>> It could mean that Regent was equiped with full-track-mono head(s)
on their Ampex machines - instead of two-track-mono or even stereo. <<

thank you open-g honey - this thread is so educational and so confusing at the same time!
just to make sure: when you say "full-track-mono heads", do you mean one track?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-02 12:14 by with sssoul.

More than four tracks would be really surprising, imo.

>> More than four tracks would be really surprising, imo <<

well ... yeah! if i'm following the discussion, the question is whether they had one track or two at Regent.
ALO isn't using very clear terminology, but since he's saying Regent was simpler than the 4-track scenario at Olympic,
i reckon he means Regent had fewer than four.

>>just to make sure: when you say "full-track-mono heads", do you mean one track?<<

Yes, I do - you could still bounce with another tape machine and a mixing console though
.
the great advantage of the full-track-mono was that it uses (nearly) the whole width of the 1/4 inch tape, getting the most of dynamic range and saturation out of the tape.

the 2-track-mono, as Green Lady describes, would either use less than half of the 1/4" tape - and you could reverse the tape and use the other side, or...
use both, in one direction, leaving an unused lane in the middle wich could produce a lot of hiss if the tape was played back on a different machine.

>> Yes, I do - you could still bounce with another tape machine and a mixing console though <<

thanks for all that clarity, open-g honey! yeah i get how overdubs could be done with one track -
i was just making sure i had figured out your high-tech jargon properly [passing popcorn]

sounds like a familiar idea! "I got to much on my mind and its making my brain hurt".

O-o-o-oohhhhhh, way back!!!!

>>sounds like a familiar idea! "I got to much on my mind and its making my brain hurt".<<

>>O-o-o-oohhhhhh, way back!!!!<<

Z-up guys? - it ain't weekend^^
maybe payday?