Tape compatability

[StrangeSteve]

Hi folks this is my first post, got a Teac a3440 of ebay, seems in good nick, I am just about to replace the capstan belt. The manual says its set for UD35,however it got a reel of Ampex 456 on it. I am likely to encouter problems using the heavier ( or thicker) Ampex stock.
I heard the characteristics of the Ampex is so good you can normally get anyway without any noise reduction.

There seem to be some discussion on previous post's as to weather you can use quantegy 406 0r 407 ? Can someone please advice,

Thanks

Steve

oh P.S. ive just downloaded those four Beatles 4 track songs and put them on the Tascam DA-88, but can't wait to put them on analogue.

 

[RRuskin]

Hi folks this is my first post, got a Teac a3440 of ebay, seems in good nick, I am just about to replace the capstan belt. The manual says its set for UD35,however it got a reel of Ampex 456 on it. I am likely to encouter problems using the heavier ( or thicker) Ampex stock.
I heard the characteristics of the Ampex is so good you can normally get anyway without any noise reduction.

There seem to be some discussion on previous post's as to weather you can use quantegy 406 0r 407 ? Can someone please advice,

Thanks

Steve

oh P.S. ive just downloaded those four Beatles 4 track songs and put them on the Tascam DA-88, but can't wait to put them on analogue.

3340 or 3440? Neither should have a problem using 1.5 mil tape but a 3340 should not be set up to record @ elevated levels. They tried it @ TEAC and found that it burned up the erase and record heads. Don't buy any Quantegy or Ampex stuff. It's too old to be reliable. Get newly manufactured tape from RMGI and align the machine to that.

 

[Beck]

Don't buy any Quantegy or Ampex stuff. It's too old to be reliable.

Disregard that!

Tape doesn't age like food or something. If the tape was good stock when it was purchased and was made 1995 or later and is unopened, it is perfectly good… in as new condition. This goes for 3M/Scotch, BASF/EMTEC and Maxell as well, except it can be older than 1995.

As for compatibility with the recommended tape look for Quantegy 407, Scotch 207 and BASF, EMTEC or RMGI LPR35.

 

[RRuskin]

Disregard that!

Tape doesn't age like food or something. If the tape was good stock when it was purchased and was made 1995 or later and is unopened, it is perfectly good… in as new condition. This goes for 3M/Scotch, BASF/EMTEC and Maxell as well, except it can be older than 1995.

To each his own.

I'd hardly call the the tape that Ampex/Quantegy made in it's last few years "good stock." Conceding the point that sticky-shed was no longer an issue, poor quality control with regards to oxide dispersion and slitting certainly was.

Whatever might remain of the last runs of 3M 996 wasn't particularly good either. In addition, I've got new reels of AGFA 468 that when recently opened had lost enough of their backcoating's lubrication properties that they squealed when going through the tape path. I won't be using them anytime soon. Nor would I sell them as usable N.O.S.

 

[Beck]

... I've got new reels of AGFA 468 that when recently opened had lost enough of their backcoating's lubrication properties that they squealed when going through the tape path. I won't be using them anytime soon. Nor would I sell them as usable N.O.S.

I appreciate that, Rick. When some people run across a bad batch of tape they will pass it on to an unsuspecting buyer. I threw away hundreds of dollars worth of sticky-shed tape that I could have sold during the 2005 tape panic.

As far as NOS tape in general I'm not only going by my own good experiences with older tape, but also looking at the statistical big picture. There have always been bad batches... that's why I was very specific in my previous post:

"If the [AMPEX/Quantegy] tape was good stock when it was purchased and was made 1995 or later and is unopened, it is perfectly good… in as new condition."

 

[RRuskin]

"If the [AMPEX/Quantegy] tape was good stock when it was purchased and was made 1995 or later and is unopened, it is perfectly good… in as new condition."

The Catch-22 is how does one know it's good stock in the 1st place? Why take the risk? Ampex/Quantegy's QC was so poor that I was returning 50% of every case purchased. This was way past your 1995 cut-off date.

