1.0 vs. 1.5 mil

[lonewhitefly]

Are there any sonic or maintenence advantages to running 1.0 mil on a standard tape deck fully capable of running 1.5 mil? I seem to recall reading somewhere something about better head contact. I know Pet Sounds was partially recorded and/or mixed on 1.0 mil tape and I've always wondered if there were reasons other than the practical considerations of tape cost & running time. I remember reading somewhere that some engineers felt it had better tape to head contact perhaps? Then there are the obvious disadvantages of print-through and potential stretching/faster tape wear.

I run 1.5 and 1.0 mil (depending on the tape I have) on my Ampex 440 and lately I'm noticing the 1.0 mil performs a little bit better. I guess I've always thought (perhaps naively) that 1.0 was somehow a 'lesser' product, but now I'm starting to think maybe it's better.

 

[miroslav]

Depends on your transport....some don't handle the thicker tapes as well (mostly the older decks).

I don't think there are any sonic differences, though generally the thicker 1.5 mil tapes are different formulations in most cases. There may be other brands/types, but the only one I know about that offers the same formulation on two differernt thickness tapes is EMTEC/BASF/RMGI SM911, which is a 1.5 mil tape, but is also made as LPR35 with a 1.0 mil thickness.

The thicker, extra backing tape can be important if you like to really hit the tape hard, as it can help prevent print-through....

 

[lonewhitefly]

Depends on your transport....some don't handle the thicker tapes as well (mostly the older decks).

I don't think there are any sonic differences, though generally the thicker 1.5 mil tapes are different formulations in most cases. There may be other brands/types, but the only one I know about that offers the same formulation on two differernt thickness tapes is EMTEC/BASF/RMGI SM911, which is a 1.5 mil tape, but is also made as LPR35 with a 1.0 mil thickness.

The thicker, extra backing tape can be important if you like to really hit the tape hard, as it can help prevent print-through....

Thanks for your input.

Historically, most tapes were produced in 1.5 and 1.0 mil variants of the same formula though.

Examples:

Scotch 206 / 207
Scotch 226 / 227
Ampex/Quantegy 406 / 407
Ampex/Quantegy 456 / 457
Scotch 202 / 203 (and 201 = 1.5 mil acetate instead of poly)

... and many others.

Specifically, I am using Scotch 202 and 203 for mix ... same formula and sound the same to me. But the 203 is running more smoothly. The 440 can handle 1.5 mil by design ... although it could be my deck was optimized for 203 when it was set up ... or it's getting older and prefers lighter duty. Or perhaps the oxide is shedding more on the 202 because it's thicker, requiring more cleaning. Thinking maybe there could be other advantages t0 1.0 though.

And currently using 206 1/2" on my 4-track but going to try out 207 soon.

 

[miroslav]

Historically, most tapes were produced in 1.5 and 1.0 mil variants of the same formula though.

Examples:

Scotch 206 / 207
Scotch 226 / 227
Ampex/Quantegy 406 / 407
Ampex/Quantegy 456 / 457
Scotch 202 / 203 (and 201 = 1.5 mil acetate instead of poly)

... and many others.

I forgot about the Ampex 457 (and 407).

I thought you were mainly talking about more current stuff. I've not ever used the Scotch tapes that I can recall...maybe WAY back in the late '70s I might have at some point when I had a 4-track, though back then it was mostly Maxell and TDK for me. I still think TDK was better than Maxell, and I've got some 35-year old TKD tapes still as fresh as the day I got them.

For the last 20+ years it's been Ampex 456, BASF/EMTEC SM911 and 468...though now also some Ampex 499 and 3M 996....all of which are the thicker, back-coated variety.

 

[Beck]

You’ve pretty much covered it. The advantages of 1.5 mil are increased tensile strength and lower print-through. On the plus side for 1.0 mil is longer record time and better tape-to-head contact, especially beneficial on worn heads. The 1.0 mil versions were generally a bit more expensive because the magnetic coating was the same thickness for 1.5 mil, and thus more materials were used for the longer tape. An 1800 ft tape is 50% longer than a 1200 ft tape, so 50% more record time at a given speed.

Print-through varies by brand. Scotch 206 has a great print-through spec, so the 1-mil version, 207, has print-through performance that comes close to some 1.5-mil tapes.

There’s nothing second rate about the 1-mil versions. Just different machines and different applications.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Where I come from the different thicknesses were also referred to as Standard Play (I assume 1.5mil), Long Play (1 mil), Double Play, Triple Play and possibly even Quadruple Play. C90 cassette tape is a quarter the thickness of 1.5 mil reel to reel tape. I have somewhere a TDK brand C180 cassette which would have a tape thickness one eighth of 1.5 mil tape.

As Beck said, all had their uses. No one thickness was "better" than another. Different thicknesses suited different applications.
The more thin the tapes the more gently the machines needed to treat them or they could turn to brown string. Also physically splicing thinner tapes could be tricky.

Tim

 

[Chilljam]

Very interesting thread. I have been using and thinking about Quantegy 457 for years and the advantages/disadvantages of the 1-mil thickness.

How about something like the 'Double-Play' BASF DP26 tape which has a thickness of 0.75mm?
Does the thickness mean that this tape is not suitable for serious music recording sonically speaking (due to print-through and other things)?

Is the magnetic coating still the same thickness as 1.5mil tapes?

 

[lonewhitefly]

Very interesting thread. I have been using and thinking about Quantegy 457 for years and the advantages/disadvantages of the 1-mil thickness.

How about something like the 'Double-Play' BASF DP26 tape which has a thickness of 0.75mm?
Does the thickness mean that this tape is not suitable for serious music recording sonically speaking (due to print-through and other things)?

Is the magnetic coating still the same thickness as 1.5mil tapes?

Those really long play tapes might be fine for the smaller decks running a lower speed ... for casual use. I wouldn't put anything important on them. I thin 1.0 is about as thin as you can get before you start noticing problems (tape-stretch & print through, as well as lower levels [more hiss] to avoid it ... those tapes can also twist & break much more easily). Can't imagine the magnetic coating would be the same.

 

[Beck]

Yeah, I would steer clear of double play reel-to-reel tapes. It’s not a matter of if, but when they stretch and break. 2400 ft on 7-inch reel is strictly for consumer use and they won’t last. And when you’re talking use for multitracking with all the shuttling back and forth you’re asking for trouble. Double-play was never meant for hi-fi, but simply convenience… to get as much music on one tape as possible. Same goes for long-play cassettes. I wouldn’t use anything over 90-minute cassette even for casual listening. I see a lot of C-100 cassettes and above and for crazy high prices, but I won’t touch them even if the prices were reasonable.

 

[Blue Jinn]

I am pretty sure the really thin tapes also weren't/aren't (you can still get NOS 661 from Quantegy) the highest fi formula, so you'd have lower levels and higher noise to deal with as well. Probably the analog equiv of the mp3, convenience over signal quality.