ATR on an 80-8

RRuskin said:
I was one of the 1st persons in the US to use an 80-8 and know what the it is capable of. It is supposed to be aligned @ 250 nWB (+3).
You will only have erasure problems if you align for anything higher than that. If you try to run much hotter than that you will run into not only erasure problems but possibly burn out your erase & or record heads. They are not meant to see the amount of current ultra-high print levels need.
Click to expand...

So in essence I can never really take full advantage of ATR on the 80-8?
 
Roozter said:
So in essence I can never really take full advantage of ATR on the 80-8?
Click to expand...

Correct if by "full advantage" you mean a +9 operating level but I'd hardly call that an advantage. At +3, both your machine and the tape will sound excellent and have plenty of headroom with absolute certainty and more than likely lower overall distortion.

I get the feeling that you are stuck on things like "hot," "saturation," and "tape compression." Back in the day when tape was all we had, we wanted clean, quiet (no noise), & as little distortion from the tape we could manage to get.
 
RRuskin said:
Correct if by "full advantage" you mean a +9 operating level but I'd hardly call that an advantage. At +3, both your machine and the tape will sound excellent and have plenty of headroom with absolute certainty and more than likely lower overall distortion.

I get the feeling that you are stuck on things like "hot," "saturation," and "tape compression." Back in the day when tape was all we had, we wanted clean, quiet (no noise), & as little distortion from the tape we could manage to get.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Looking at the short term I've decided to the go the route of making sure everything is quiet, and that I can take advantage of any headroom I've got. The "mojo" will come in at other phases, like the final master, or I may opt to really impart some cassette mojo.
 
Gonna step in here and say again... ATR can be run at any level, it has a MOL of +11. Mike Spitz told me in a phone conversation a couple years back that most of his customers run ATR at +6. Some even run it at +3.

It's a different kind of tape formulation than anything made before and it works equally well at virtually any operating level.

Get the ATR and you will NOT be disappointed. In fact you may never buy anything else again.
 
In fact ANY tape can be run at ANY operating level. The critical factor is to be aware of what you are going for. If you want tape saturation and your tape deck can't bias super high output tape like ATR or 499, GP9, 996 and the like, then you're better off going with a +6 or +3 tape. If you want a clean print and your material is dynamic and you want the lowest noise floor then something like ATR is great.

It's important I know whether or not your deck can bias the tape.
 
Higher output tape (i.e. +9, +11, +1,035.3) does not make for more "bitchin' tape compression". :drunk::facepalm:

I know many know this already, so I'm preaching to the choir, but there is also a common misunderstanding.

+3, +6, +9 etc. refers to the level at which that particular tape becomes saturated and presents 3% harmonic distortion. The harmonic distortion artifacts are what seem to be referred to as "warmth", "tape compression" or "phat tape mojo", etc.

So that means a higher output tape needs a hotter signal to reach those "results". No problem, right? Just SLAM IT!!

Um, not exactly...

That means your tape deck audio amps need to be able to handle pushing those levels without clipping themselves (which doesn't sound as "nice" as the tape distortion). This isn't usually a problem, but is something to consider.

Then there is the bias issue. Many tape deck's bias amplification can't meet the levels needed to properly bias super high output tape. You might think this is isolated, but I know for fact even the Tascam 58 and MS-16 can't without a simple mod to a cap on the amp cards. Regardless, maybe you like the sound of high output tape that is under-biased. That's fine. Each to his/her own, I just think its important for operators to understand what they are doing so it can be replicated...harnessed...used. Some people purposely underbias certain tracks containing certain types of source material...kick drum is one such example...setting bias while tracking and monitoring off the play head to get a certain "bite" on the attack which is coming from [cue dramatic music] distortion as a result of under biasing the tape! But some like the sound, so try it! Experiment, but seek to know WHY you get the results you like so you can apply them elsewhere...and have control of your equipment. The flip-side of the bias issue is the bias amps also provide erasure. Your tape deck's ability to effectively erase previously recorded material on the tape while recording may be compromised if your levels are hotter to tape than the erase function can wipe. You gotta experiment. This was an issue on the early Ampex MM-1000 24-track machines...in order to get the proper erasure, the bias level had to be increased and it actually heated the early erase heads up and caused them to crack. :eek: This is not necessarily related to the tape type, but shows you there are other limits at play when we are asking our machines to do stuff for which they weren't necessarily intended.

Crosstalk...you're going to deal with it on a narrow format machine if you have screaming levels. This isn't an issue with many types of source material (screaming thrash for instance...crosstalk? Who cares...) Just be aware.

