VHS

the tape moves slower, the heads move fast. this equates to an equivalent faster tape speed over a stationary head.

Mr modnaR wrote:yeah so the relative speed is high = more info stored!

No, the amount of information that can be stored is only depending on the amount of tape that passes by the head per second.

Say that the tape speed is the equivelent of a bathtubs volume, one inch of tape can hold the relative amount of a 600 liters (sorry about the metric system, not familiar with american ounces and stuff).
Say that the recording head is the equivalent of a bucket which holds 10 liters of water and by each spin of the head throws 10 liters of water into the bathtub.
With a spinning frequency of 60 rpm/second the bucket will fill one bathtub before the next empty one comes along. Eveything is fine, not drop spilled and the tub is nice and full.
If you would double the frequency of the bucket throwing water but keeping the tub the same size, could you then fit more water into the tub?

i see what you're saying, but the heads on a vhs machine run at an angle, so the track is spilt up into diagonal stripes:

[img=http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6919/tape5dy.th.jpg]

Mr modnaR wrote:i see what you're saying, but the heads on a vhs machine run at an angle, so the track is spilt up into diagonal stripes

I don´t know, audio tracks looks rather horizontal to me.
And either way, even if the video info is diagonal, the magnetics of the tape can only take a certain amount of info before it´s full. If I´m wrong here please correct me.
The rpm of the drum containing the heads plays a role in how fast the info of the tape is picked up, but I don´t see how a fast reading / recording head would have an impact o how much info the tape can hold.

A tape gets saturated at a certain point, it gets saturated faster if the info written upon it dosen´t have enough space to spread over.
Same thing with digital audio, greater resolution and depth equals greater harddrive space occupied, it don´t matter how fast your disc spins or writes to disc. 1 min of 24 bit / 192 kHz file will always be larger than 1 min 16 bit / 44.1 kHz file.
The same way 1 min of audio cut at 45 rpm will take more space on a 12" than 1 min cut at 33 rpm (if not the 45 rpm is cut several decibel quieter than the 33 rpm.

i'm having the damndest time getting a svhs recorder on ebay. i want one that doesn't have a built in limiter - one where i'm able to clip as much as i want to if i so desire. i keep lusting after these nice panasonic models with vu meters and lots of recording stuff, but at this point all i want is something that'll let me record a too-hot signal to tape and really experiment with the sound of analog.

anyone got a suggestion? no limiter, pleaaase...

good info in this thread..im gonna have to look more into it. what up beat monkey, are you going to post some models to look into? I'd love one with a built in limiter

maybe i'm confused - if i want to experiment with the compression and clipping possibilities of recording to analog medium, do i want a svhs recorder with or without a built in limiter?

ryssen wrote:

Mr modnaR wrote:i see what you're saying, but the heads on a vhs machine run at an angle, so the track is spilt up into diagonal stripes

I don´t know, audio tracks looks rather horizontal to me.
And either way, even if the video info is diagonal, the magnetics of the tape can only take a certain amount of info before it´s full. If I´m wrong here please correct me.
The rpm of the drum containing the heads plays a role in how fast the info of the tape is picked up, but I don´t see how a fast reading / recording head would have an impact o how much info the tape can hold.

A tape gets saturated at a certain point, it gets saturated faster if the info written upon it dosen´t have enough space to spread over.
Same thing with digital audio, greater resolution and depth equals greater harddrive space occupied, it don´t matter how fast your disc spins or writes to disc. 1 min of 24 bit / 192 kHz file will always be larger than 1 min 16 bit / 44.1 kHz file.
The same way 1 min of audio cut at 45 rpm will take more space on a 12" than 1 min cut at 33 rpm (if not the 45 rpm is cut several decibel quieter than the 33 rpm.

yeah sorry my bad on the audio tracks, your point was my point initially. ie: how can recording to vhs sound better than standard cassette, when the actual audio tracks are much the same size?

