New ATR 1 mil tape-interested?

Z

zorf

New member
ATR is considering making a hi fi 1mil tape if enough people are interested.

I'm thinking the tascam 388 folks might be interested.

You can write them directly. if you like, you can address Mike Spitz. maybe put 1mil in the subject line.
 
I'll send Mike a request Zorf.
Good looking out there.

High Bias 1/4" would be a game changer for the 388. ie:Higher recording levels without necessarily the need for dbx, greater dynamic range. wow.
 
Another 1-mil choice would be great. Since regular ATR is really too thick for many machines it could open up a door for many more users. If the print-through specs were good, like Scotch 207, a 1-mil ATR could be used on machines that normally do well with 1-5 mil tape but struggle with ATR. This would include machines like the Tascam TSR-8, MSR-16/24, Fostex E-16, G-16/24, etc. I don't recommend regular use of ATR tape with these machines, so a 1-mil offering could improve things. Now if only the price of new tape would come down to, "Reasonable." This could actually help do that. Competition is good.
 
Dang, you'd get the Tapeheads and audiophile community as well. There are folks using ATR, but the thought of using +10 2mil tape on a hifi deck frightens me. I'm in.
 
If ATR could make it a +3 or +6 1 mil then that would be cool, something along the lines of Quantegy 407 / 457.
I agree that it's frightening to see people use ATR's +10 / 2mil tape on home decks.
 
For the sake of discussion, pertaining to the 388 specifically, I'm reposting a bit from a thread where Cory/"Sweetbeats" wrote
about what would be necessary to run high bias tape on that particular deck.





________________________________________________________________________________________

tape.gif


Bias, +3, +6,...+9 "hotter" tape, tape compression, cleaner vs warmer...etc.etc..as it applies to the 388



Just thinking out loud here with hypotheticals, and trying to get the facts straight as far as what would be required for running high bias modern tape on the 388.

Thin 1800 foot tape would be out because of the higher output and print through issues, so a thicker backing would be needed.

Thicker, stiffer tape would be harder on the motors and heads. However, 456 is used by many on their 388 without issue. How much thicker and stiffer is high performance tape like GP9? Any high bias 1/4" formulas known for their supple transport travel?

Also, would the stock cards be adjustable enough to handle the signal? Are the 388’s electronics capable of being set to accept the levels and biasing for such high performance tape?

These things I ponder:


456 is used by many on their 388 without issue. Is it the same thickness and stiffness as high performance tape like GP9?
GP9 is about 0.2mil thicker (456 = 1.93mil total, GP9 2.13mil)


Would the stock cards be adjustable enough to handle the signal? Are the 388’s electronics capable of being set to accept the levels and biasing for such high performance tape?
sweetbeats of homerecording said:
Ultimately you'd have to try it out, but here is what I am pretty sure you will find:

* That the bias amps are either not robust enough to pump the bias level, or at the very least you'd need to mod the bias cards to allow more current which is what is necessary in the likes of the 58 and MS16 systems...not sure about later decks. I would be really surprised if the 388 bias amps had enough headroom to bias "+9" tape, and if they do there is always the question as to whether or not you are going to damage something by running it at that constantly. Think of a car...yeah the tach in my old Subaru says I can wind the engine up to over 6,000rpm, but we all know if I drove it around like that all the time it would most certainly (and I believe drastically) reduce the life of the engine.
* Even if you could get the bias issue resolved (assuming there IS one), I betcha the R/P amps would be stretched before being able to take advantage of the headroom on +9 tape. I bet it would work, but there may be sonic artifacts that leave you going "was this worth it?" Remember, program peaks, especially on things like percussion, are WAYYY over the nominal level...that's why you see the peak LED's flickering and the VU needle is hardly pushing 0...those peak LED's typically light at +10 or +12. Now let's say you cal the deck using a 355nWb/m standard, now those same peaks will be at around +13~+15 maybe? That's getting up there. Not sure at what level the 388 R/P amps clip. The amps in my Ampex MM-1000 aren't rated to clip until +28 or +29 and I'm pretty sure the 388 amps aren't up in that range. If the goal is to get tape saturation then you want to leave enough headroom in the setup so you stay far away from overdriving the electronics.


YMMVyadayadablahblah.

