>>about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
>>>>>a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
>>>>>for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
>>>>
>>>>yeh, they were so lousy, people are paying $300-500 each for them on
>>>>Ebay now
>>>>
>>>>twice what I just paid for my DVD/DVR recorder for Christmas, that only
>>>>cost $200
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly the American public is incredibly gullible. They were gullible
>>>when they bought 8 track the first time and even more now.
>>
>>
>>and those "gullible" professional studio musicians prefer to record on
>>2" reel to reel analog tape at 30 IPS, instead of studio masters
>
>
>
> Bob Dylan, aside from being a terrible singer and a mediocre-at-best
> songwriter, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground technically.
Whoa, I like this!!! Carry on, friend!! :-)
Uni
terra
>
> I absolutely encourage audiophiles to buy PRO open reel decks. Not
> consumo suck ass piece of shit ones nor 8-track, 4-track, broadcast
> cart, Elcaset, or DAT.
No one was. You're all over the map.
Uni
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1167443662.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> I absolutely encourage audiophiles to buy PRO open reel decks. Not
>>consumo suck ass piece of shit ones nor 8-track, 4-track, broadcast
>>cart, Elcaset, or DAT.
>
>
> No one was. You're all over the map.
Okay, let's see how much you remember about 8-track cartridges, How many
snaps held the two halves of the case together!? :-)
Uni
>
>>
>
>
Uni
> "John B." <j...@computac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Nirvana on 8-track? I find that very hard to believe. Unless it was some
>>type of novelty deal or something.
>
>
> '80s, though someone here already said otherwise (i.e., Madonna). I
> myself had almost zero experience with them, either at home or at
> other people's places. The entire sum of my 8-track memories is once
> hearing either the Beatles' "Blue" album on eight-track on a
> friend's home stereo.
>
> Plenty of interesting info here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_cartridge
I'd still like to know how you got 4 discrete (Quad) channels from two
tape head? Must of required a special player!!!!
Uni
>
> This mentions a Fleetwood Mac comp on 8-track, as late as 1988.
Uni
Also, why move the tape head, and just provide 8 stationary gapped
heads, switching the two you need, while shorting the others? Must of
had to do with cost!!!
Uni
Uni
Actually, it probably had to do more with proximity! Just too close to
put two heads! Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to flip the head on
reversing cassette decks!
Uni
Sturgeon's Lawyer
> what do you think a tape head is reading ?
A single waveform, formed by the passage of a large number of
magnetically-aligned iron oxide molecules.
> iron oxide particles that are magnetically charged
Wrong.
First, it's more useful to speak of "molecules" than
"particles," for the individual molecules in a particle can be
aligned differently.
Second, it has nothing to do with "magnetic charge." In
fact, there is no such THING as "magnetic charge." An
iron oxide molecule has a magnetic polarity, inherently,
which causes it to align with a magnetic field. We can
get into how that is done for recording purposes, but for
the moment it's sufficient to observe that you've completely
screwed the pooch on Physics 1A here.
Third, the head is not reading the "particles" individually.
It is not capable of doing so; it reads the _variation_ in
the (statistical) magnetic alignment of the molecules.
Their individual charges aggregate to form a magnetic
field which moves, with the tape, past the read head.
The head is designed to permit a variable flow of current
based on the variation in the intensity in the magnetic
field as it passes (thanks to a phenomenon known as
"induction"), which, of course, is then tweaked and
amplified to produce the audio signal sent to the
speakers.
> they are very small- billions and trillions of them on a
> 1-inch piece of tape
>
> that's a mighty bit (no pun intended) more resolution
> than digital CD has.
Yes, it would be if the head were reading the tape
at that level. But it isn't.
Note, please, that I am in no way arguing for the
"superiority" of digital over analog sound reproduction.
I am only pointing out that your argment for the
superiority of this specific medium is on roughly the
same level of scientific-technical sophistication as
"creation science" -- that is to say, no sophistication
at all; only sophistry.
--Dan'l
Uni
Bet you didn't know, if you hit a cartridge hard enough, a bit of sound
will be lost!!!! Actually, most anything magnetic, in nature, will do
that!!!!
Just thought I'd toss my 3 cents in! :-)
Oh, let's not forget about the DC bias, too!
Always wondered how erase heads worked! They didn't erase, but just
recorded a inaudible frequency, of about 44 kHz, on the tape!!!
Carry on!
Uni
Bret Ludwig
duty-honor-country wrote:
> try telling the Japanese tycoons that spend $60,000 on speakers and
> $100,000 on tube amplifiers, that digital is better
>
> these are the same guys that MASS PRODUCE the digital components and
> sell them on the market- yet their home stereos are ANALOG
The little nippers who actuallyy pay these sums are bankers and
executives who don't listen to the Restrum Erectric theater gear they
buy for these sums.
The bigger menace right now is Koreans who buy up all the old WE test
equipment for the transformers, despite their poor quality, and build
replica WE theater gear. They DO listen to it, proving Orientals have
poor judgment in sound quality. Although they have a higher frequency
response in hearing than do Whites, at least when comparing males to
males (the females are more similar) they have a poorer ability to
judge complex harmonic structures. I have deliberately defaced the
transformers in my WE 19C oscillator and telco line analyzers so as to
reduce the likelihood they will be parted out if I die. I erased the
all important WE date and QC stamps with a fiberglass eraser and put
offensive symbols on with nail polish.
terra
So you're weird AND a racist? Hunh. Kinda throws your credibility,
such as it was, into the trash.
Bret Ludwig
If believing that a German Shepherd and a Poodle are two different
distinguishable types of dogs makes one a "doggie racist", then
believing there are differences between whites and Asians (or as I
usually prefer to say, Orientals) must make me a people racist.
