The apparent choice facing the oral historian in selecting a recording machine is between open reel and cassette recorders. Much has been written about the relative merits of these two alternatives, particularly as regards portability and ease of operation.
In the sector which equipment manufacturers refer to as the domestic market (in Britain this could be marked as the retail price range of £15.00 to £50.00)1 the question of choice between open reel and cassette portable recording equipment does not really arise. One of the consequences of the cassette 'revolution' of the 1970s is that manufacturers have phased out the production of inexpensive open reel recorders and replaced them entirely by cassette machines. If budgets are restricted to this lower end of the equipment price range, then a cassette recorder it has to be (unless recourse is made to the second hand market).
Apart from the very cheapest, the recording quality which cassette machines in this price range can achieve does not vary very greatly. The universal principle that the more you spend the more you get still operates, but it applies less to the sound quality of which the more expensive models are capable and rather more to the additional features which they usually incorporate. For example, they may have manual as well as automatic recording level controls and sockets for external microphones. These features are often not provided on the cheaper recorders and they are essential requirements for oral historians who are concerned with the technical quality of their recordings. Additionally, reliability of performance and robustness of construction generally increase in direct proportion to the cost. Oral historians need reliability of operation in the field because they are not usually able to correct breakdowns themselves. Robustness of construction promises a longer working life for the recorder, with the result that a higher initial investment may turn out to be a longer term economy.
Relatively cheap cassette recorders can be used to quite good advantage. Observance of common sense recording practices (see Chapter 5) is obviously essential. The use of microphones which are built in to the cassette recorder is to be abhorred. By employing an external microphone the noises made within the machine it· self are not recorded and an audibly better quality recording will be produced. The choice of cassette tape is equally important. All recorders are set up for a particular tape type and the machine will produce significantly better results if one of the brands recommended by the manufacturer is used.
Next in the order of recording equipment comes a large group of cassette machines most of which, on the British market, fall within the price range of £70.00 to £200.00. The bulk of this equipment is designed for home recording and playback purposes and to be mounted as part of the living room furniture along with the radio and other audio systems. Although much of this equipment is capable of quite a high technical performance, the convenient recording application of such machines is generally confined to copying radio broadcasts and commercial recordings. This range of recorders, not being truly portable, therefore falls outside the useful area of choice for interviewing purposes.
For recording to a high technical standard, the principal drawback of the cassette format arises from the difficulty of obtaining a good frequency response with acceptable noise and distortion levels. To minimise the inherent limitations of the cassette recorder, various noise reduction systems are employed with the more expensive machines of which the Dolby process is the best known and most widely used. Without such devices the technical performance of cassette machines cannot compete with that of reel to reel equipment. But with the incorporation of such aids, the character of the cassette recorder also begins to alter. In short, it ceases to be a highly portable and inexpensive machine.
In terms both of cost and performance, portable cassette and open reel recorders are only truly in direct competition with each other at the upper end of the audio market. At this level, of the so-called professional and semi-professional machines, prices vary from about £250.00 to over £1,000.00. Cassette recorders in this price range are fully capable of achieving as good a technical performance as similarly priced open reel machines. In some respects, however, the usual advantages of the cassette format are neutralised at this level, while in others the open reel format is to be preferred.
For example, the weight and size of these cassette recorders are comparable to that of open reel equipment, so that the portability factor is no longer so relevant to choice. Secondly, the operating parameters are less critical on open reel machines, so that recording results are less likely to be unsatisfactory through inconsistent use by the operator. Thirdly open reel recorders in the category of the Uher 4000 series, for example, are machines of proven reliability and durability. While cassette equipment may prove to be satisfactory in these respects, as yet the evidence is not available for this to be claimed for it with any certainty. Logically one might expect them to stand up to a heavy work load less well than open reel recorders, if only because many of their components are physically smaller. A degree of wear which would not significantly affect the performance of an open reel machine could be critical on a cassette recorder.
The physical slightness of a cassette machine's parts certainly can be a disadvantage. For example, a speck of dust on its narrow recording head can prevent the cassette tape from making proper contact with the head. The same size particle on the much wider recording head of an open reel recorder could have no noticeable effect. Maintenance and servicing will also need to be more stringent for the cassette than the open reel machine. If the collecting centre does not have its own technical staff, it will therefore be even more dependent on equipment manufacturers or service agents for maintaining its recorders in good running order.
It should be said that compact cassette tape is not without advantages. It is cheaper, easier to carry and less demanding on storage space. But against this, its suitability for long term preservation is at best uncertain. In this respect, quarter inch tape -which has been stored in some archives for a quarter of a century without serious degradation -is very much more of a known quantity. Whereas interviews recorded on appropriate open reel tape can with some confidence be treated as preservation copies, oral historians recording on cassette would be very strongly advised to transfer their interviews onto the larger format for conservation purposes.
