Disc Or Tape—Aims, Attitudes

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32361, 29 July 1970, Page 11

Disc Or Tape—Aims, Attitudes

All too often the discussion of disc and merits and disadvantages—has a partisan air: the tape enthusiast is scornful of the dies and its user’s evident readiness to spend a lot of money on just listening; and the record-collector, not requiring anything more adventurous than music reproduction to a high standard, is amused or baffled by the creative tape amateur’s apparent preoccupation with means rather than ends, writes Clement Brown. Well of course, there is something to be said for both attitudes. But where . choice of one medium or the other is concerned,' everything depends quite simply on what it is you wish to achieve. If you just want music—with a wide choice on tap, easy to select and play—discs are for you. The years of development of the disc have yielded a great wealth of music, drama, poetry, entertainment—a tremendous variety, constantly widened in a competitive field in which old recordings return on budget labels to swell the considerable releases of new productions. Keys to its attractiveness are choice.

There are many thousands of enthusiasts who are practical enough to want an activity to add to their listening. Tape is an activity—almost a way of life. With it you can record: it will keep you busy for hours, and the more you try it, the more it will present a challenge. You can be as creative as imagination permits: you can produce your own programmes and effects, from accompaniments for holiday films to fully-fledged drama and documentaries. A lot of this activity has little to do with hi-fi, bat that is not a ,■ disadvantage to the inventive user, who seizes the opportunity to exploit versatility, in his way countering the cost of recording. If one sets tape against disc, considering them as musie sources only, disc is a clear and easy winner. Tape records generally cost more than LPs. If you are a tape user and undertake some music recording, you will be able to augument youf library but it will not be very cheap unless you throw caution to the winds. Bear in mind the need for adequate frequency response and, therefore, tape speed. Performance at 3} ips has been improving, but generally the home hi-fi speed is 7|ips. First Stage This line of argument takes us firmly to consideration of performance and potential It should be taken for granted by now that tape has the potential: all professional music recordings are made on tape, and it is general practice to run at Isips and sometimes faster. Both twin channel stereo and various multitrack systems are used, the latter being reduced to two

channels for transfer to disc at the first stage of record manufacture. Results can be remarkably fine—in terms of response, dynamic range and distortion—and some sacrifice is involved in transfer to disc. At the same time, the best discs yielded by this transfer are extremely good products. Tape record production, a copying process, although coming along quite well, simply cannot compare with record pressing. Clearly there is scope for much more development on the tape side of the fence. Mechanical Parts It is when we come down to earth, leaving the professional world and bringing the products into the home, that the comparisons become most interesting. Disc reproduction is a fairly simple procedure. The equipment for tape reproduction (and recording) is comparatively complex—there are more mechanical parts and therefore more to go wrong. For a given standard of quality, tape equipment—as well as the tape itself—is more expensive than that for disc. Linked with this is the fact that, at the domestic level, the disc is superior as a storage medium and wins on cost per unit of information stored. Again, take a new-release, top price stereo LP, representing the best the companies can currently turn out and played with a high-grade pickup, and try to equal it with home tape recording and you will find you cannot swing the results in favour of tape very quickly or easily. Another aspect is the possible development of each

i medium. The vinyl disc is • probably not amenable to much technical development ' apart from the possibility (hardly to be welcomed) of ■ the re-introductiqn of alternative stereo recording methods that were dropped ; long ago. Tape is a Candidate for development, as are ' other devices which would employ magnetic coatings or surface treatments, although there are some imponderi ables. Might four-track stereo, another advance on the hi-fi highway, be attractive and economically feasible One day? Or does the mere idea just give you nightmares? Which systems will gain the most ground cassettes, : open-spool tapes, or something altogether different? Cassettes, many will declare, but at present you will have to searcb for a long time to find anything in this format to rank with hi-fi as we know it, taking into account bandwidth, noise level and the standard of the machinery on which cassettes are played! Time will tell. Mention spools and cassettes bring to mind the “convenience” aspects. It is not impossible to have markers and guides to identification in open-spool tapes and two-spool cassettes, although good precision is not easily arranged, and overall there is the Obvious nuisance of rewinding and winding on. Selection on discs is fairly simple with a manual-control cueing device. Silent Turntable So we come to the prospects of handling it—the very thing the music-lover may avoid but the creative . enthusiast will welcome. Of I. course, tape can be edited. That is close to professional practice and raises again the cost/versatility question. The ordinary user must think it out in advance and put the emphasis in the right place when choosing equipment