Can anyone help me identify the operating level of this tape?

[supertramp1979]

Hiya,

I have this exact tape, it's 60's / 70s, and I want to use it with my 80-8,
however I am not sure if it will work.

My 80-8 is set up for 456, and I'm not sure what this scotch 3M tape is set up for. Can anyone help?

Thanks.
Supertramp

[Beck]

The boxes and reels all look alike from a distance. Are there any numbers on the box that might be a model number; 250, 206, etc?

Whatever it is it may be sticky.

[krhall]

Ok if you purchased this tape second hand the the first thing you need to do is this.

1. check to see if there is leader tape on both ends.

2. check to see if there are any joins or splices in the tape (you will have to run this tape through a machine to check).

Also on the front of the box there is commonly a number.
On the scotch 3M tapes i have which are 7" reels the number 215

I don't have 3M 10.5" tape reels yet, but i will be getting some more soon.

Hope this info helps

Keith

[supertramp1979]

Thank you guys both;
I dont physically have the reel here yet, my buddy shiped it; it should be here in 2 days.

I'll be sure to follow up

Thanx!

[krhall]

ok no problem

happy to help anytime

Keith

[supertramp1979]

The box says Sctoch 3m 203!

Wonder what it is?

[sweetnubs]

That tape is going to shed like a motherfucker.

[Beck]

Throw the tape away and keep the reel... if it’s straight. 203 is old and crappy. Best to buy new Quantegy 456 or RMGI SM911 for your 80-8.

The operating level of 203 is more than 6 dB down from 456. But that’s really a moot point, because it will likely fall apart if you try to use it.

~Tim

[A Reel Person]

Model #: 203
Est. Yr. Intr'd: 1962
Binder type: C
Color: black
Base mat'l.: polyester
Base thickness: 0.92 mil
Oxide thickness: 0.51 mil
Total thickness: 1.43 mil
Backcoated: no
Remanence: 0.64 flux lines
Coercivity: 315 Oersteds
Retentivity: 790 Gauss

[A Reel Person]

Model #: 226
Est. Yr. Intr'd: 1979
Binder type: H
Color: brown
Base mat'l.: polyester
Base thickness: 1.3 mil
Oxide thickness: 0.56 mil
Total thickness: 1.94 mil
Backcoated: yes
Remanence: 1.25 flux lines
Coercivity: 360 Oersteds
Retentivity: 1400 Gauss

[A Reel Person]

203 is distinguishably inferior to 226, (which is compatible with 456). It's a 1 mil tape & is probably 3600'/reel.

It's your Grandpa's hifi audio tape, but by today's standards it's not quite that. I'd say use it, anyway, but I'd not recalibrate for it. Just run it 6db down, and make the best of it.

Good luck!

[arjoll]

Originally Posted by A Reel Person

Backcoated: no

Its not backcoated, so almost certainly not sticky, but as others have said not really a great tape.

[supertramp1979]

Originally Posted by A Reel Person

203 is distinguishably inferior to 226, (which is compatible with 456). It's a 1 mil tape & is probably 3600'/reel.

It's your Grandpa's hifi audio tape, but by today's standards it's not quite that. I'd say use it, anyway, but I'd not recalibrate for it. Just run it 6db down, and make the best of it.

Good luck!

A Reel Person,
My real question to is about when you say just run it 6 db down.
Do you simply mean instead of pushing the VU meter in the +3 range, have it register -3 instead? Thanks!


HA HA
My grandpa's hifi! That really made me laugh...

Here is some more info I found on the box (I don't know how I missed it):
Scotch 3M 203
760-0926-004
203 1/2" 3600' (12.70 mm -1100 meter)


So this is in fact tape with a level of 185nW/m 0db?

man, thanks for all the help!!!!

Supertramp

[supertramp1979]

Originally Posted by arjoll

Its not backcoated, so almost certainly not sticky, but as others have said not really a great tape.

Is this true?!?!?
If it is you've made my day!

[BRDTS]

This topic question is confusing. It's like going to a Chevron gas station and asking the attendant for a list of engines the gas is rated to work with.

The tape is simply tape. Reference levels for tape...any tape...are a function of what that hunk of wires-circuit cards-heads-transistors want ...your tape recorder.

