Quantegy rides again???!!?!?

Should be pointed out that running 499 or similar tape can result in quicker head wear than using lower output tape on some machines.

I was advised this a while by by a technican servicing my Fostex E-16 who said that the 499 tape is more abrasive on recording heads.

Not sure if this would apply in the same way to the Tascam TSR-8 & similar machines or not?

Yep, 499 is one of the worst for premature head wear. It's stiff and sheds alot. GP9 is better -- smoother, but it’s still thicker, stiffer and heavier than 456. Since heads are now one of the most expensive replacement parts I avoid the +9 stuff.

In fact if I see a listing for a multitrack deck and I see a stack of Qunategy 499 in the background, I just move on. All things being equal I know the heads are going to have more wear than if the seller had used 456 or SM911.

:)
 
...I see a listing for a multitrack deck and I see a stack of Qunategy 499 in the background, [...and...] I just move on...

:)
nowdays, it's like dream-walking in a wonderland (and doing it in slow motion :) ) ... sort of ;)
:D
***********

jpmorris said:
..In my ignorance, I have used 499...
In my ignorance, I have used GP-9 on my TEAC machines, tascam 32 and! on tube ampex 1260. In the past I've asked a question about the matter on this very board and was strongly and rather passionately advised to NOT use it for all the reasons mentioned above and some extra ones as well.
I have never followed the advise though, and up to this day still am pretty happy with GP-9, in keepping my ignorance strong, that is :D :o :D
I am happy with what I am getting by what I am doing, while I'm doing it all wrong, that is.

Here's an expression: "Perfect Clearness is a form of Extreme Cloudiness"

Here's another one: "A One who measures knows A Number."
:D
***************
p.s. and on topic ;)
I wonder if Higher Cost of trips to Hong Kong in combination with digestive problems caused by excessive consumption of raw fish :D was the reason for why someone woke up one morning with a thought in the head: "Hey, you know what? -Actually, Rolling tape right here in Alabama was not a bad idea after all." ;)
 
Doing it all wrong could be that breakthrough you need. ;)
Would not it be great if this would work just like that everywhere all the time. Well, it doesn't. :(

Now, How about making up another useless definition of Music Recording?
Here's one :
"Music Recording is a Non indispensable human activity the essence of which manifests the relationship based upon mutual benefit and dependence between engineering and art."
:D
 
Thought I'd jump in really quick and remind everyone that the extra thickness of the high output tapes puts a lot of strain on the transport, and on prosumer machines, I'd be willing to bet that they're set up for 457 instead of 456 because of this. I watched 456 tear apart my Fostex R8 without really knowing it.
 
Seems that RMGI have increased their prices again judging by a quick look at a few UK website, some by 20%

1/2" 911 pancakes up from £27-28 to £33-24 including 17.5% VAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
hmmmm they updated the homepage text and added a 2nd salesman contact name. I wonder if it will happen? It's still weird that they don't mention anything about re-releasing 456.
 
other tape sources

I found an ebay store that carries lots of tape called TapeandTape in LA that ships worldwide some new and some used once and degaussed at reasonable prices
 
Thought I'd jump in really quick and remind everyone that the extra thickness of the high output tapes puts a lot of strain on the transport, and on prosumer machines, I'd be willing to bet that they're set up for 457 instead of 456 because of this. I watched 456 tear apart my Fostex R8 without really knowing it.

The Fostex was spec'd for 457 because the thinner tape gave a better head wrap and increased performance. 456 might not measure as well but it is doubtful any difference would be heard. The 1/2 mil difference should not be enough to damage or unduly tax a healthy machine.
 
Back
Top