Old UD 35-180 vs. RMGI or Quantegy

[jjones1700]

I have a dumb question. Why would I want to pay an outrageous price for 1 or more old Maxell UD 35-180 10.5" reels (new in plastic......supposedly) when I can get fresh(er) Quantegy or RMGI tape? I have 2 reels of the Maxell and they sound great. However, when one tries to record on a blank portion, it sounds like ass. What is the newest (considering Maxell doesn't make this anymore) UD 35-180 as far as what year did they quit producing it?

 

[Beck]

You wouldn’t want to pay audiophool prices for Maxell when you can buy comparable tape for much less. Maxell is great tape, but IMO Quantegy 407 is similar and superior. Maxell has some mythos surrounding it in certain circles… not sure exactly how it happened, but it has. Prices started getting silly about five years ago when Maxell stopped making open-reel. There was a tape panic not unlike the Quantegy panic of 2005. It was a lot worse than it is now, but the prices I see still aren’t justifiable.

The hi-fi audiophile community makes tape prices much higher than they would be. There is nothing magical about 35-xx or 35-xxB. Well, some people just prefer it, but technically speaking it has stiff competition.

I like 35-xxB a lot, but it falls below Quantegy/AMPEX 407 and Scotch 207 in my personal ranking. I’ll buy it only if the bidding isn’t beyond reason. Otherwise… they can have it.

It’s a high-grade tape so if you are having recoding problems you might have a bad tape or issues with your machine.

The older stuff from the ‘70s is just as good as tape made in 2001.

An example of the silliness:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140129626740

This guy has been buying and selling this stuff for years, and I'm sure he longs for the glory days of a few years ago when one reel of this would go for $50.00 and above (By the way, his tape facts are off, and IMO no one here will live long enough to see the last new tape... eh, but you know ebay sellers just gotta hype it).

 

[jjones1700]

I've heard the same problem with different tapes of the "vintage" type. Whatever has already been recorded on them sounds great. It's when you re-record over them that they just don't seem to take to the mag field like they should, I'm assuming.

I'm kind of hesitant of buying older tapes for recording purposes because of that. If/when I could get my other RT-909 up and going I'll try to record on it and see what happens. Perhaps I'm overdue for a demag.

Anyway, I just could see spending over $100 for 3 reels of old Maxell when I can get 3 reels of fresh stuff for a little cheaper. I figure I'll be using RMGI SM911, LPR35, and when I want top notch I'll order up some SM900. I'm sure some may think I'm nuts but after doing a massive clean-up job after a combo sticky-shed/ gooey pinch roller fiasco, I'm going to stick with the new stuff that, hopefully, won't give me any problems.

 

[Tim Gillett]

If old recordings sound fine but new recordings dont there's almost certainly something wrong with your tape machine. Dont automatically blame the tape. Do test recordings on a couple of different type or brand tapes. The machine should be aligned to the tape type you are using.

Tim

 

[Beck]

Yeah, what Tim G. says is right.

There is no truth to the perception that prerecorded tape can’t sound as good as new (not unless you’re selling something). That would preclude the concept of multi-tracking in general. A machine can drift out of alignment enough so that the erase head doesn’t do its job. On the other hand, well-used tape can get physically worn out, but we’re talking hundreds if not thousands of passes depending on the tape.

I recommend steering clear of old used tape, but sealed older tape can be as good as new.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to stay with recently made tape, but for the record terms like “Factory Fresh” have little meaning in the world of tape. It sounds good in a sales pitch, but tape isn’t like perishable food. As long as you don’t have sticky-shed or Loss-of-lubricant issues old tape is no different than new. AMPEX 407 made in 1995 is as good (maybe better) as Quantegy 407 made in 2005. I have new-old-stock Maxell 35-90 and 35-90B made in late ‘70s that’s perfect, and older Scotch Highlander that sounds awesome.

That being said, tape selection has become like navigating a minefield for the uninitiated. For that reason alone staying with new tape is a safe practice. However, for those of us that know tape types inside and out we have a broader selection.

Now about SM900… it is not a premium tape per se. It is a different kind of tape requiring higher bias and flux levels for best performance. SM911 and SM468 are as high as you will get within the so-called +6 class of tape. In fact, many older machines don’t have the ability to erase SM900 as fully as normal tape… their bias levels can’t go high enough for the erase head to do its magic.

With any tape the best way to erase it is with a degausser (tape eraser) designed for that purpose. If the tape is not physically damaged it will bring the tape back to factory condition. Every studio should have one.

 

[jjones1700]

I see your point and I appreciate the feedback.

Let me explain the circumstances. I bought an RT-909 from a fellow (locally) and paid $150 for it. We sat and talked for about an hour and he used to use this when he played in a jazz band in Chicago. He threw in 2 UD 35-180 reels. I was foaming at the mouth since I had wanted a deck to play 10.5" reels for as long as I could remember. I get it home, give it a cleaning, and hook everything up. Load up a reel and fire it up. Well, gooey roller syndrome reared it's ugly head and snapped the tape. Phark!!! Okay, ordered new rollers from Pioneer and away we go. I made some minor back torque adjustments and all was perfect. I figure since I have 3/4 of a Maxell reel, I'll just import it into Sound Forge and then re-record over it. I went back and listened to it. It sounded horrible. It was dropping out and coming back. I have the visual of travelling down a road filled with pot holes. I wasn't impressed. Let me quickly say that on playback (before I tried to re-record on one of them, both reels of Maxell sounded awesome!Now comes the truly ironic part. I load up a 5" reel I have of Realistic tape and record some music on it. Sounds great! No drop outs, fades, or anything unusual. I just wrote it off as the tape dying out. I know photographic negatives fade from the emulsion deteriorating but I don't know what the life expectancy of tape is or the symptoms of old tape. I have had a reel that shed horribly, was sticky, and therefore I got rid of it.