Your tape recorder was built to slap signals on tape based on certain characteristics. The test tape you buy from MRL etc is matched to your machine's electrical requirements.

With your machine...and test tape rated for your machine...you then buy any old reel of tape you want and simply run the calibration tape to set up the levels with that particular reel of blank tape. When you go out and buy some other brand of tape, you then slap on your MRL test tape and do the machine calibration all over again to get the best signal out of THAT tape.

At no time during the process does the machine...or the test tape...ask or care about any technical specs for the blank reel of tape.

There was a (imo) goofy concept invented a few decades ago that was designed by marketing guys to hype the tape biz. The concept invented was elevated levels. There are a few folks still alive roaming the planet that actually care about calibrating to take advantage of an extra 3 or 6db of headroom that's never needed anyway...but...for me, it's a non-issue.

As far as that old tape you're speaking of...it's also a non issue as the elevated-level tape marketing concept wasn't even invented back in those days.

Bottom line...any tape will "work". You own a test tape right? (and not a copy of a test tape). The test tape is the ONLY animal that is calibrated to certain specs...specs your machine requires.

The brand of blank tape is irrelevant...except to whether your ears decide after calibration that you like that particular tape for whatever "sound" it gives you after you record on it.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by supertramp1979

Is this true?!?!?
If it is you've made my day!

It does not have a backcoating and therefore will not have sticky-shed per se. I’m not referring to sticky-shed, but rather normal shedding on these older tapes, which can be pretty bad and gum up the works.

We’re talking about best practices here. Unless you’re trying to recover old recordings from a tape like this there are no sound reasons (no pun intended) to record new material on it, save maybe some sentimental reason to use a certain tape. The results will disappoint.

Tape is not tape. The advancements in tape formulations over the decades have made a phenomenal difference in the quality of analog audio. Nothing from the early 1960s can hold a candle to modern tape. Those with elevated levels… +3, +6 and later +9 were born from ongoing research and development of several manufacturers to improve the medium. The more signal a tape can absorb and hold, the further the audio is from the noise floor of the tape. All tapes have a saturation point where no more signal can be absorbed. No matter how hard you hit it the playback will still be only so far from the noise floor. In signal-to-noise terms, 6 dB is a huge gain.

The magnetic particles of modern tape are finer, and therefore more densely populate the tape surface. Frequency response is better, distortion specs are better, noise is lower and dropouts are fewer. The coating is smoother and more consistent. Backcoating improves tape handling, reducing wow and flutter.

The oldest 3M tape that I would consider modern and usable is No. 206 (1969) but more probably No. 250 (1974). No. 226 (1979) is the 3M equivalent to Ampex/Quantegy 456.

For best results Quantegy 456 or equivalent tape is recommended. If getting the most out of your 80-8 is not your primary objective, then tape doesn’t matter. If you’re just having fun and experimenting there’s nothing wrong with that either.

~Tim

[Tim Gillett]

Beck,
Well said. Even 3db improvement was important and allowed for roughly a doubling of tracks on a given tape, for the same dynamic range, or keep the same track width and speed and enjoy the improved quietness.
Tim.

[cjacek]

John, if you're wanting that unique and "vintage" sound then get some Ampex / Quantegy 631 (1.5mil) / 641 (1mil). The formula for that tape hasn't changed since the 50's and does not have any shedding or binder problems. It has a higher noise floor, saturates more easily, its frequency is limited and it has that unique early James Brown sort of sound! Completely different than your typical moder tape. You will, however, have to callibrate and bias your machine accordingly.

Best of luck!

[supertramp1979]

Originally Posted by Beck

Tape is not tape. The advancements in tape formulations over the decades have made a phenomenal difference in the quality of analog audio. Nothing from the early 1960s can hold a candle to modern tape. Those with elevated levels… +3, +6 and later +9 were born from ongoing research and development of several manufacturers to improve the medium. The more signal a tape can absorb and hold, the further the audio is from the noise floor of the tape. All tapes have a saturation point where no more signal can be absorbed. No matter how hard you hit it the playback will still be only so far from the noise floor. In signal-to-noise terms, 6 dB is a huge gain.

