RMGI 900 or 911 for narrow format machine (Fostex G-16S)?

[niva]

Hi all!

I am still hesitating between RMGi 911 (+6) and 900 (+9) for my Fostex G-16S. I tend to choose the 911 because it's the equivalent of the Ampex/Quantegy 456 wich was the tape recomended to use with this machine by Fostex.

But I did some tests with some old 3M 996 (+9) tape (with Dolby S) and I really liked the sound. It didn't seemed to cause any problem .

But apparently in the long term, +9 tape can be hard to pull for the motors and the machine can have difficulty to erase the tape and there can also be some cross talk problem.

I record indie/post rock that can be both quiet and LOUD.

What are your experiences with those two RMGI tapes and narrow format machines/recommendations?


Thanks!

[nick_a]

hey dude,

i don't have a lot of experience with this particular machine, but i've used both 900 and 911, and they're both good. I mean, just because you're using high output tape (aka 900) doesn't mean you have to cal your machine to print at +9. IMHO you'll still hear the character and benefits of the tape formula (low noise/high output) if you print at +6, while avoiding the caveats you've mentioned. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

[niva]

Thanks Nick_a!

Other Fostex G-16S users out there?

Am I the only one left?

What kind of tape are you using?

THanks!


Guillaume

[Anthony Caruso]

I'm in the same situation, need to get a new reel of tape and pondering which way to go. I've got a Fostex B-16, which is pretty similar at least in track width and suggested tape (456).

Used both Ampex 456 and Quantegy 499 (a +9 tape) on my B-16, though on very different projects. The 456 project was in a studio, the 499 stuff was home recording, one mixed ITB and one on a console...many differences. So it's tough for me to say if I really like one better than the other on my machine.

If I understand the issue of the motors, it has to do with the thickness of the tape. Quantegy 499 and 456 have similar base thickness. The motors don't care whether it's high output tape or not, just how thick it is.

It looks like the RMGI 900 and 911 have 1.18 mil base, less than the 499 (1.4 mil) and 456 (1.5 mil, though I can't find a real Ampex spec sheet for the exact number). ATR tape has 1.42 mil base. I wonder what kind of a difference that makes? Would the RMGI tape be prone to stretch if used a lot, or cause weird speed/tension issues?

I didn't have a problem with erasing with the +9. I didn't notice a problematic difference in crosstalk.

I did calibrate the machine for each tape, no problems there (except for the process of calibrating a 2 head machine ).

I'm really no help here except to say the +9 tape worked fine on my machine. I would like to find out more about the thickness of RMGI vs the ATR and how that may influence my choice.

[nick_a]

just about the RMG:

i've used that tape ever since i couldn't get quantegy anymore (the first time), and have never had any problems with stretching or shedding or anything. I had way more trouble with sheddy (new) 456 than i did with any RMG stuff. I've never had the pleasure of using ATR tape, however.

[Anthony Caruso]

Yeah the only Ampex 456 I used was a nightmare shed-wise. It was "new" but I'm sure wasn't like, new-new, you know?

I'm sure the RMGI is good. I was just surprised when I actually compared the thickness that it seemed to be closer to 1 mil than 1.5. If it was detrimental I bet there would be people railing against it, as they did when it seemed to have a shed problem.

Thanks!