I realize you are just thinking "out-loud" so I don't want to sound like I'm over-reacting to your musings, but the reality is that whatever discussions we have had on this forum over using +9 tape on any number of 1/2" 8-track decks from Tascam would certainly be more acute with the 388 since it is a transport very explicitly designed for "1.0mil" +6 tape. I just don't see the benefit of "going-there".

Somebody tell me if I've got it wrong...the only substantial reason to use "hotter" tape is to increase headroom to create greater sonic distance between the program level on tape and the noise floor...right? Tape formulations on +9 tapes may elicit a different or specific "flavor" but the whole hoo-hah about higher and higher output tapes is NOT because the tape in and of itself is "hotter" or "phatter" or "louder" or "dripping with tape 'compression'" or whatever...its just simply this:

The higher the tape rating (the consumer +3, +6, +9 figure), the more signal the tape can handle before presenting a industry standard distortion rating of 3%.

This means that the recorded material can be tracked "hotter" on that tape than a lower output level tape and still be "clean" and since the tape noise does not increase with a "hotter" tape you've just gained more distance between your program material and the tape noise.

So if low noise is an issue (i.e. tape hiss), then maybe +9 or greater tape is the solution. If you want crunchy-yummy tape distortion on a 388 then maybe 407 is the answer...print-through is an issue on thinner tape. 407 is a 1.0mil +3 tape which means you'll be able to drive the tape into distortion (hopefully nice yummy third-order harmonic distortion) while being more kind to your R/P amps AND while keeping print-through from being as much of an issue. YES you are closer to the tape noise floor but my guess is that if you (not YOU specifically , shed, but whoever is reading this) are wanting to push/saturate the tape you aren't tracking solo acoustic guitar...it is probably something with drums and electric instruments and I challenge you to hear the tape noise on properly biased 407 as the cymbals rage and the guitars crunch. Yes there are all levels of dynamics and tones in the music style I'm hinting at but I'm just trying make a point with that example.

No matter what, ANY machine and tape selection is going to be a process of compromises but if you are clear on what you are going for it should be obvious what tape to use and how to use the machine within its scope, and for most stuff I'm thinking LPR35/457 is ideal for the 388 and if it was high energy stuff I might even try using a LOWER output tape like 407.

Am I discouraging you from trying? I hope not. You might love the result and if that's the case more power to you...I'm just trying to make the point that the desired performance or result from the machine may be achieved in a much better way that seems backwards by being mindful of the tape selection and understanding what the numbers really mean. You might try GP9 and compare to to 407 and like the latter better because the deck itself isn't running at "7,000rpm" or even "5,000rpm" and the results you hear are the tape being pushed rather than the electronics.

Am I knocking folks who mod their decks to properly bias and drive higher output tape? Certainly not! I just know after going through all kinds of thoughts about "I wonder if..." and "I wonder what..." I came to realize that most of the time it wasn't worth the hassle when I considered all the unknown variables and when I came to understand the drivers behind the super-high output tapes, and when I came to understand what the numbers mean and how to use operating level to my advantage.

Know and understand your goal and the purpose behind it. Then choose the path to get there.

I'll use evm1024 (homerecording member) as an example...he's modding/modded the bias circuit on his Tascam 58 R/P cards to properly bias super-high output tape. This is a known solution to a known issue with those amp cards when using +9 tape...the bias amps can handle it but the (Ethan, correct me if I'm wrong here) feedback loop in the stock bias trimmer circuit provides for a trim window that, at best, just barely biases +9 tapes. In most cases it doesn't quite get there. The mod adjusts that window by raising the ceiling on the feedback loop so that the bias level trimmer can dial in more gain. This also means that that "window" may now be to high for lower output tapes because the low end of the trim range may now not be low enough, sending too much bias to low-output tapes. That's the compromise. But outside of that we know (by field-tested results and educated analysis that people like Ethan possess) that the bias amps are safe to produce that level on a routine basis. And WHY did he do it? Ethan has a focus on tracking acoustic instrumentation...classical compositions...he likes pipe organs too. These are sensitive sources that often leave tape noise exposed and can be problematic with nosie reduction. Higher output tape is the natural solution. The bottom line is that he's got a specific need to use hgher output tape and is educated and experienced in the area of electronics to be able to design the circuit level solutions.

