Quantegy 408?

DESSERT DWELLER

New member
Hello,

Does anyone know if Quantegy 408 will work for a Tascam 22-4? Is this basically the same formula as 407 but in a shorter length?

Thanks.
 
No, 408 is a mastering tape made for Nagra recorders and is closer to the 478 and 480 formulations. The shorter version of 407 is 406.

408 is too dissimilar to use on a machine set for 406/407. Well, you could use it but you'll get better results with 406/407 & 456/457.

-Tim
:cool:
 
Beck said:
The shorter version of 407 is 406.

The difference in 406/407, 456/457, etc is not really the length. It's the thickness. A 7" reel of 407 will be longer than a 7" reel of 406 due to the difference in the thickness of the 2 tapes.
 
Raw-Tracks said:
The difference in 406/407, 456/457, etc is not really the length. It's the thickness. A 7" reel of 407 will be longer than a 7" reel of 406 due to the difference in the thickness of the 2 tapes.

No shit. :D

And in case you're interested 408 is 1.5 mil, which on its own makes 408 less than ideal for the 22-4. :)
 
Beck said:

Well, I wasn't sure if you realized that or not. To say " The shorter version of 407 is 406." implies that the length is the only difference, when in fact it is not. Wasn't try to be a smart ass. ;)
 
Raw-Tracks said:
Well, I wasn't sure if you realized that or not. To say " The shorter version of 407 is 406." implies that the length is the only difference, when in fact it is not. Wasn't try to be a smart ass. ;)

I was just answering the question in the original poster's language -- longer/shorter. Thanks for adding the thickness info. It is very important. :)

Smart ass? I don't think they allow smart asses on the board. :D
 
...

The listed definition of 408 is "406 tape that's wound differently for Nagras". It's probably reverse-wound, and will be usable when properly wound on the reel for "standard" reel configurations.

406/408 is 1.5mil/1200'/250nWb-(MOL) tape on 7" reels.

If you imply 1.5mil tape is not suitable for the 22-Series I'd hedge, & say it may not be optimal, but is still suitable.

IMO, to say that 1.5mil tape is not suitable for the 22-Series, is kinda like saying don't run premium gasoline in your little 4-banger economy car!

As always, YMMV. :eek:

SEE: OFFICIAL AMPEX QUANTEGY REFERENCE
http://recordist.com/ampex/docs/apxtape.txt
 
Last edited:
A Reel Person said:
The listed definition of 408 is "406 tape that's wound differently for Nagras". It's probably reverse-wound, and will be usable when properly wound on the reel for "standard" reel configurations.

406/408 is 1.5mil/1200'/260nWb-(MOL) tape on 7" reels.

If you imply 1.5mil tape is not suitable for the 22-Series I'd hedge, & say it may not be optimal, but is still suitable.

IMO, to say that 1.5mil tape is not suitable for the 22-Series, is kinda like saying don't run premium gasoline in your little 4-banger economy car!

As always, YMMV. :eek:

SEE: OFFICIAL AMPEX QUANTEGY REFERENCE
http://recordist.com/ampex/docs/apxtape.txt

I know I've covered this before in some detail. It's a common misconception that 1.5 mil tape is always preferred to 1.0 mil. It is superior if the oxide concentration was the only consideration. However, the chief compatibility concern is that it is too thick for many consumer and semi-pro machines. On page 2 of the Tascam 22-2 manual it says:

"The use of tapes other than those that we recommend for the 22-2 will produce results that may lie outside the limits of our published specs" and "The use of 1.5 mil tape is not recommended."

1.5 mil tape is too rigid to maintain optimal contact with the tape heads. This results in a slight loss of high frequency, accelerated head wear and greater stress on the transport. None the less I use the phrase "not ideal" rather than incompatible because it will do in a pinch.

As for Ampex 408, here we have another element of incompatibility. I'm familiar with Scott Dorsey's NASA Ampex list, and as handy as it is, it is not complete. 408 was designed specifically for Nagra. It is more highly polished than 406. This introduces slippage issues that will throw off wow & flutter specs of the 22-2/22-4, and in worst cases will noticeably cause slowdowns, grabs and the tape "walking" up the capstan and right out of alignment.

Tape machines are designed quite deliberately for their intended purpose. Tape thickness, cut, roughness, bias, and level are all carefully considered at the design stage. There are notable exceptions, such as BASF 468, which though thicker runs nicely on the 22 series. But the tape is suppler than other brands/types of 1.5 mil and therefore makes the proper contact with the heads.

Anyway, I started by correctly answering the question originally posed by this thread, and the answer is no -- 408 is not the shorter version of 407... 406 is. That's still the answer.

:)
 
To outsiders,...

we must seem like a couple cavemen, bashing each other over the head about reel tape!;)

They probably laugh as hard at us, as we do about their hard drives!;)
 
Beck said:
I know I've covered this before in some detail...
You've covered everything!


Beck said:
On page 2 of the Tascam 22-2 manual it says:
"The use of tapes other than those that we recommend for the 22-2 will produce results that may lie outside the limits of our published specs" and "The use of 1.5 mil tape is not recommended."
Thanx for quoting the manual! I don't have the 22-2 manual on hand!


Beck said:
1.5 mil tape is...
All good points.