But what of it? Let's concede for the sake of argument I'm a total,
incorrigible racist. Does that mean I must be wrong about everything
else as well? Does this theory apply to other faults besides racism?
As it happens I admire the Orientals a great deal in many ways. They
can do stuff other peoples can't. But I am not one myself and to live
in their social and organizational structure would frustrate me no end.
I love to visit Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Bangkok, and hope to see Beijing
and Shanghai someday. More Americans should. But not move there or
restructure our society to be like theirs.
terra
>
> terra wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1167524864.8...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > duty-honor-country wrote:
>> >
>> So you're weird AND a racist? Hunh. Kinda throws your credibility,
>> such as it was, into the trash.
>>
>
> If believing that a German Shepherd and a Poodle are two different
> distinguishable types of dogs makes one a "doggie racist", then
> believing there are differences between whites and Asians (or as I
> usually prefer to say, Orientals) must make me a people racist.
Of course there are differences. It is what thinks the differences are
and what makes them differences that shows the problem with some folks.
>
> But what of it? Let's concede for the sake of argument I'm a total,
> incorrigible racist. Does that mean I must be wrong about everything
> else as well?
Everything else? No. 8-tracks and orientals? Yes.
musicman
Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Boy, were they lousy.
>
> The 8 track was the worst prerecorded format available since they did
> away with wax cylinders. It would catch, tangle up, break, tear. The
> clunker solenoid would burn out a lot. The heads wore out in a couple
> of years and replacing them was a fool's errand. The tapes themselves
> were dirt collectors. A lot of them were phonies and they sounded even
> worse.
>
> about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
> a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
> for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
yes, other people remember them well, too- like this guy who just
bought one for his car yesterday, for $350
you're a bit misinformed as to the current value of 8-track format- and
IMO you're defending digital formats, because you spent a pile of money
on that crap- so your ego won't let you admit, digital is inferior
DianeE
<pastreamb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167609538.7...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> You are arguing with one of Usenets biggest trolls, Charlie Nudo.
>
> He is also posting in this thread under the nic "musicman". Check the
> headers.
>
> Google Charlie Nudo and you'll see how every now and then he picks a
> new group, trolls there and starts arguments and after making an ass
> out of himself he moves on to some other group. He destroyed the
> 8-track collecting group and is now working on your group.
--------------
Well, he's too late, Uni already destroyed it.
DianeE
Uni
Excuse me, madam, I was interjecting only technical comments in this
particular thread!!!!!!
The nerve of some people! :-)
Uni
> DianeE
>
>
Stereo__8
>> them of Nirvana as well. That would be '88 or so?
Nope- some of "honor-doody-county"'s fakes that were once prevalent on
eBay.
Stereo__8
what he posted is a false
statement and misleading
And he should know- he's quite the king of false and misleading
statements.
Bret Ludwig
musicman wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > Boy, were they lousy.
> >
> > The 8 track was the worst prerecorded format available since they did
> > away with wax cylinders. It would catch, tangle up, break, tear. The
> > clunker solenoid would burn out a lot. The heads wore out in a couple
> > of years and replacing them was a fool's errand. The tapes themselves
> > were dirt collectors. A lot of them were phonies and they sounded even
> > worse.
> >
> > Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
> > about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
> > a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
> > for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
>
>
> yes, other people remember them well, too- like this guy who just
> bought one for his car yesterday, for $350
A dumbshit.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&sspagename=STRK%3AMESO%3AIT&viewitem=&item=140069712439&rd=1,1
>
> you're a bit misinformed as to the current value of 8-track format- and
> IMO you're defending digital formats, because you spent a pile of money
> on that crap- so your ego won't let you admit, digital is inferior
Dogital is neither inferior nor superior to analog audio. The question
is always WHICH digital versus WHICH analog, and well mastered CD beats
the SHIT out of consumer analog tape formats.
Uni
Dogital? Is that like the Catalyst of technical advancement? :-)
Uni
musicman
http://i13.tinypic.com/4hs5an4.jpg
you have no clue what you are talking about- ask ANY studio recording
engineer or sound technician, they'll tell you that analog is superior
to digital in resolution, across the board- you've been BRAINWASHED by
the marketing gurus at Phillips and Sony- and they sit back and rake in
the big profits, then go home and listen to high-end analog tube
stereos, that they bought with profits from YOUR purchases. read
above, expand with magnify first
analog vs. digital is NO CONTEST- even a decent 8-track deck sounds
better than a CD- 44/16 resolution of a CD is so choppy it's laughable
wake up and smell the coffee, there's a reason why CD sales have
dropped 60% in recent years- the music on CD sounds like crap
musicman
Bret Ludwig wrote:
> musicman wrote:
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that there was anything good
> > > about 8 track sonically is insane or, as is the case with some vendors,
> > > a bals face liar. CD for all its faults beats the fuck out of 8 track
> > > for fidelity. In fact the cassette does as well.
> >
> > Ebay now
> >
> > twice what I just paid for my DVD/DVR recorder for Christmas, that only
> > cost $200
> >
>
> Sadly the American public is incredibly gullible. They were gullible
> when they bought 8 track the first time and even more now.
actually the opposite it true- people are realizing just how much
better analog sounded, and are going BACK to it- and passing on the
digital junk
that's why another 8-track deck just sold for $350 last weekend
keep jabbering, while the smarter people MOVE ON to analog formats
and where the hell are people going to get RECORDINGS to listen to, for
your reel to reel format you recommend ?
try finding them in the quantity that 8-tracks are in already
you have tunnel vision with blinders on