Then let's remember to throw noise reduction into the mix...if you are using dbx n/r for instance you aren't likely to be throwing high levels at your tape anyway unless you are trying to get pumping and other mis-tracking artifacts in your audio. So there isn't any point in getting super high output tape if you are setting the machine up to factory spec because you are using noise reduction (i.e. factory spec says set 0VU to 250nWb/m and track with levels averaging 0VU when using n/r), then you aren't taking advantage of the high level the tape will handle before distorting. And that's okay. If your machine will bias the tape (or under/over bias to your liking if that's your bag), then use whatever tape you want...you don't have to push it into saturation. Tape saturation is just one of the fun mechanisms of analog tape recording. I'm just saying if the spec calls for +6 tape and you are setting the machine up to spec, and you can get +6 tape for $X less than some super high output offering, why waste the money?

Super high output tape wasn't developed so it could eat insanely hot levels and sound phat...it was developed so the tape could handle hotter signal that put what got tracked to tape further away from the noise floor of the tape..."quieter" recordings in terms of noise. The market was asking for lower noise, and the mechanisms that create noise on tape are fixed, but the tape formulation and what the oxide will handle before saturation is reached is what could be messed with...and they did...and that gave is +3 tape, and then +6 tape, and then +9 tape, and then the even higher MOL standard of the ATR tape.

Am I right guys?

So if you went with the intention of the manufacturers, your reasoning for getting ATR tape would be so you had more headroom to track before the tape distorted while also creating more distance from the noise floor of the tape. This is more important on source material that has greater dynamic range. This would not be your favorite thrash band...softer jazz, classical...material with more quiet and space in the program material...space that would reveal the noise floor of the tape. You can either use noise reduction are "reduce the noise" by increasing the level of program material to the tape as the tape will allow.

SO...

This is the place I always come to...and it seems backwards...but if you are REALLY wanting that bitchin' phat tape mojo, then you are better to go with a *lower* output tape...I have 499 (a +9 formulation) for my Ampex MM-1000. It'll bias it, and get it to saturation and erase it fine, but its definitely not what the machine was designed for. I have some Scotch 206 (a +3 tape) for it as well. I've never used the 206, but I'll be able to have more leeway with how I saturate/use the tape without challenging amplifier output/bias issues/erasure performance, because the point at which the tape saturates is easier to reach.

Food for thought.

Nothing against ATR or any super high output tape at all. I just feel it is important to understand the intent of the different tape types, to have a grasp of the potential caveats, and to be able to harness the advantages of analog tape; the world of options that open up when you can control your results knowing how to use biasing and SOL/MOL standards. Know your machine...assess what result you want and why...then set it up for that or experiment.

Have fun.
 
sweetbeats said:
So if you went with the intention of the manufacturers, your reasoning for getting ATR tape would be so you had more headroom to track before the tape distorted while also creating more distance from the noise floor of the tape.
Click to expand...

+1. I have my Otari 2-track set for +9 and I run ATR on it. I have to slam the crap out of it before I get any compression. I usually get distortion from the machine's amps before I get tape compression. But this is exactly what I want from my mixdown deck: HUGE dynamic range without saturation or distortion and a very, very low noise floor.

If I want saturation, I'll run RMGI SM911 on it and adjust my output signal so that most of the audio program peaks between -3 and 0 VU. That way the loudest peaks - about +3 VU - get really nice gooey tape compression without clipping the amplifiers.
 
fgonza2 said:
what happens if you use +9 tape or ATR on a deck setup for +6 ? will you get dull frequency response or some specific color ?
Click to expand...

I use ATR tape on my Tascam 34B and I get AMAZING results at +6. With dbx NR the noise floor is practically imperceptible.
 
BTW, in case anyone cares, I have no relationship with ATR. My only interest is in dispelling the myths about their product because I think it's important to support America's only tape manufacturer. That, and because I know RMGI continues to have occasional production + supply issues and that people ought to know that there are other options.
 
lo.fi.love said:
BTW, in case anyone cares, I have no relationship with ATR. My only interest is in dispelling the myths about their product because I think it's important to support America's only tape manufacturer. That, and because I know RMGI continues to have occasional production + supply issues and that people ought to know that there are other options.
Click to expand...

And I didn't care nor was I concerned but this is me vouching for ya...straight-shooter with relevant real-world experience to share and its appreciated.
 
There’s no question you can get good results with ATR and other +9 class tape. The chief problem is transport and tape path wear. Machine manufacturers like Tascam and Fostex recommend against the use of +9 tape for semi-pro machines like the 80-8. That’s still the last word we have. I would recommend Quantegy 406 or 3M/Scotch 206 before I would ATR.

The Tascam 80-8 came out in 1974 before there was Ampex 456 tape and some 15 years before the first +9 tape. The original recommended was Ampex 406/Scotch 206. 456 is considered almost too heavy and abrasive, so steering clear of ATR for daily use is reasonable caution.

There is no such thing as bias neutral tape. Every tape has a window of optimum bias, but its pretty narrow. There’s no such thing as a one-tape-fits-all either. There are a lot of new myths out there because of ATR. If you ask ATR if their tape is suitable for your application the answer will always be yes. They’re selling something of course.

