![Trampoline](images/smilies/modern/trampoline.gif)
xxxxxxxxx
and I'm guessing there were 8 tracks in total on the tape? That sucker looks massive though. It wouldn't fit in your back pocket easily would itIt was about 4" by 5" by about 3/4" thick.lol? Originally Posted by Camille
As I remember they held the full album of an LP...but separated the songs into groups of 3-4 songs...4 groups in all. I have no idea where the 8-Track name came from...lol. Originally Posted by Rudyard KTwo tracks times four (left and right times four, see below, now color coded). The grouping depended on how to balance the most even layout of songs on the tape or the least amount of blank space. The tape was a continuous loop (single piece of tape spliced together head to tail). so yes ease of use was great. Reliability was bad. If the tape bound up, you'd toss it out.
And they generally soundly like crap and broke a lot (absolutely the cheapest tape available. And the heads fell out of alignment too so you'd hear two tracks instead of one. It was a format that should have died much more quickly than it did.I hope that is clearer. Camille, if you are not clear on this, you'll have to stay after class with "teacher." Me.
Tape (and Head stack) layout:
1 left
2 left
3 left
4 left
1 right
2 right
3 right
4 right
And the head would move up or down. All covering a 1/4" tape. Originally Posted by SR Only
and I'm guessing there were 8 tracks in total on the tape? That sucker looks massive though. It wouldn't fit in your back pocket easily would itFWIW, in recording studios the multitrack tape was 2" wide with 24 tracks. One company did experiment with a 3" tape but ran and failed horribly at the Audio Engineering Society show (seventies). Talk about bulky. Those 10.5" reels of 2" tape were very heavy. Big ass tape transports to move that tape. Here's what one of those machines with tape looks like:lol? xxx Originally Posted by Camille