Thanks tim!
You said 6db is a huge gain. Let me ask this -
My DX-8 noise reduction module is in mint shape and works great, so will this help combat the 6db difference?

The seller told me the tape by the way, was purchased in the late 60s/early 70's. You're right, I'm trying to experiment and get an extrodinarily authentic prehistoric type of sound! I've got neew 456 and it sounds okay.
Thanks

[supertramp1979]

Originally Posted by cjacek

John, if you're wanting that unique and "vintage" sound then get some Ampex / Quantegy 631 (1.5mil) / 641 (1mil). The formula for that tape hasn't changed since the 50's and does not have any shedding or binder problems. It has a higher noise floor, saturates more easily, its frequency is limited and it has that unique early James Brown sort of sound! Completely different than your typical moder tape. You will, however, have to callibrate and bias your machine accordingly.

Best of luck!

Now here is some useful advice! I wasn't aware of 631.
How do you know the formula hasn't changed since the 50's? I'd really like to check this out!! Thanks...

[BRDTS]

Keep in mind that biasing for elevated levels..and pushing tape to get those extra dbs...assumes noise reduction units are turned off and out of the circuit.

A Tascam integrated dbx unit is calibrated to work within it's specs up to -10 (0 level). Pushing above "0" level with dbx in the circuit is actually going to cause inaccuracies in the dbx decode section during playback. Not that you'll ever hear it, but that is the concept there on a Tascam machine.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by supertramp1979

Thanks tim!
You said 6db is a huge gain. Let me ask this -
My DX-8 noise reduction module is in mint shape and works great, so will this help combat the 6db difference?

The seller told me the tape by the way, was purchased in the late 60s/early 70's. You're right, I'm trying to experiment and get an extrodinarily authentic prehistoric type of sound! I've got new 456 and it sounds okay.
Thanks

The 600 series that Daniel mentioned would give you that low-fi sound all right. I’ve never seen it in ½” though.

For a slightly fuzzier sound I keep a few reels of Quantegy 406 around. It’s a +3 tape as opposed to a +6 like 456. Thus you will be hitting the tape harder, but not too hard, at 0 VU if your machine is calibrated for 456.

It will play back a little lower than 456 unless you recalibrate playback levels on your machine, but still within the window for dbx NR to work properly. There’s some wiggle room with dbx.

It’s not overly distorted or anything… just a little softer and warmer than 456. It's also bias compatible with 456 so you don't have to rebias.

Something to be aware of though is that dbx will work against your efforts at really low-fi sound, so you may want to try recording without it. It reduces noise, but it also increases headroom.

~Tim

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by Beck

The 600 series that Daniel mentioned would give you that low-fi sound all right. I’ve never seen it in ½” though.

Good point, Tim. I assumed it came in wider formats as well but I guess I was wrong ....

[littlesongs]

the 226 is supposed to be pretty doggone decent tape, old school and free of most modern maladies... i have heard that although it behaves well, 250 prints through like a squirtgun on a roll of toilet paper, but it will depend on what you are capturing... some stuff is simply too loud for print through to matter...

i agree that early noise reduction is often simply noise creation... the right combination of a song with silent or soft passages and noise reduction can result in more than subliminal breathing... sometimes like a drooling bulldog with asthma... this is why early compressors only worked on stuff that was just a wall of sound -- sometimes literally, a "wall of sound" -- and also why automatic level control -- alc -- is really great for lectures and often lousy for music... like really strong peppers, a little goes a long way...

in my experience, the only noise reduction worth a hoot was the dbx on the yamaha four-track cassette machines... the other machines... tascam, whatever, were miserable... and i never bother with it on open reel... there's really nothing that can't be fixed -- or at least made much more subtle -- with an old urei "little dipper" or -- in la-la land where money can be found everywhere including the catbox -- a pultec... or -- while we are lolling off into dreamland -- a massive passive... later... when the song is being mixed down...

back to topic... i love a select few of the old tape types... especially for mixdown... some are very unique and new old stock is just as good today as it was in the late 50s and early 60s... if you want the sound from any particular era, it is best to simply perform and record as close to what would have happened musically and techinically as possible... now, if i could only convince carol kaye and hal blaine to swing by...

dave