Can anyone help me identify the operating level of this tape?

[BRDTS]

Keep in mind that biasing for elevated levels..and pushing tape to get those extra dbs...assumes noise reduction units are turned off and out of the circuit.

A Tascam integrated dbx unit is calibrated to work within it's specs up to -10 (0 level). Pushing above "0" level with dbx in the circuit is actually going to cause inaccuracies in the dbx decode section during playback. Not that you'll ever hear it, but that is the concept there on a Tascam machine.

 

[Beck]

Thanks tim!
You said 6db is a huge gain. Let me ask this -
My DX-8 noise reduction module is in mint shape and works great, so will this help combat the 6db difference?

The seller told me the tape by the way, was purchased in the late 60s/early 70's. You're right, I'm trying to experiment and get an extrodinarily authentic prehistoric type of sound! I've got new 456 and it sounds okay.
Thanks

The 600 series that Daniel mentioned would give you that low-fi sound all right. I’ve never seen it in ½” though.

For a slightly fuzzier sound I keep a few reels of Quantegy 406 around. It’s a +3 tape as opposed to a +6 like 456. Thus you will be hitting the tape harder, but not too hard, at 0 VU if your machine is calibrated for 456.

It will play back a little lower than 456 unless you recalibrate playback levels on your machine, but still within the window for dbx NR to work properly. There’s some wiggle room with dbx.

It’s not overly distorted or anything… just a little softer and warmer than 456. It's also bias compatible with 456 so you don't have to rebias.

Something to be aware of though is that dbx will work against your efforts at really low-fi sound, so you may want to try recording without it. It reduces noise, but it also increases headroom.

~Tim

 

[cjacek]

The 600 series that Daniel mentioned would give you that low-fi sound all right. I’ve never seen it in ½” though.

Good point, Tim. I assumed it came in wider formats as well but I guess I was wrong ....

 

[littlesongs]

the 226 is supposed to be pretty doggone decent tape, old school and free of most modern maladies... i have heard that although it behaves well, 250 prints through like a squirtgun on a roll of toilet paper, but it will depend on what you are capturing... some stuff is simply too loud for print through to matter...

i agree that early noise reduction is often simply noise creation... the right combination of a song with silent or soft passages and noise reduction can result in more than subliminal breathing... sometimes like a drooling bulldog with asthma... this is why early compressors only worked on stuff that was just a wall of sound -- sometimes literally, a "wall of sound" -- and also why automatic level control -- alc -- is really great for lectures and often lousy for music... like really strong peppers, a little goes a long way...

in my experience, the only noise reduction worth a hoot was the dbx on the yamaha four-track cassette machines... the other machines... tascam, whatever, were miserable... and i never bother with it on open reel... there's really nothing that can't be fixed -- or at least made much more subtle -- with an old urei "little dipper" or -- in la-la land where money can be found everywhere including the catbox -- a pultec... or -- while we are lolling off into dreamland -- a massive passive... later... when the song is being mixed down...

back to topic... i love a select few of the old tape types... especially for mixdown... some are very unique and new old stock is just as good today as it was in the late 50s and early 60s... if you want the sound from any particular era, it is best to simply perform and record as close to what would have happened musically and techinically as possible... now, if i could only convince carol kaye and hal blaine to swing by...

dave