in answer to your point about the faster reading writing head having an effect on the amount of info a tape can hold:

think of it like this: the way the video section of the tape is set up means that the wider tape is acting like lots of snippets of thinner (not shorter) tape running at a faster speed.
if, with each sweep of a head, an area of 40mm x 3mm is recorded to, and the head sweeps ten times for a tenth of a second, it is the equivalent of running a length of 400mm x 3mm past a stationary head. now a piece of tape 3mm wide would have to move faster past the stationary head, than the wider tape with the 'tracks' running diagonally. you with me?

all beat monkey was saying was that the tape moves slowly. the head spins fast, and gives the equivalent of having a much larger reel of narrower tape moving past the head much faster.

as to whether the quality is any better when using VHS than standard cassette, i would say no, unless you rig up the video heads to record audio, in which case there may or may not be more clarity.

Antonym wrote:maybe i'm confused - if i want to experiment with the compression and clipping possibilities of recording to analog medium, do i want a svhs recorder with or without a built in limiter?

i'd say without, because if it has a limiter, you are experimenting with the compression and clipping possibilities of the limiter, not the tape.

i think.

ryssen wrote:

Beat~Monkey wrote:Since the Audio is recorded slower than a conventional Reel to Reel or Cassette, you get a much Better Frequency Range From typically on the Low end to the upper mids.....

The Audio, especially Stereo and HiFi is processed through Stereo Mulitplexing which is what give you that Rich Full Sound you want. Cassette recorders don't do this cause the tape moves by the record head much faster. Even though the Drum rotates Fast on VHS, the tape moves across it rather slowly. Much more information can be stored on the media which is much larger also.

This speed thing seems a little upside down. Slower movement across the recording or playback head should result in that less information can be stored per inch and the noise level should be higher to.
This principle applies in the field of reel to reel tape recorders and also vinyls. Those here putting out wax or spinning records knows that a 45 gives both a hotter and cleaner output than a 33.
When open reel tape machines are used the principle is that the faster it transports the tape over the heads, the better the quality gets. It speaks for itself: if one second of audio is recorded to one inch of tape or if it´s recorded over three inches of tape, which of the two alternatives do you think gives greatest resolution and headroom?
Pro studios and engineers often trim their reel to reels to go faster than the manufacturers settings, this way they can record hotter and better controll the saturation of the tape.

The slower the tape moves, the faster it´ll get saturated (which in this case means less linear, distorted and muddy), it´ll also casue the signal to noise ratio to drop considerably. Now, thats not a bad thing in my eyes, I´m pretty fond of coloration by dirt and artefacts, I´m just pointing out that slower tape transport isn´t good for Hi Fi sound decreases the amount of information per inch/tape, not the opposite.

A simple test is comparing audio on a VHS recorded with SP to a VHS recorded with LP, which moves half as fast and see which one sounds best.

Edit: All you people with your MPC rolling at double the tempo should see this pretty clearly.

Yes....It is the better IN ITS OWN FORMAT, VHS or SVHS what have you, because the Heads are flying and not stationary. If it wasn't then I would think the VCR would have been designed with a seperate set of Stationary Heads like a cassette. True the Tape moves slower, But its Wider and can store more per inch than cassette so speed of VHS and Speed of Cassette are Irrelevant in comparison true?

Think about it this way....Take a 2 lane highway and Jam Pack it with cars for a 1/2 mile..The only Cars left in the world. Say 200 cars. YOu Car Jack Each Kat in Each Car for a Buck....You get $200

Take a 4 lane highway Same scenario.....Twice as many cars Same distance....Now you got $400 instead of $200

NOw make the all go home Crying with the 2 laners running 80 and the 4 laners running 65...YOU move more cars slower but more loot....

VHS moves slower, But is Spread out over a Wider Space....See the picture?

( thas a FVcked up example cause I know somebody in one of them cars got some Heat and Will Bust a Cap in yo a$$.....Resulting in a Broken Tape..But yall see the point.... )

Beat~Monkey wrote:

ryssen wrote:

Beat~Monkey wrote:Since the Audio is recorded slower than a conventional Reel to Reel or Cassette, you get a much Better Frequency Range From typically on the Low end to the upper mids.....

