Preferred, "Best" tape for 3440 at 250 nW/m?

J

jviss

New member
I will be picking up my new-to-me Teac 3440 from the shop today. I asked for an operating level of 250 nW/m, although he was advocating 320. I'd like your opinion on what the ideal, all around tape for recording live music would be, a tape that is in current production and/or available new. I like the idea of standardizing on something.

I had previously decided on RMG SM911, with the machine set to operate at 250 nW/m, and recording at +3 VU. This tape seems to be popular, and is available widely at reasonable prices, in 600, 1200, and 2500' lengths.

A rapid response is appreciated, as I may have the opportunity to buy some tape from the guy who did the overhaul/cal midday today.

Thanks!

jv
 
911 would work fine. You should consider 468 as well. 468 is cited as better than 911 for mastering and for signal retention. After printing the signal on tape there is a little self erase that goes on in the first 24 to 48 hours. 456 had it as does 911 in greater degrees than 468.

You could buy a reel of both and record something on them then listen to the recording 24 hours later.

Regards, ethan
 
Thanks Ethan, I knew I could count on you!

Please excuse my naivety on this topic, but I take it that 468, 911, and 900 are +3, +6, and +9 tapes, respectively; so for comparison purposes, if my deck operating level is 250 nW/m, I should be recording 486 at 0 Vu, and 911 at +3 Vu, all other things being equal?

Is the difference in print-through due primarily to the level at which the recording is made? (911 is just slightly thicker than 468).

jv
 
And, in conclusion, ...

I picked up the machine. It's been set up for 185 nW/m.

Bought some NOS Quantegy 406 on 10.5" reels. The only indication of what might be a date code is "2000319" on the paper label on the box. Is this a date code?

I read that pre-1994 and post-2004 are to be avoided. Did I luck out?

Is this a +3 tape?

Thanks,

jv
 
jviss said:
Thanks Ethan, I knew I could count on you!

Please excuse my naivety on this topic, but I take it that 468, 911, and 900 are +3, +6, and +9 tapes, respectively; so for comparison purposes, if my deck operating level is 250 nW/m, I should be recording 486 at 0 Vu, and 911 at +3 Vu, all other things being equal?

Is the difference in print-through due primarily to the level at which the recording is made? (911 is just slightly thicker than 468).

jv
Click to expand...

Actually looking at the spec I see that 468 and 911 are quite similar. The max level at 1% distortion are 8.5 and 9 dB over 185 nWb/m. They are both + 6 tapes. I think that the formulation is one of the differences. Yes, 468 is a little thinner and has a little less oxide thickness and yet it requires more bias. 468s coercivity is 380 Oe and 911s is 320 Oe. Coercivity is the magnetic field strength needed to reduce a tape that has a saturated field to zero. I look at this as the resistance to erasure. So it is not really print through.

With a deck calibrated to 250 nWb/m you could print either tape at +3 (250 nWb/m 0VU) or at +6 (320 nWb/m +3 VU).

The difference in how hard you drive a tape (+3 etc) shows up in distortion levels (and compression which I see as self erase). You can of course print at less thatnt e level the tape is "rated" for.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top