The bias spec for ATR tape has been revised twice. Initially it was -4.5 dB (10kHz @ 15 ips with .25 head gap length) which is more in line with a +9 tape. That was revised to -3.5 dB and finally -3dB, which it is currently. The tape has changed in other spec, such as oxide thickness and backcoating thickness. Was .73 mils and .40 mils respectively, and now is .59 and .30. So ATR tape is not even the same as itself. :p

We don’t have any friends in the tape supply world right now. Your best bet is still to look for new old stock from Quantegy, 3M/Scotch and BASF/EMTEC. ATR or RMGI SM900 is a last resort, and expect faster wear of machines if you use it often.
 
I would gladly use Scotch 206/207 or Quantegy 406. I would even use 203. But for over 6-7 months I have not been able to locate any of these tapes in the 1/2" format. I want to track AND master with these tapes, but that is looking like an impossibility. It seems as though having a 1/2" machine is more of a curse than a blessing.
 
Last edited:
Have you tried RMGI SM468? It's a terrific tape, it sounds wonderful and it's also very gentle on the transport. When the machine is biased correctly I feel like it has a "cleaner"/"crisper" sound than SM911. It's a little harder to come by but there are a handful of vendors online who sell it by the case (5 or 6 tapes? Can't remember).

US Recording Media's prices are insane; you might want to try finding it on pancake somewhere else if you have extra empty reels.
 
Beck said:
The bias spec for ATR tape has been revised twice. Initially it was -4.5 dB (10kHz @ 15 ips with .25 head gap length) which is more in line with a +9 tape. That was revised to -3.5 dB and finally -3dB, which it is currently. The tape has changed in other spec, such as oxide thickness and backcoating thickness. Was .73 mils and .40 mils respectively, and now is .59 and .30. So ATR tape is not even the same as itself.
Click to expand...

As a ATR customer I've noticed the changes over time as well, and I think the product they're making now is much better than what it used to be. It's a lighter weight tape than when they first introduced it and the old problems of excessive shedding on the first few passes have almost disappeared. But it's still a heavier tape than others, and it's fine on my Tascam 48 but it might be too heavy for a machine like the 80-8. It's definitely inappropriate for the Tascam 388. Edit: Comment about the 388 having a weak transport removed.... !

That said, the current ATR tape is almost a drop-in replacement for 456. You can do really well without realigning your machine, unless it's otherwise necessary (i.e. periodic maintenance).

* Disclaimer: I'm basing this on my own experience, your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
lo.fi.love said:
...[ATR tape] definitely inappropriate for the Tascam 388, a machine with a transport so delicate and brittle that only a 1mil tape like LPR35 makes sense.
Click to expand...

I believe you are speaking in relative terms here, Jeff, but for what it is relative to it's own format I consider the 388 to be a robust build (i.e. compared to other 7" reel 1/4" tape machines). Just wanted to throw my 2p in there to thwart a reader from taking yor statement out of context and labeling the 388 as delicate and brittle.

The 388 pulls 1.5mil tape fine but indeed it is nor what it was designed for not is it recommended...or NECESSARY. The 388 sounds great when setup as designed...
 
Arg! OK I misspoke. The 388's transport can eat baseball bats for lunch, how about that? Kidding ;)

I'll backpedal on that one and admit my mistake, but I can only imagine its transport straining with a heavier tape like ATR.
 
I would not say ATR is a drop-in for Quantegy 456. They are very different tapes. But I believe ATR would say that... or say its like any other tape you want it to be. Funny isn't it, that this new tape maker is able to make a so-called, "one-size-fits-all tape" when regular tape makers up until this time had to offer different model numbers to cover all the possibilities?

Its also funny that RMGI is able to deliver tape to the USA from France for about $20.00 less per reel. $89.00 per 1/2" reel is still too much, but ATR's $109.00 per reel is highway robbery.

About the best deal in town right now in 1/2" is RMGI SM911 for $62.00 per pancake. Bring your own reel.

RMG International Analog Audio Tape at Splicit Reel Audio Products
 
Beck said:
I would not say ATR is a drop-in for Quantegy 456. They are very different tapes. But I believe ATR would say that... or say its like any other tape you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Those are actually my words, not ATR's... based on personal experience, using ATR on a machine aligned for SM911.

Funny isn't it, that this new tape maker is able to make a so-called, "one-size-fits-all tape" when regular tape makers up until this time had to offer different model numbers to cover all the possibilities?
Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but have you tried ATR tape? In the last two years? You'll be amazed. It's changed a lot and you'll discover that you've had some misconceptions about it. Being totally honest here.


Its also funny that RMGI is able to deliver tape to the USA from France for about $20.00 less per reel. $89.00 per 1/2" reel is still too much, but ATR's $109.00 per reel is highway robbery.

About the best deal in town right now in 1/2" is RMGI SM911 for $62.00 per pancake. Bring your own reel.
Click to expand...

ATR 1/2" is $70 per pancake...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top