 

[Beck]

The Catch-22 is how does one know it's good stock in the 1st place? Why take the risk? Ampex/Quantegy's QC was so poor that I was returning 50% of every case purchased. This was way past your 1995 cut-off date.

Your original comment that I responded to is as follows:

"Don't buy any Quantegy or Ampex stuff. It's too old to be reliable."

That's simply incorrect.

As for reliability I have NOS 456 lots from 1995 to 2004... not one bad tape. But as I said no one should make broad assertions based on their own experience. Thus I look at the big picture… what tape users are experiencing as a group. Ampex/Quantegy once dominated the tape market for a reason… they made a great product.

You can get a bad batch from RMGI… people often do. If I ever buy NOS tape that turns out to be a bad run I’ll send it back to the seller for a refund. I don’t buy “As is” tape.

It’s like anything else… there’s a learning curve and that’s one reason this forum is here; to get people up to speed on these issues.

 

[RRuskin]

Your original comment that I responded to is as follows:

"Don't buy any Quantegy or Ampex stuff. It's too old to be reliable."

That's simply incorrect.

As for reliability I have NOS 456 lots from 1995 to 2004... not one bad tape. But as I said no one should make broad assertions based on their own experience. Thus I look at the big picture… what tape users are experiencing as a group. Ampex/Quantegy once dominated the tape market for a reason… they made a great product.

You can get a bad batch from RMGI… people often do. If I ever buy NOS tape that turns out to be a bad run I’ll send it back to the seller for a refund. I don’t buy “As is” tape.

I don't consider a consistent return rate of 50% an occasional bad batch. I call it abysmally poor quality control.

 

[Beck]

I don't consider a consistent return rate of 50% an occasional bad batch. I call it abysmally poor quality control.

YOU were returning 50% (so you say, but we really have no way of knowing). Neither I nor anyone else I've known in the 30 years I've been recording has had that bad of luck with any tape manufacturer, except for the sticky-shed crisis, which was resolved.

Beware of guerilla marketing on the web. Maybe you had that experience or maybe you've just read it somewhere. AMPEX/Quantegy once had over 75% of the market... and that's when everyone was still making tape. They didn’t get there by making an inferior product.

But you're still avoiding discussion of your original post, which delt with tape being “too old.” I'm detecting some argument dodging and weaving.

Many of us have spent a lot of time over the years helping people understand the tape issue. I don't care what you say your credentials are, you are flat out wrong... you couldn't be more wrong with your initial comment about NOS tape and your subsequent comments about QC issues.

If you were buying Quantegy after the reorganization in 2005 you would have seen significant QC problems, but that’s not what you’re talking about.

I also have to wonder what you were recording with at the time, it's condition, your recording practices, maintenance habits, etc.

 

[witzendoz]

Hi,

I used to use ampex 456 in the 90's, The sound was fine but after a few years I noticed tape shred / sticky issues on older tapes. At the same time I was using some BASF 911, this tape was the same age but there was no shred / sticky problem. My tapes were always well stored away from humidity so that was not the problem.

I talked to my tech about the tape issues and he recommended I use only 911 as it also caused less head wear. From that day on only 911 (BASF and then Emtec) and no tape issues and the heads on my machine have lasted without a re-lap and are still at spec (altho it does not get used much nowadays). I actually have a box of brand new sealed 911 in the tape shortage cupboard.

This is my experience.

Cheers

Alan.

 

[Beck]

Hi,

I used to use ampex 456 in the 90's, The sound was fine but after a few years I noticed tape shred / sticky issues on older tapes. At the same time I was using some BASF 911, this tape was the same age but there was no shred / sticky problem. My tapes were always well stored away from humidity so that was not the problem.

Yes, that's a specific problem known as Sticky-Shed, which I've discussed at great length here over the years. It’s only an issue with Ampex tape made 1994 or earlier. I like BASF SM911 as well. I have a lot of it in my tape closet right next to my Ampex/Quantegy 456.

See link below.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=228067

 

[RRuskin]

YOU were returning 50% (so you say, but we really have no way of knowing). Neither I nor anyone else I've known in the 30 years I've been recording has had that bad of luck with any tape manufacturer, except for the sticky-shed crisis, which was resolved.

