Advice needed on choosing analog tape

hubcap · Post by **hubcap** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:51 pm

I'm about to start on a recording project using a 1/4" 8 track machine and I have no idea how to select the best tape for the job. Can anyone explain the differences I can expect to hear between 406, 456, 467, 499 and does the machine have to be biased for the specific tape used?

thanks!

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:04 pm

your machine and its calibration will dictate what kind of tape you can or can not use..like some machines will not erase some tape..

456 is a good bet to pick up if you can't figure it out by the time you need to buy the tape..it's the most common..and probably right for what you have there..if you have a "set and forget" type deck..i will bet 456 would most likely be the one its set to..

does your deck have controls to electronically adjust the bias?

the different formulas do sound different..the higher the number in the 4xx tapes the more oxide particles and "hotter" the overbias is..

hubcap · Post by **hubcap** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:27 pm

thanks for the help! I have access to the gear starting tomorrow so I will find about adjuisting the bias and/or what it is set to now.

I understand how more particles can make for a "hotter" recordings (more particles = more information printing to tape I assume) so if I can bias the machine for a higher 4xx number that is generally better because there is more data? the way higher tape speed is better? or are the different formulas more like different flavors, each one saturating differently etc ?

msmith4060 · Post by **msmith4060** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:56 pm

Id just go 456-its safe, and on a small format machine--its your best bet.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:51 pm

I'm not an expert on this stuff..but I know others on here are real tape tech nerds..

the tape speed (across the heads), i.e., 30ips, 15ips changes frequency response of the deck..and noise floor, etc.

here is a link to some frequency comparisons of different recorders/speeds:

http://www.endino.com/graphs/

seeing that your recording on a 1/4"-8, I'm 99.99% sure 456 will be the right tape to use..and actually it's probably the kind of machine that you can't really adjust simply..it's most likely made to just run without much user calibration..probably playback cal only..and if you haven't done it before you will probably throw it more out of whack than it was to begin with..

wayne kerr · Post by **wayne kerr** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:19 pm

hubcap wrote:thanks for the help! I have access to the gear starting tomorrow so I will find about adjuisting the bias and/or what it is set to now.

I understand how more particles can make for a "hotter" recordings (more particles = more information printing to tape I assume) so if I can bias the machine for a higher 4xx number that is generally better because there is more data? the way higher tape speed is better? or are the different formulas more like different flavors, each one saturating differently etc ?

Data?

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

With my apologies to bobbydj, I'm about to get pedantic. Very pedantic. Fuck, doctrinaire. Dogmatic.

You are not putting data on analog tape! You are making an electromagnetic imprint directly proportional to the frequency, amplitude, acoustic envelope, phase and harmonic content of the sound pressure wave in air that you are recording. IOW, you are putting SOUND on the tape surface. The way this is occurring is by the transducer (the sync head in this case) applying electric current to the magnetic domains present on the oxide coating of the "business end" of the tape.

Also, you are not going to just bias the machine, you are going to calibrate it to a standard reference... of which bias is a component, but only one of many steps that delivers you ultimately to the precipice of a properly-aligned analog recorder... which is about the most beautiful thing I can think of.

OK, gotta go... time for my electroconvulsive therapy.

wayne kerr · Post by **wayne kerr** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:23 pm

Toolshed of Death wrote:
seeing that your recording on a 1/4"-8, I'm 99.99% sure 456 will be the right tape to use..and actually it's probably the kind of machine that you can't really adjust simply..it's most likely made to just run without much user calibration..probably playback cal only..and if you haven't done it before you will probably throw it more out of whack than it was to begin with..

That will depend on whether it is a 2-head or a 3-head machine. If it's a 2-head machine, then yes, aligment is "playback after record" and is a major pain in the ass. If a 3-head machine (meaning it has separate sync and repro heads), then you can actually perform a "proper" alignment relatively simply.

covert · Post by **covert** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:00 am

wayne kerr wrote:Data? :shock:

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

With my apologies to bobbydj, I'm about to get pedantic. Very pedantic. Fuck, doctrinaire. Dogmatic.

Okay, I'll play in the pedantic arena.

You are not putting data on analog tape! You are making an electromagnetic imprint directly proportional to the frequency, amplitude, acoustic envelope, phase and harmonic content of the sound pressure wave in air that you are recording. IOW, you are putting SOUND on the tape surface.

Wow, then if I hold it up to my ear will I be able to hear it? Do I need to mic the tape, to make it loud enough to listen to? The recorded signal isn't sound. It is an analog of sound, or is analagous to sound. That's why they call it analog.

Data, loosely translates as information. The analog of the sound is information about the sound.

Boy the digital age is screwing up the language something fierce.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:31 am

The title of this thread is Advice needed on choosing analog tape, not Advice needed on choosing which twit is more pretentious in their pedantry..

wayne kerr · Post by **wayne kerr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:18 am

covert wrote:
wayne kerr wrote:Data?

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

With my apologies to bobbydj, I'm about to get pedantic. Very pedantic. Fuck, doctrinaire. Dogmatic.
Okay, I'll play in the pedantic arena.

You are not putting data on analog tape! You are making an electromagnetic imprint directly proportional to the frequency, amplitude, acoustic envelope, phase and harmonic content of the sound pressure wave in air that you are recording. IOW, you are putting SOUND on the tape surface.
Wow, then if I hold it up to my ear will I be able to hear it? Do I need to mic the tape, to make it loud enough to listen to? The recorded signal isn't sound. It is an analog of sound, or is analagous to sound. That's why they call it analog.

Data, loosely translates as information. The analog of the sound is information about the sound.

Boy the digital age is screwing up the language something fierce.

you're kinda cute.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:40 am

not as cute as PJ though..

wayne kerr · Post by **wayne kerr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:56 pm

Toolshed of Death wrote:not as cute as PJ though..

*drools*

@?,*???&? · Post by **@?,*???&?** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:53 am

RMGI SM911.

They are making it now and if the formula is the same as the BASF/EMTEC 911, you would be making a great decision. It's a low-print tape with +13 peak capability. Running it at +7 is fine.

Hopefully, RMGI will maintain the cut superiority like BASF used to. Ampex/Quantegy never did get their tape widths consistent.

JASIII · Post by **JASIII** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:11 am

@?,*???&? wrote:RMGI SM911.

They are making it now and if the formula is the same as the BASF/EMTEC 911, you would be making a great decision. It's a low-print tape with +13 peak capability. Running it at +7 is fine.

Hopefully, RMGI will maintain the cut superiority like BASF used to. Ampex/Quantegy never did get their tape widths consistent.

basf/emtec 911 is probably my fav 1/2" formulation. I'm so glad someone is making "it" again. cool.

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 pm

@?,*???&? wrote:if the formula is the same as the BASF/EMTEC 911

That's a BIG if. Has anyone on here heard it yet? I'm really curious. I can't see why Quantegy stuff is suddenly A) competely different sounding and B) completely unreliable. If that RMGI stuff plays back without dropouts, I'll be a happy man.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Message Board

Advice needed on choosing analog tape

Advice needed on choosing analog tape

Who is online