Ampex - Gp9

[Blue Jinn]

what is the diff b/t 499 and gp9?

Spec wise:

Oe Gs Mil

499 390 1600 2.03
GP9 370 1600 2.13
456 320 1500 1.93

According to a Quantegy paper I have, 499/GP9 share the same bias. 499 is thinner than GP9.

 

[ofajen]

The question on needs to ask himself is: "Is there really someone (or something) out there who's about to get me, that makes me worry about getting away ?"

Precisely. If you are going to mix on the same machine you track, all you care about is that you have a total system response (from input signal to output on tape) that you can use to do your music. It doesn't have to be flat and, unless you will play back on some other machine, it doesn't have to be set up with any interoperability standard in mind. OTOH, using those standards is often easier, since the cal tapes are available and it makes for a consistent and easily repeatable process.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[sweetbeats]

Hey, Blue Jinn, do you know where to find specs on Scotch tape (particularly 996)? Wondering if it is thicker than 911...

 

[Blue Jinn]

I have a large compilation of data I have in a file. Not on this computer at the moment. I can PM you (I think) the file is about 14 MEGs though. I;ll look for the scotch pages and separate them out. Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread had been updated or I'd responded sooner!

 

[Beck]

Yep, 996 is a bit thicker... 2.13 mils compared to 1.97 mils for 911. For reference, 456 is 1.93 mils.

 

[ofajen]

Hey, Blue Jinn, do you know where to find specs on Scotch tape (particularly 996)? Wondering if it is thicker than 911...

Spreadsheet of data on all Scotch tapes:

http://www.recordist.com/ampex/docs/histgen/aorprod2.html


Introduction and related definitions:

http://recordist.com/ampex/docs/histgen/aorintr1.html


Cheers,

Otto

 

[Blue Jinn]

Here is another link:

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/aorprod2.html

FWIW Quantegy lists it as comparable to GP9 and 499.