I'd like to transfer some of my CDs and vinyl to tape and I'm kinda green on what to really use. I'm also learning how to play the acoustic guitar and eventually would like to mix my stuff on the Portastudio down to the reel. Suggestions on tape? Keep in mind I was in high school almost 20 years ago and was given an Akai GX-230D (which I still have and still works). I learned how to use it but I was naive and Radio Shack was down the street, so that is where I got the tape from. Now I'm paying the price for my ignorance......LOL Actually, all things considered, the Realistic tape has been pretty good to me, or at least very forgiving. I would love to use the UD 35-180, but I don't love the prices people want for it. I have a new pancake of SM911 that I'm going to play with so I will see how I and the 909 like it and go from there. BTW, is there anywhere I can get a reference tape for less than $100 to calibrate this thing?

Thanks again guys for the responses.

 

[Tim Gillett]

As said earlier, just because a machine plays back a tape perfectly doesnt mean it will also record. Playback and record are separate processes in the machine, expecially a "3 head" type like the RT 909 which actually has 4 heads for the auto reverse play function.

The Realistic tape, on a 5' spool will have more back tension compared to a 10.5" spool and may be the reason why the recording sounds better. It could be compensating for a worn record head by giving it that extra tension across the head face.

Any machine with big spools and an auto reverse function may have seen a lot of tape miles through it as it's easy to set it running for hours on end. My own example of an RT909 had really worn heads when I got it. I relapped the heads and did other work on it. These machines are old!

Also maybe the dual capstan is not working correctly. In this model the two capstans tension the tape between them for better head contact, or they do when it's working correctly. Just replacing the pinch rollers doesnt guarantee everything else will be right.

If this guy knew you would be recording on it, not just playing tapes, and he spent an hour with you, it would have been easy to do a test record on it. I wonder why he didnt...

Having said that, I think the RT909 is a fine machine, with direct drive capstan motor, dual capstan, pitch control etc, and built like a battleship. Once serviced it should work very well. But unless you can do the work yourself it will cost you...

Tim.

 

[jjones1700]

Very good point about the 5" having the extra back tension. Didn't think about that. I guess I'll find out with the 911 what I'm really up against. I've got a service manual and have torn one of the other ones apart (somewhat, going to replace capstan motor if I can EVER find one.....). I just saw a place here locally that has an Otari 5050 BQIII............makes me think..........

I met the guy somewhere so I could pick it up. I didn't meet him at the house to check it out. I figured for $150 it was worth it. Worst case scenario I could part it out and make my money back. I've fallen in love with it and it is easy to work on, so far.

Kind of off topic for a sec.........do you think it's possible to compile a list of the various decks by transport size (1/4", 1/2", etc.)? I suppose going from 1/2" on up would make the most sense seeing as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of models using 1/4". I wouldn't mind putting together a spreadsheet or the like for reference for people in the future. Info on the net is kinda thin and cryptic for the most part. Just an idea.

 

[MCI2424]

You wouldn’t want to pay audiophool prices for Maxell when you can buy comparable tape for much less. Maxell is great tape, but IMO Quantegy 407 is similar and superior. Maxell has some mythos surrounding it in certain circles… not sure exactly how it happened, but it has. Prices started getting silly about five years ago when Maxell stopped making open-reel. There was a tape panic not unlike the Quantegy panic of 2005. It was a lot worse than it is now, but the prices I see still aren’t justifiable.

The hi-fi audiophile community makes tape prices much higher than they would be. There is nothing magical about 35-xx or 35-xxB. Well, some people just prefer it, but technically speaking it has stiff competition.

I like 35-xxB a lot, but it falls below Quantegy/AMPEX 407 and Scotch 207 in my personal ranking. I’ll buy it only if the bidding isn’t beyond reason. Otherwise… they can have it.

It’s a high-grade tape so if you are having recoding problems you might have a bad tape or issues with your machine.

The older stuff from the ‘70s is just as good as tape made in 2001.

An example of the silliness:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140129626740

This guy has been buying and selling this stuff for years, and I'm sure he longs for the glory days of a few years ago when one reel of this would go for $50.00 and above (By the way, his tape facts are off, and IMO no one here will live long enough to see the last new tape... eh, but you know ebay sellers just gotta hype it).

I have never met an audiophile who was capable of actually aligning a tape machine. They just use what was recommended to them and Maxell was it for many machines. Maxell stopped making tape and the audiophiles are panicking.

Maxell got this crazy reputation from the audiophile magazines way back when. Audiophiles, being the gullible dotes that they are, believe every hairball idea set forth (directional cables?) and accepted Maxell as handed down from god.