Which tapes is similar to Ampex 457?

W

WarmJetGuitar

New member
Which tapes comes closest to the Ampex 457 in sound and thickness?
We're mostly in the used tape market as we record a lot and don't make a lot of money playing music - but of course it would also be nice to know which RMGI tapes that might be similar.

Would 456, Scotch or BASF sound good on a machine calibrated for 457? They all seem more common, at least in Denmark.

I'm sorry if this question have been asked before but I couldn't manage to find the topic.
 
I think you want LPR35, if you can find any. It's the thinner version of SM911, which is 456 compatible (457 being the thin version of 456).

EDIT: You may have teething troubles with the edge tracks if the machine has only ever been using 457... Ampex/Quantegy tape was thinner than spec and if you have wear patterns the new tape will be slightly thicker than them. This problem will sort itself out eventually anyway if it happens.
 
What jpmorris is saying when he says "thinner/thicker" in his EDIT is that Ampex/Quantegy tape is ever so slightly more NARROW in width. Ampex tape slitting equipment was not as precise as pretty much everybody else's, and Ampex made their width spec slightly more narrow than the standard to avoid their tape being WIDER than the standard. The downside to this is Ampex/Quantegy tape "country-laning" in the tape path if the guides are set for or if a wear pattern was created by tape precision slit to the international standard (this includes EMTEC, RMGI, 3M, etc.) If your heads have edge slots, no worries. If they don't, or if your guides/lifters have significant wear patterns that were created by Ampex/Quantegy tape, then you may have edge shed issues or edge track issues when you switch to tape that was slit "right". You may want to rotate your guides and lifter posts.

What kind of machine is this that we are talking about?
 
Awesome advice guys. I'm really busy right now but will be back soon with the response your ideas deserve.

I'm using a Fostex R8, yeah.
 
WarmJetGuitar said:
............................................Would 456, Scotch or BASF sound good on a machine calibrated for 457? They all seem more common, at least in Denmark...............
Click to expand...

457 & 456 have the same oxide. The only difference is their thicknesses - 1 mil vs. 1.5 mil respectively. Any tape compatible with 456/457 should work fine on your machine. The performance will be marginally better with 1 mil stock but you will be hard pressed to actually hear any difference.
 
For the R8 I would stick with 1-mil tape like Ampex/Quantegy 457, 407, 3M/Scotch 207, Maxell XLI 35-90B and RMGI LPR-35. The factory recommended tape for the R8 is 457, but you’ve got many choices in high output long play (1800’) tape.

I don’t think you have too much to worry about with the RMGI being wider for ¼” tape. I never really bought that explanation from RMGI, as they seemed to be placing blame on Quantegy when in fact Quantegy was always within the IEC 94 guidelines for tape width. Here is the breakdown for some popular tapes I’ve put together, including production width tolerances where info was available. As you can see given the tolerances RMGI LPR-35 could be 0.05mm wider than Quantegy 457 or 0.01mm narrower. 3M/Scotch 207 is the widest of these listed, but in use there’s no practical difference at these small increments. They’re all considered within spec for ¼” tapes even though none but the Scotch 207 actually reaches ¼”. By the way the ATR is just in there for reference. I would never use it on something like an R8.

Ampex/Quantegy 457/407
1/4" 6.25mm (6.2484) +/- 0.025

ATR
1/4" 6.25mm (6.2484) +0/-0.05

Maxell XLI 35-90/35-90B
1/4" 6.25mm

RMGI LPR35
1/4" 6.3mm +0/-0.06

3M/Scotch 207
1/4" 6.35mm

Both Quantegy 407 and 3M/Scotch 207 are personal favorites of mine and would suit the R8 very well. They are technically slightly lower output than 457, but again in practice you’ll find specs don’t mean as much as they seem. They are what we call +3 tapes, while 457 is a +6 tape. There are many other attributes of tape than these categories however. So try different types and see what you like. Tapes have different character and you may find you like the sound of Scotch 207 or Quantegy 407 better than 457 on the R8. I certainly prefer them on my Tascam 22-2 and my home hi-fi decks. I recommend them for the 388 as well and the wider widths for machines using wider formats like the Tascam and Fostex ½” machines. :)
 
Does +6 tape mean that you can take the peak levels to +6 without messing up the sound?

I decided to go for 10 rolls of Scotch as I loved the sound they gave on the A4 - and hope the best that they're 207s as the seller didn't really know.
 
"+6" means that a 1kHz sinus tone (right? Tim? It is a 1kHz sine wave they use for determining the "MOL"?) pushes the tape to 3% distortion @ 355nWb/m, which is the magnetic flux equivalent to "+6".

IOW, yes, in a manner of speaking "+6" means you can take it to that level without messing up the sound, but understand that it is relative to the TAPE, not your VU meters unless your meters and record electronics have been calibrated to reference 355nWb/m at "+6". Normally one would have the meters and electronics zeroed to 250nWb/m (which is equivalent to "+3") and then as a result a +3 reading on the VU meter would equate to 355nWb/m level to tape and my point is that the "+6" has to do with what level of flux is being presented to the tape which is NOT necessarily going to be the numerically the same as what your meters present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top