Getting off the box now. And I CERTAINLY hope this doesn't feel like I'm lecturing you, shedshrine...What I'm saying is (hopefully) for the good of the order and I'm just sharing things that have come to settle in my mind as a result of the same kinds of thoughts and questions you are pondering and posting. So thanks for the question. I feel it is a really, really good and important topic.
Click to expand...


Fantastic response and info Cory, and much appreciated. That clears up a big gap in my knowledge, and I’m sure helped out many others. I can remember Daniel "Cjacek" (homerecording) touting the thrills and joys of 407 all along, and I still went ahead and grabbed 15 reels of 457 upon Quantegy’s demise, because, hey man, it was the “hotter” tape.
Now I finally realize, in the case of the Tascam 388, it’s all about pushing +3 tape for maximizing tape compression, if that’s what you’re after, while minimizing any stress the 388’s electronics (or messing up the dbx tracking with obscene levels if it's on), and that hotter tape just means a higher level clean signal before saturation/distortion. Big "aha!" moment..Many thanks!

_____________________________________________________
 
Also keep in mind you don’t have to run the flux levels as hot as the tape will accept to use the tape. The main issue would be if a given machine could provide the needed bias. Other than that you can run it how you always have and with the dbx. Keep the levels within spec for the 388. Without dbx the crosstalk and print-through is worse, especially at elevated levels. So I see the possibility of using this tape more conventionally even though it can do much more.

EMTEC made a special run of 1/2" SM900 on 1-mil tape, but the print-through wasn't so great at elevated levels. You could just use it at normal levels though... no trouble.
 
ATR tape is generally marketed for pro studios rather than home/hobbyists from what I gather. Given that, If they are planning on having +9 or +10 level tape, then I'm not sure what market is going to buy 1-mil tape given the format they are releasing and the generally higher price of ATR tape.

But don't get me wrong, new tape formulations and manufacturing is always welcome and healthy for the analog recording world. Maybe not so much if it's a financial flop and gets cut off after 6 months production though
 
although the tooling up costs would probably be the biggest expense.
if you just made a single jumbo batch, that might last a long time.
i would love to have tape that offers any improvements.
Sure, it would cost more, but wouldn't you want your work to sound better?
You could still use the other stuff, but it would be nice to have an option.
i would probably buy a couple of 10 packs to start.

i like the fun grainy vibe of my 388, but anynthing that would help overcome it's limitations would be great,
since i dont have the space and money for a 1inch eight track and appropriate mixer. And when you use 1inch, that's when tape costs really start to take a big bite out of your wallet.
not needing dbx would be welcome by many. i'm sure.

i'm not sure i understand sweetbeats post above.
so could a hotter 1 mil work or not on a 388 or tsr8?
 
You can use anything you want, but you're not going to get around the fact that its a 1/4" 8-track running at 7.5ips. Those are the two factors driving the need for noise reduction. IiRC when I did my bias tests to figure out what voltage setting to use for LPR35 I was running out of room on the bias level trimmers. I would expect a higher output tape to require higher bias. This is an assumption, okay? Somebody ought to try spooling up some 996/SM900/499/GP9 to see if it can even be biased using the LF modulation method but I have a hunch it won't bias up. Does that mean you can't use it? Nope. It just means it won't be properly biased and you'll have higher distortion. And the horror you print, the more likely you'll run into crosstalk, and certainly print-through on super high output 1mil tape will be an issue in the long run. Its all a balance. And if what you're after is 3-order-harmonic-tape-sat and low noise then your best bet is to find some Scotch 207 or Quantegy 407, use the dbx and be able to reach the tape's mol without pushing levels so much that you screw up the dbx tracking. You'll have your cake and eat it too. My prediction, if somebody made +9, +10, +whatever 1mil tape and you tried to use it on the 388 is that you'd have higher unpleasant distortion levels due to improper bias level and too much noise without the dbx...and higher crosstalk and long-term print-through issues. But TRY IT. Don't take my word for it. I haven't tested this theory and I no longer own a 388.
 
"Hi,

Hotter tape does not mean better hi-fi. Improved hi-fi comes from oxide
particle packing density, particle orientation, magnetic square-ness and
switching field distribution.

From the beginning early production iterations of ATR Master Tape, it was
formulated and processed so most tape recorders old or new will not have
biasing or erasure issues. This is due to our process of high packing
density that gives high output capability like the older HO tapes but it is
not so thick. There are other benefits too but beyond the scope of an email.