The Audio, especially Stereo and HiFi is processed through Stereo Mulitplexing which is what give you that Rich Full Sound you want. Cassette recorders don't do this cause the tape moves by the record head much faster. Even though the Drum rotates Fast on VHS, the tape moves across it rather slowly. Much more information can be stored on the media which is much larger also.

This speed thing seems a little upside down. Slower movement across the recording or playback head should result in that less information can be stored per inch and the noise level should be higher to.
This principle applies in the field of reel to reel tape recorders and also vinyls. Those here putting out wax or spinning records knows that a 45 gives both a hotter and cleaner output than a 33.
When open reel tape machines are used the principle is that the faster it transports the tape over the heads, the better the quality gets. It speaks for itself: if one second of audio is recorded to one inch of tape or if it´s recorded over three inches of tape, which of the two alternatives do you think gives greatest resolution and headroom?
Pro studios and engineers often trim their reel to reels to go faster than the manufacturers settings, this way they can record hotter and better controll the saturation of the tape.

The slower the tape moves, the faster it´ll get saturated (which in this case means less linear, distorted and muddy), it´ll also casue the signal to noise ratio to drop considerably. Now, thats not a bad thing in my eyes, I´m pretty fond of coloration by dirt and artefacts, I´m just pointing out that slower tape transport isn´t good for Hi Fi sound decreases the amount of information per inch/tape, not the opposite.

A simple test is comparing audio on a VHS recorded with SP to a VHS recorded with LP, which moves half as fast and see which one sounds best.

Edit: All you people with your MPC rolling at double the tempo should see this pretty clearly.

Yes....It is the better IN ITS OWN FORMAT, VHS or SVHS what have you, because the Heads are flying and not stationary. If it wasn't then I would think the VCR would have been designed with a seperate set of Stationary Heads like a cassette. True the Tape moves slower, But its Wider and can store more per inch than cassette so speed of VHS and Speed of Cassette are Irrelevant in comparison true?

Think about it this way....Take a 2 lane highway and Jam Pack it with cars for a 1/2 mile..The only Cars left in the world. Say 200 cars. YOu Car Jack Each Kat in Each Car for a Buck....You get $200

Take a 4 lane highway Same scenario.....Twice as many cars Same distance....Now you got $400 instead of $200

NOw make the all go home Crying with the 2 laners running 80 and the 4 laners running 65...YOU move more cars slower but more loot....

VHS moves slower, But is Spread out over a Wider Space....See the picture?

but does this apply to the audio tracks on a VHS tape which are linear?

yes cause the audio track is WIDER than Cassette...

Video on the other hand, a tape recorded in EP has worse pic quality than one recorded in SP...NOw the Question is.....Based on What My man Ryssen said, Lets record AUDIO in EP, And SP and compare....I am sure the SP will be Better which sort of contradicts what I said about the better quality being the slower, but what I was thinking was in comparison with CASSETTE or Reel to Reel....
So Rys is Right too...

Beat~Monkey wrote:yes cause the audio track is WIDER than Cassette...

oh it is? it didn't look like it on the pic i posted a link to. sorry then my bad.

would it be possible to rig up the video heads to record audio?

NOpe...Video has a totally different Data information format. Its format so your TV tuner can decipher to display Video...RGB (Red Green Blue) Tables and sh!t to form motion pictures etc..
Bottom line with VHS, its cheap, sounds better than cassette...and worth experimenting with. Even the Taskam ??88? thing uses Hi8 8mm tapes correct? Must be for a reason..I have seen some older Dats look like they use VHS tapes. Also, If you have Dat....Alot of emphasis is placed on how many hours are on the Heads cause as they wear the sound quality degenerates...but thats all digital. With VHs we talking all Analog.

Beat~Monkey wrote:NOpe...Video has a totally different Data information format. Its format so your TV tuner can decipher to display Video...RGB (Red Green Blue) Tables and sh!t to form motion pictures etc..

yes i understand that. i'm not talking about plugging the audio signal into the s-video plug on the back! lol

i'm talking about opening up the VCR and bypassing the video circuitry, and disconnecting the input to the audio heads, and connecting them to the video heads.

given that the video is given more space on the tape, would the audio quality be any better?

cheers in advance.