Beck said:
None the less I use the phrase "not ideal" rather than incompatible because it will do in a pinch.
Then we agree! It's a matter of semantics, as usual.


Beck said:
I'm familiar with Scott Dorsey's NASA Ampex list, and as handy as it is, it is not complete.
Well, if you have "the complete" reference, then please post it! The Scott Dorsey/Nasa reference cited is the most complete reference I've seen. Even Quantegy's own website doesn't collate all the details you'd ever want!


Beck said:
408 was designed specifically for Nagra. It is more highly polished than 406. This introduces slippage issues that will throw off wow & flutter specs of the 22-2/22-4, and in worst cases will noticeably cause slowdowns, grabs and the tape "walking" up the capstan and right out of alignment.
I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.


Beck said:
Tape machines are designed quite deliberately for their intended purpose.
Thank goodness for that!

Beck said:
There are notable exceptions, such as BASF 468, which...
Tsk, tsk! Citing exceptions because it falls under your "favorites" list?


Beck said:
That's still the answer.
It always was.

;)
 
A Reel Person said:
Well, if you have "the complete" reference, then please post it! The Scott Dorsey/Nasa reference cited is the most complete reference I've seen. Even Quantegy's own website doesn't collate all the details you'd ever want!

The complete reference is called over 25 years of learning and hands-on experience. Stacks of books, vintage manuals, periodicals, company brochures, etc for reference don't hurt either. The Internet itself wasn't even born yet when I was making a living recording. Not everything is on a website somewhere. I have tons more info on Ampex/Quantegy than they've ever posted on a website.

Dorsey's reference is very handy, but it's obviously meant to be concise, not complete. It's a nice reference. In fact I posted a link to it and a similar one for 3M over a year ago.

I think people have become too "web centric." The fact is it's not all in cyberspace. I live near the third largest academic library in the country. If I really want to research something, you'll find me there, not on the web.

A Reel Person said:
Tsk, tsk! Citing exceptions because it falls under your "favorites" list?

;)

468 is on my favorites list because its an exception, not the other way 'round. ;)
 
Last edited:
A Reel Person said:
we must seem like a couple cavemen, bashing each other over the head about reel tape!;)

They probably laugh as hard at us, as we do about their hard drives!;)

Nah, anyone trying to record with a hard drive doesn't have time to laugh. :D
 
The Ghost of FM said:
I think Beck and ARP should be co-chairs of the Analog Brigade! :)
Cheers! :)

Not until I start getting paid for this. :D
 
Interesting....

"Quantegy type 408 tape has also been suggested for use with Nagra. At the recent AES Covention, representatives from Quantegy (Ampex) clarified that the difference between 408 and 406 is that the 408 has one more polishing pass and is supposed to be spooled more precisely on the reels. There is no difference in the tape formulation nor recording characteristics."

So, it's highly polished to help with the Nagras weaker battery-powered motors, I guess? Or?
 
regebro said:
"Quantegy type 408 tape has also been suggested for use with Nagra. At the recent AES Covention, representatives from Quantegy (Ampex) clarified that the difference between 408 and 406 is that the 408 has one more polishing pass and is supposed to be spooled more precisely on the reels. There is no difference in the tape formulation nor recording characteristics."

So, it's highly polished to help with the Nagras weaker battery-powered motors, I guess? Or?

It's official. You can now quote me as saying the Internet has more misinformation than information. Mostly what this board amounts to is undiscerning individuals scouring the web for unsubstantiated "quotes" from every Tom, Dick and Harry on the web. If you search long enough you will always see what you want to see -- damn the facts.

The quote from regebro is from The Equipment Emporium. They sell tape and they don't carry 408 so they push 406 by saying it's the same thing. The context of the quote is to put 406 on par with 408 for use with Nagra. It is a somewhat more sophisticated version of the recent ebay seller who said Dictaphone tape was the best he ever heard. That's an extreme example, but it works.

Bottom line -- Except for the higher polishing, which I already mentioned they are wrong. 408 was first introduced in 1997 after Quantegy acquired 3Ms tape division. It is based on 3M 808 with an improved binder. 406/407 on the other hand has been produced by Ampex and then Quantegy virtually unchanged except for the binder since the 70's.

But by all means try it! It might work for you. Hey, lets have that be the pat answer for every question posed on this forum -- "Try it yourself and see." The problem with that is for some strange reason people keep coming here to get advise from "experts." Those "experts", who have no more idea off the top of their heads, embark on an Internet quest for an answer -- any answer. It would be nice if more members could share knowledge from real life experience and if they don't know the answer not make something up.

Lets see, I've been posting here since May 2003 and have not yet reached 450 posts. Ya wanna know why? Because I only answer questions that I already know the answer to. If I don't know I don't even bother to say I don't know -- I just don't post.

This forum (and not just the anolog section) is mostly the blind leading the blind. False information is repeated until it takes on a life of its own. The whole thing is perpetuated by socio-psychological processes more than anything else. The facts, if considered at all are at the bottom of the list.

In the final analysis I guess not much has changed. Even back in the day only a handful of people knew what they were doing. I don't see that changing.

I was going to sit here and list the specs for 408 and 406, which are different by the way. Then it dawned on me halfway through this tirade that it doesn't matter. This is really the wrong format to share knowledge. I may setup a website in the future, which is really the way to go. But for the most part I'm done with this circus.
 
Back
Top