Despite the remarkable advances which have been made in cassette technology during the past few years, the balance of advantage continues to rest decisively in favour of the open reel recorder. Collecting centres that need a consistently high quality of recording, reliable and durable equipment and a tape format with the maximum assured lasting qualities should spend their money on open reel machines.
In selecting an open reel recorder, separate microphone sockets for the interviewer and informant are a useful feature. It is somewhat easier to achieve an equal balance on both voices when the levels from the two speakers can be separately controlled. Even more important, however, is the greater flexibility which separate microphones as regards the positioning of interviewer and informant (see also Chapter 5).
Some mono and all stereo recorders have this facility of two microphone inputs. Stereo machines have an additional advantage which can be useful when making a copy tape. As the two microphones record on separate tracks, any extraneous noises recorded via the non-speaker's microphone can be turned down during the transfer so that such defects are not carried onto the copy. Apart from this feature, stereo recorders have no particular advantage over mono machines for recording two fixed voices.
Open reel equipment can record to full, half and quarter track configurations. Full track recording affords the maximum technical advantages but is, of course, most expensive in tape and storage space. Quarter track machines should be avoided, despite the attraction of minimising the amount of tape which needs to be carried. The narrower the track width the greater is the effect of the electronic and hiss noises recorded. On the other hand, the wider the track the less effect damage to any particular part of the tape will have on the overall signal recorded.
One feature of all portable recorders, except the most expensive, is that the recording level meters are too limited to provide good monitoring of the signal levels. With most models it takes considerable experience to interpret needle movement. Practice and familiarity with the equipment will enable interviewers to compensate for this inadequacy and, if in doubt, it is always best to err on the side of under recording your tape than of overloading it.
Having considered the main principles involved in choosing a portable recorder, what machines may be recommended? The range of domestic cassette equipment is so wide that the size of your purse and the advice of a specialist retailer are the most useful guidelines. In contrast the range of open reel equipment is quite small. The Nagra and Stel1avox recorders are the most sophisticated and expensive machines. Below these, the Uher 4000 series is the most widely used portable in Europe, and the Sony TC 510 its main competitor. Portable cassette recorders capable of a comparable technical performance include the Sony TC 158, the Nakamichi 550, the JVC KD2B or CD 1635, and the Uher CR 240.
Although the range of microphones available is extremely wide. the choice is at least narrowed once the collecting centre has decided what recording equipment it should use. As a general rule it is a waste of money to purchase an expensive microphone for use with a cheap recorder and equally improvident to buy a poor quality microphone for employment with a high quality recording machine. The best relative results are obtained when the two items are of a complementary standard.
The cheapest microphones - those falling within the price range of, say, £2.00 to £10.00 - tend to have an uneven frequency response. As they react less sensitively to the higher and lower voice frequencies they often result in a rather 11at recording on which the full speech range is not represented. Such microphones also frequently emphasise and distort on the tape voice sibilants and hard consonants such as p's and b's: the former produces recordings on which the voice sounds very harsh and the latter a sort of popping effect. These distortions very often occur when the microphones sold with some of the cheaper recorders are used. In such cases the overall recording quality may be slightly improved by buying a separate and better quality microphone.
Some microphones are more prone than others to what is termed "handling noise'. This is noise caused by friction of the hand against the microphone case stand or cable. With clip microphones the effect also occurs through the microphone or cable rubbing against the clothing of the person it is attached to. This problem is insidious because handling noise is completely inaudible when the interview is being recorded but on playback is reproduced as thunder or loud crackling and can devastate the recording.
In addition to complementing the quality of the recorder, these are certain principles which should be followed in selecting a microphone for interviewing purposes. They should be small and light for easy porterage and unobtrusive use but sufficiently robust in construction to take minor knocks without damage to their performance. A sensitive and even response across the voice frequency range is needed but they should be insensitive to handling noise. Table microphones should also have a directional pattern which gives them a ~blind' side that can be faced to any extraneous sound sources which may be evident in a particular recording environment.
There are two general types of microphone construction which can be considered for interview recording. These are the moving coil (more commonly referred to as the dynamic type) and the electret capacitor microphones. The moving coil is by far the most common type available. It is manufactured in various forms, the different characteristics of which are mainly concerned with directional sensitivity. For interviewing, the most suitable pattern is provided with the so-called uni-directional or cardioid type of microphone. These will discriminate against sounds striking the back of the microphone and. thereby provide a degree of protection against some unwanted noise. They are, broadly speaking, equally sensitive to sounds from the front or sides of the microphone
Electret capacitor microphones are quite a recent development and, like the dynamic types, are available with different directional characteristics. Their principal advantage is that they combine an extremely high performance with a relatively modest price. In these terms -of cost relative to quality -microphones of this kind represent remarkable value for money. Interviewers who are generally uneasy with recording equipment, may be put off by the additional impedimenta of the miniature batteries and amplifier needed to power these microphones. However, since they are up to 50% cheaper than dynamic microphones of comparable performance, there is a strong financial incentive for overcoming any such prejudices.