Beware of guerilla marketing on the web. Maybe you had that experience or maybe you've just read it somewhere. AMPEX/Quantegy once had over 75% of the market... and that's when everyone was still making tape. They didn’t get there by making an inferior product.

But you're still avoiding discussion of your original post, which delt with tape being “too old.” I'm detecting some argument dodging and weaving.

Many of us have spent a lot of time over the years helping people understand the tape issue. I don't care what you say your credentials are, you are flat out wrong... you couldn't be more wrong with your initial comment about NOS tape and your subsequent comments about QC issues.

If you were buying Quantegy after the reorganization in 2005 you would have seen significant QC problems, but that’s not what you’re talking about.

I also have to wonder what you were recording with at the time, it's condition, your recording practices, maintenance habits, etc.

I was purchasing new tape from reputable local dealers and recording on a variety of machines and formats: 1/4" & 1" Tascam & Ampex, 1/2" Fostex, 2" MCI. All machines were properly maintained on a regular basis. The QC problems I experienced started in the early 90's, long before 2005. Until the lot I bought from the last run, I had no problems with any 3M 996 after switching over.

By "too old" I meant not that the tape would "spoil" in the wrapping but that if one obtained poorly manufactured NOS, quite likely given my experience,
the seller might not take it back. Getting a refund would still entail more of a hassle than buying newly manufactured stock in the 1st place. And yes, I agree that even the new stuff can be funky but at least there is still a company standing behind it.

 

[StrangeSteve]

Gent's,
thanks for all the replies, I guess i'll try a few different brands and then decide, what was the " great 2005 tape panic ".
Cheers

Steve

 

[Beck]

I was purchasing new tape from reputable local dealers and recording on a variety of machines and formats: 1/4" & 1" Tascam & Ampex, 1/2" Fostex, 2" MCI. All machines were properly maintained on a regular basis. The QC problems I experienced started in the early 90's, long before 2005. Until the lot I bought from the last run, I had no problems with any 3M 996 after switching over.

By "too old" I meant not that the tape would "spoil" in the wrapping but that if one obtained poorly manufactured NOS, quite likely given my experience,
the seller might not take it back. Getting a refund would still entail more of a hassle than buying newly manufactured stock in the 1st place. And yes, I agree that even the new stuff can be funky but at least there is still a company standing behind it.

So, what specific problems were you having?

Was the tape you bought after 1995 made 1995 or later, or could it have been older stock still on the shelf? New tape meant the same thing then as it does now... sealed in box. It could sit on the shelf for quite some time.

What year did you make the switch from 456 to 3M 996?

Again, your alleged 50% failure rate is yours, so it doesn't represent what was/is typical for the rest of the world using Ampex/Quantegy.

You are the unluckiest person I've ever known when it comes to Ampex tape. You were either doing something wrong, or you need Jesus to cast out the demon of bad tape.

 

[sweetbeats]

what was the " great 2005 tape panic "

When Quantegy announced they were backing out of analog tape production...

 

[RRuskin]

So, what specific problems were you having?

Was the tape you bought after 1995 made 1995 or later, or could it have been older stock still on the shelf? New tape meant the same thing then as it does now... sealed in box. It could sit on the shelf for quite some time.

What year did you make the switch from 456 to 3M 996?

Again, your alleged 50% failure rate is yours, so it doesn't represent what was/is typical for the rest of the world using Ampex/Quantegy.

You are the unluckiest person I've ever known when it comes to Ampex tape. You were either doing something wrong, or you need Jesus to cast out the demon of bad tape.

Well, in the 90's I was buying tape from the 90's. My dealer, ProTape NW, supplied most of the studios in town so I can only assume the stock was relatively fresh. Ampex oxides used were 456 then later 499. Occasional problems ranged from excessive shedding, bad slit, and major drop outs.
None of this had anything to do with how the machines were maintained.