Due less layer to layer spacing loss, 1 mil tape always compromises print
trough performance. You will never see a 1 mil tape that accepts high peak
levels without substantial print trough. Therefore it's best to operate 1
mil tape at lower levels and live with higher tape hiss levels. That is the
trade-off to gain more record time on a smaller reel.

All ATR Tape widths 1/4" through 2" are slit to the narrow side of the
tolerance.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Mike"
 
I think it's an interesting concept, but I would be much more interested if they were to offer a 1.0 mil +3 level tape, like a 407 drop-in. I'd say they would do a lot of business and fill a much needed niche there.

This would appeal to 388 users, hi-fi hobbyists, as well as studios that mix to 2-track for tape saturation. And of course, for people like myself who like the older-style tapes.

There are a lot of decks that can't bias up to even stuff like 996 and 499 (not just consumer decks, but some old Ampex and Scully as well). So it seems like they might have problems with ATR. A lower output tape would open up a new market for them. I'd say that would be a much more worthwhile thing for them to pursue.
 
I don't think they have settled on a spec yet
Just trying to see of there is enough of a market to tool up
For a production scenario
 
I'd be interested to see it, but frankly it's probably going to be out of my budget. 1" ATR is currently going for about $310 a pop here. I bought two spools of RMGI instead, and it cost about the same. Probably less, actually since I didn't factor delivery into the ATR.
 
If i were a painter, and i wanted my work to look good, i might want to spring for the better canvas.

sure, it might cost more, but quarter inch only costs me around $20 right now. So double that is ok considering i might get around to recording only 10 original pieces of music a year.

if i were running a commercial facility, it might matter even less as the biggest cost to the client would be the hourly rate.
how much tape are you guys using, anyhow? are you recording endless jams and rehersals?

I realize lots of folks are using tape for more of an effect, but for decks that use 1 mil tape, i think improved headroom is a good thing.

i think we have been spoiled by cheap digital storage. and because lots of the folks here have bought decks for 10% of what they cost new.
the prices on old tape are going up and you cant return it if it sheds.
 
In a perfect world I'd like a 407 type tape as well I like the way 406 sounds on 1/2" 8 track (it's amazing what a standard Ampex is, yet Quantegy can't seem to stay in business...) However, I think a 457 spec would be a better compromise and the most logical. For the narrow gauge 388/A8/80/R8 and the 22-x type machines, a slightly hotter tape makes sense. E.g. the later Fostex decks were spec'd at +5dB; 320 nW/m. And for hi-fi, 457 would be ideal for 7.5ips recording speeds w/o noise reduction, or even perhaps 3.75 w/ e.g. dbx type II NR.
 
zorf said:
If i were a painter, and i wanted my work to look good, i might want to spring for the better canvas.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but we'd be talking maybe £10, compared to £3 for a regular canvas. A dozen of them would be an impulse purchase. A roll of 1" tape is not.

how much tape are you guys using, anyhow? are you recording endless jams and rehersals?
Click to expand...
No, but I'm not reusing it afterwards. I seem to be getting through 1" rolls a lot faster than I had anticipated, actually - I seem to be buying one every month now.

I like to have at least one or two spare in stock, I'm looking at doing an album of revamped earlier material that will be CD-length (i.e. three tapes instead of two), I'm starting to work on a new album and I also have this crazy project of archiving the twin 8-track projects onto 1" tape so they can be remixed more easily. It's not cheap, and I'm not rich, so the price difference between RMGI and ATR is IMHO rather a problem.

EDIT:

Getting back to the point, I'm curious as to what's being offered on the 1.0 mil front. Is is likely to be 2400ft again, or a 3600ft roll as was done with 407?
The former might be enough to bring it into a slightly more comfortable price range, the latter is liable to be more expensive.
 
No question-as you get wider tape the price difference becomes more of an issue.

i dont reuse tape much.

the calculation i use is: how much per song. By that metric, I find it reasonable, although
money is scarce at my house the last couple of years.

Of course it's not as cheap as a thumb drive, but c'mon, it's tape!

I always read here in the Analog section that people are sad that decks are not being made or supported and that developement of tape stalled in the eighties as digital took over.

Well, here is someone looking to advance the state of tape. If you want a particular format or formulation, write to ATR and weigh in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top