Clip microphones are particularly suitable for interviewing purposes (see also Chapter 5), especially when they can be separately provided for both the interviewer and informant. They permit close microphone placement without disturbing the informant in the way that the more obtrusive types of larger microphones sometimes do. This enables the interviewer to minimise many extraneous sounds, by setting the recording level at a point where such noises are significantly diminished, but which is at the same time sufficient for satisfactorily recording the voice. Acoustic problems are also conveniently reduced with this kind of microphone, since it is so close to the speaker that his body shields it from a great deal of the reflected sound. As clip microphones can be attached to a stable part of the speaker's clothing, their use also obviates variations in the recording level which often occur when informants change their positions relative to a table-mounted or other fixed microphone.
Until the advent of the electret capacitor type, clip microphones - except some very expensive studio models - tended to be relatively bulky and to have a somewhat lower technical performance than conventional microphones. The introduction of the electret type has led to a significant further miniaturisation of models and at a cost that brings them within the range of many historians.
Among the electret capacitor clip microphones, the Sony ECM 50 -now in wide use within the broadcasting industry - is a good though expensive (at about £100.00) choice for use with professional and semi-professional recorders. There are, however, other makes available in the price range of £15.00 to £30.00 which give excellent results. These are marketed by various companies and the Sony ECM 150, Lawtronics LM23 and Eagle PRO M60 are among the best known in Britain. Table microphones, of the dynamic type (cardioid pattern) referred to earlier, suitable for use with recorders in the category of the Uher series and cassette machines of comparable performance include the AKG D190 (approximately £40.00) and D200 (approximately £60.00) and the Beyer M81 (approximately £30.00) and M69 (approximately £60.00). The electret capacitor microphone is also available in tab1e versions with the cardioid pattern recommended for interviewing purposes. These are manufactured by various companies including Sony and Eagle and are somewhat cheaper (£12.00 to £40.00) than dynamic types of comparable performance. Oral historians using relatively cheap cassette recorders would be advised to seek the advice of equipment manufacturers or a specialist retailer, whilst also bearing in mind the general guidelines given in this section.
If the size of the recording programme and the range of material being acquired justifies it, a comprehensive sound archive processing system may need to be set up. This would include an appropriate number and variety of playback and copying machines, with control equipment that provides accurate aural and visual monitoring of the original recording and copies during the transfer operations. The system might also incorporate appropriate tone controls and filters, which -with judicious use - can compensate for certain acoustic shortcomings on original recordings, and include devices that can be used to reduce tape hiss levels without detriment to the original signal quality.
The typical oral history collecting centre would not require such an elaborate arrangement but all libraries and archives concerned with safeguarding their recordings should endeavour to produce a duplicate of each interview and set one of their recordings aside as a preservation copy. For this purpose a basic archival copying facility can be set up with two tape machines which should, ideally, be reserved for this application.
In any transfer operation some quality loss between the copy and the original recording is inevitable. With appropriate equipment and care this loss is very slight, however, and the copy - for all practical purposes - can be made indistinguishable from its parent. To achieve this the copying equipment must be capable of at least an equal technical performance to the machine on which the interview was recorded. If it is of an even higher technical standard, so much the better, as the quality loss which always occurs during copying will then be minimal.
Open reel portable recorders of the kind on which oral history interviews are recorded should be pressed into service for archival processing only if there is no alternative. Such machines are not well suited to this role. They often have performance limitations, particularly as regards the tape types and spool sizes they are capable of handling. There is, however, quite a wide range of table mounting open reel equipment produced for the discriminating domestic market and semi-professional use which meets the requirements of collecting centres. The major manufacturers of such machines are Revox, Ferrograph, Tandberg, Sony and Uher and prices of appropriate models start at about £300.00 in Britain.
If some or all of the interviews are recorded on cassette the copying system will obviously have to include at least one cassette playback machine. As with open reel equipment, the original recorder should not be used for this purpose. Cassette machines which employ Wollensack decks provide the kind of reliability needed for archive purposes; suitable models are manufactured by Neal in Britain and by Advent in the United States. Otherwise any top of the range domestic machines produced by the major manufacturers may be used.
All tape machines are adjusted by the manufacturer to give best results with a particular type of magnetic tape. For recording and archival processing collecting centres should only use one of the brands recommended by the manufacturer.
The heads of tape machines should be regularly checked and thoroughly cleaned of tape dust and particles by means of cotton swab sticks dampened with isopropyl alcohol, methylated spirits or one of the proprietary cleaners produced for this purpose. Heads will also benefit by being thoroughly demagnetised from time to time with the devices manufactured for this purpose.
Perhaps the most critical aspect in the proper functioning of tape machines is that recording and replay heads should always be parallel to each other and, ideally, perpendicular to the tape. As it is all too easy for heads to get out of alignment, the only safeguard for collecting centres without technical staff is to have all their tape machines professionally serviced at regular intervals.