OT: which 26" telly to buy?

It's a builder's yard.

If I knew what that was I might be worried.

How odd, I use Hannington and we're almost on the South Coast.

I can't find a single correct statement in that paragraph.

By 1965, good tape running at a decent speed was most certainly capable of 25KHz or more, slightly more than *15.625 Hz*!!!!!

As were most quality vinyl setups.

Cinema sound was admittedly not that hot.

And digital broadcasting did not exist, no did digital sound really.

I cannot even parse that paragraph into standard English.

And that appears to be a non sequitur.

Indeed - but for some reason it reaches into most of London quite well. Of course you need a second decent aerial. At the time I'm talking about there was quite a bit of variation between Southern (TVS) and London ITV - so you'd often get different films on outside peak hours.

It somewhat confused me too.

The BBC used their own tape for many things. Was best used for tying up the roses. ;-) And it would struggle to reach 15kHz at 7 1/2 ips. Which was used for certain applications.

The standard cartridge for playing mono records was a Tannoy device - turnover stylus for 78/fine groove. That probably didn't quite make 15 kHz.

Even sepmag as used in TV struggled. Due to the stiff backing, wear was a very real problem. So although it could measure quite well when everything was perfect, the actual reality was somewhat different.

The earliest form I came across was SIS - sound in syncs. It saved the cost of an additional audio line since it was part of the video signal. IIRC, the first use was for OB contributions - where getting a decent audio circuit could be a problem. It was used for a while to feed transmitters outside London, before the NICAM distribution system (different from domestic NICAM) came on stream.

But I have no dates for any of this. I'm sure a bit of Googling would find chapter and verse - old BBC engineers love this sort of thing. ;-)

I doubt my Studer B67 would do that;!...

At anything like say relative to 1 kHz !..

My A77 is -3dB at 18kHz at 7 1/2 ips using half decent tape. AGFA PEM 468. Other have reported better using a thinner tape.

that's what pre-empahis and all that jazz was for. Anyway pro kit was 30 ips wasn't it?

it was cassettes a1 1 7/8 ips or whatever it was that ruined tape recording..

the highest frequency you could do was related to either the width of the gap in the tape head, or the size of the ferrite dust on the tape, whichever was larger..times the record speed.

That accords with my memories of such things.

Despite working with pro tape recorders all my life, I've never actually come across one which ran at 30 ips. That speed was sometimes used in recording studios - but such a high speed causes problems at the bass end. The better noise performance was soon equalled by Dolby A noise reduction at 15 ips - and that became the norm.

It was possible to make very good cassette recordings. The real snag was compatibility between machines if you wanted the very best results.

I actually tested a top of the range cassette tape machine.

I could not get despite numerous adjustments, it to record flat to beyond 10Khz on one channel and 13Khz on the other, no could I obtain an equal response to 5dB between the two channels at any frequency over 10Khz.

This was using top quality cassettes recorded on the same machine.

Dolby was an abortion, and depended on the machines being set up crucially for every single tape type before use.

Tape was, unless you had pro machines very well maintained, a complete abortion.

The cassette was the worst of the lot.

People who complain about MP3 compression etc, never were exposed to bad Dolby.

The act is lots of people are happy with crap sound as long as there is lots of it.

I guess they eat supersized big macs as well;-).

Then not a top of the range deck or decent tape. Assuming you weren't trying to do the checks at peak level.

It certainly didn't like gross errors.

Most things need to be properly maintained to work correctly.

I'd say to some the faults on poor analogue can be kinder on the ears than the faults of inadequate data rate digital.

But of course good digital *should* beat analogue hands down. Makes me wonder why just so much has gone wrong these days.

I have a Wow and Flutter meter for sale, if you're interested...

In article , The Natural Philosopher

Must have been duff then?..

Ever tried or used a Nakamichi;?..

that was what I tested. Total crap.

Must have had a duff one then they were excellent machines especially the Tri Tracer series!...

I've fixed and lined up quite a few of those over the years. No problems getting them to spec. What level were you using?

Lost in the mists of time mate.

In the 1960s I had a nice Philips tape recorder which went to the dump just before I emigrated (tried unsuccessfully to rehome it on eBay). What I remember is the likes of Henrys and Laskys selling blank tapes in dozens of variants, IIRC reel sizes from 3"-7", vinyl or acetate (cheap but snapped if the TR brakes were too quick), single/double/triple etc. Must have been a retailers nightmare.