Non-backcoated tape pro/con??

[Blue Jinn]

Noticed that Maxell UD-35 is roughly equiv to Ampex/Q 407 and better specs then Ampex/Q 642. Wondering if there is a *significant* disadvantage to using this tape over backcoated tape liek 407. Understand print through is reduced with backcoating, but if the levels are not too hot, and tape is stored tails out what are the disadvantages if any using w/ 1/4" multitracks?

 

[Beck]

Actually 642 is more comparable to UD 35.

407 is Comparable to XLI 35-B, but IMO 407 is the better of the two in use. They are very close and I almost have to toss a coin to decide, but I always thought it was kind of funny that people pay so much more for XL 35B than 407 on eBay. I use both, but if I had to choose one I'd go with 407.

Backcoated tape runs smoother and packs more evenly. By smoother running I mean less slippage and wow & flutter. Backcoating also reduces static and modulation noise.

 

[jpmorris]

Some machines from the 50s and 60s prefer (or need?) non-backcoated tape. The ones which use pressure-pads, I think.

 

[Blue Jinn]

Thanks. I have about 35 reels of UD, most of it still new, and I just don't have a whole lot of 1mil tape, so I'd like to use this on the Fostex 80 in lieu of 1.5 mil tape, I don't want to wear out the little Fostex any faster than necessary.

I like the sound of 406 on my 1/2" 8 track. With packing, I don't think I have a "spool" function on any of the 1/4" decks I have, so I suppose i could just let it play out to get a tighter pack.

I was given the tape by a friend, who is about to be mobilized, so I'd rather use it than sell it on ebay, even if I could get "audiophool" prices for it. As for specs, I just looked at the raw numbers for corecivity and retentivity.

 

[Herm]

You should be looking for 457 for your machine.
I have been picking up ud 35 90 for my 22-4 and 22-2 and I kinda like it.
Of coarse my hearing is shot now but it still works well with my units.