The switch to 996 was made in '93 or '94. No problems at all with it until the final run in '96. I went back to Quantegy at that point. That's when the QC got really squirrley IMO and experience.

Frankly, I'm really tired of this debate/inquisition. As stated earlier, "To Each His Own." Anyone wishing to buy tape made by a for all intents and purposes DEAD company that may or may not be usable is free to do so.

 

[Beck]

Well, in the 90's I was buying tape from the 90's. My dealer, ProTape NW, supplied most of the studios in town so I can only assume the stock was relatively fresh. Ampex oxides used were 456 then later 499. Occasional problems ranged from excessive shedding, bad slit, and major drop outs.
None of this had anything to do with how the machines were maintained.

The switch to 996 was made in '93 or '94. No problems at all with it until the final run in '96. I went back to Quantegy at that point. That's when the QC got really squirrley IMO and experience.

Frankly, I'm really tired of this debate/inquisition. As stated earlier, "To Each His Own." Anyone wishing to buy tape made by a for all intents and purposes DEAD company that may or may not be usable is free to do so.

Well Rick, if you're going to make an outlandish claim like you did you should be prepared to give an explanation. This forum isn't a hideout. We've worked very hard to counter myths and misconceptions about tape. If you're going to make claims that fly in the face of the experience of the entire recording industry you owe the members an explanation... some details about how and when, etc.

No, it's not a matter of "To each his own." You gave someone specific advise to avoid an entire class of tape based on you're limited experience with the product, apparently ignorant of how widely and successfully 456 has been used about everywhere but your studio. That's a disservice to members seeking sound advice.

Anyone that throws credentials around like you do is going to be challenged by me when they mislead people. If you're tired of debating/explaining then don't be so careless… and stop with the slippery arguments… you keep revising the reasons for your initial statement. I don't get tired of trying to get to the bottom of an issue.

As it stands now I think you had user error issues or are just repeating things from old usenet groups, which were full of guerrilla marketers exaggerating Quantegy QC and slitting issues because they were selling a different brand of tape. I used to see that bullshit all the time.

And again, although I've had great experience with Ampex/quantegy 456 over many years, I'm basing my advise on the experience of the recording industry. The claim is true that more music has been recorded with Ampex than any other brand… albums, movie scores, movie dialog, you name it. The score for the movie Titanic (1997) was recorded on 456 about the time you say the stuff was almost unusable.

If you have to return a tape it doesn’t matter if you have to return it to an eBay seller or RMGI. Speaking of that, I’ve said previously that I still seek out NOS BASF and EMTEC over RMGI because of RMGI QC problems, so...

Frankly, IMO if you're uncomfortable supporting your assertions with details you're probably making stuff up.

 

[Dr ZEE]

... specific ...

Specificity isn't the relm of a "Big". Never was and never will be.
You are knocking on the gate door of an Empty Castle.

**********
Here's a visual for a visual-minded: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1258.html

btw, I personally have never ran into a bad Quantegy tape , I've used tape dated starting 2002 through the last stocks right before it has gone undead . I've used GP-9s (mostly), some 457, 406 and some 661. But then again, I do not run a multinational industrial operation, so my "experience" is miserable and , I guess, all I needed was just a little bit of luck ...
...and you can have it too

 

[StrangeSteve]

tape

If I knew i was going to cause so much trouble I wouldnt have asked the question or bought the damn machine !!!!!!!!
lol

 

[Dr ZEE]

If I knew i was going to cause so much trouble I wouldnt have asked the question or bought the damn machine !!!!!!!!
lol

Few years ago I've asked here similar question and 've got pretty straight answer. Then I've asked about 'specifices' (meaning, "why exactly" it is such and so) and instead of getting any kind of answer got a bunch of moosh-mush and was sent "back to school" to learn the basics about how tape recorder works and sh*t and not to ask "stupid questions".
So, I ignored the "answer" and used the tape I wanted and the tape that gave me the the result I like.

Over the time I've learned to ignore all Straight "answers", especially when they come from someone with "credentials".

btw, be glad that you've bought "damn machine", enjoy it. Try different tapes - collect your own experience. It's just that simple.