Questions about 406 tape

  • Thread starter Thread starter troutmask
  • Start date Start date
T

troutmask

New member
Hi everyone,

Well, it looks like I'll be bringing home my very own TSR-8 in a few days. Even though this is becoming the beginning of a 'studio revision' project for me (I hope to eventually cap it all off by building my own echo chamber).

I've been doing some research on what types of tape are well suited to the machine, and while 456 is (if I'm not mistaken) the recommended tape for this machine, I've read that 406 will theoretically allow me to push the tape a bit and utilize DBX without having modulation artifacts appear.

(I'm not entirely sure if I'm going to run the machine with noise reduction yet anyway, but that's another matter...)

However, it seems that 1/2" 406 tape is in short supply.

So my question is two-fold:

1) Does anybody know of a good supplier of 1/2" 406 tape, or should I be scouring eBay for Quantegy (since I've heard that the older Ampex tape is problematic)?
2) What tapes are equivalents to 406 (or relative equivalents)?

Thanks
 
I wouldn't push the tape on DBX, even if you're running 406 tape on a machine set up for 456 to deliberately overdrive it. The overload is going to affect the decoding process rather than the sound directly and you're liable to get pumping rather than the kind of saturation effect you're likely hoping for.

This isn't to say that I don't do it myself on occasion - but that's usually me being careless and I don't expect to get saturation.

I'm not aware of a 406-compatible tape currently produced in 1/2" format, for that matter. AFAIK they're all 456 or higher. If memory serves, Zonal 820 is compatible, but it's only in 1/4" form at the moment. If you must go the 406 route, look for Quantegy. I have a test tape on Ampex 406 and it has, unfortunately, turned to goo.
 
I've read that 406 will theoretically allow me to push the tape a bit and utilize DBX without having modulation artifacts appear.
Click to expand...

Yah. What jp said.

406 doesn't "allow [you] to push the tape harder", it has a lower distortion threshhold, so it allows you to reach tape saturation without pushing your tape machine's amplifier electronics as hard. That make sense?

And this doesn't help you use dbx without modulation effects...it would be a step in the wrong direction if that's the sound you're going for.

What kind of material do you record?
 
sweetbeats said:
406 doesn't "allow [you] to push the tape harder", it has a lower distortion threshhold, so it allows you to reach tape saturation without pushing your tape machine's amplifier electronics as hard. That make sense?
Click to expand...

That's actually what I should have said, and what I meant...but obviously not what I did say, heh. Thanks for clarifying that.

What actually started this was this post:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/analog-only/tape-compression-how-worky-147304/
where Beck, if I'm reading him correctly, implies that you can have fast transients saturate without affecting the functionality of the DBX system. Truthfully, though, I'm not even sure whether I'm going to want to use DBX or not. I'm going to end up just running some tests on the machine when I get it set up, that way I can really get a feel for what I like and don't like.

I mainly ask this because, if I record other bands, I would like to be able to offer them the option of using noise reduction while also being able to get a bit of tape saturation, even if just for snare hits and such.

As for myself, well...I like the idea of using +3 tape because it means that I can saturate it *even more* than +6 tape, correct?

And JPMorris, I have been able to find 1/2" 456 online without any real issues. 406 seems to be a much rarer beast, so part of my decision will be based on availability as well, of course. How would you guys rank the performance of 456 against 406?

I'm sorry if these questions seem stupid, I'm just trying to get feedback.
 
You find that the tape compression starts before you even smash the VU meters, some of the transients are very fast and the meters don't respond quick enough to show them, however these transients are being compressed by the tape.

I had a TSR8 when they first come out, I used to push the levels with the DBX on (the DBX on the TSR8 is excellent), +3 to +5 works well, however watch out for things like bass guitar as what you hear back may not be what you want, I used to keep the bass below +1, and I also used to be careful with vocals. However I used to pump the snare and toms and even the kick.

I found the best tape by far was the BASF 911, which became the Emtec 911. This tape was way better than the old ampex 456 and wore the heads way less.

I still have a MSR16S but it does not get used much nowadays due to clients not wanting to pay for tape, I am planing to record my bands next album on tape.

Alan.
 
Alan,

Can you tell me more about the specs on EMTEC 911 tape? Also, would my TSR-8 have to be recalibrated in order to use it?

Thanks
 
troutmask said:
Alan,
Can you tell me more about the specs on EMTEC 911 tape? Also, would my TSR-8 have to be recalibrated in order to use it?
Thanks
Click to expand...

The product spec is here if you're interested: http://www.rmgi.eu/pdf/RMGI_SM_911.pdf

...you probably won't find any of the original BASF or Emtec stock unless you're very lucky, but the RMG reissue is good once they got over their teething problems in 2008.

It's 99% compatible with Ampex 456, which your TSR-8 would have been factory set for. Unless it's been changed since, SM911 should Just Work(tm). (That was its major selling point back in the day)
 
Thanks JPMorris.

One more question...I see that RMGI 468 is a +3 tape. So to loop back once more to the original thought I was putting forth (using +3 tape instead of the preferred +6 tape), has anybody used 468 tape with a TSR-8, and if so, what sort of results did they get (and did they need to adjust the machine for it...I know, I know that Tascam's recommendation for the TSR-8 was to run 456...it's just that the post I referenced earlier in this thread really has me thinking about possibilities)?

(Once again, I apologize if these are dumb questions...I'm picking up my TSR-8 today and I'm really eager to jump in and get started with it as soon as possible)
 
I believe it's +6 as well, actually. Many people interchange 456 and 468 - the bias is not quite compatible and it's supposed to sound brighter like this, an effect which some people like. It probably wouldn't make much difference on a DBX system.

I'd try it myself but virtually no-one seems to sell it in this country.
 
468 is indeed a +6 tape, and the standard practice is to calibrate the machine such that 0VU equates to +3 (250nWb/m) when using a +6 tape so that you have 3dB's of buffer on your VU meters before actually hitting the +6 tape's MOL (Maximum Operating Level). That's not uncommon for there to be a mixup with the tape's MOL rating and the standard machine cal spec the relates to that type of tape. And +1 to the comments above about how analog VU meters typically register. Most are averaging meters so what you see is a relatively slow response broad-spectrum avarage of the signal, which is why many meters have the peak LED in there too because that's a fast response peaking indicator. Anyway, point is, just because you are managing levels to be around 0VU doesn't mean your peaks might not be at +12 or something. Tape deals with those peaks in a much nicer way than other mediums which is one reason so many of us like tape, but we also have to think about the amp electronics too. They can clip.
 
troutmask said:
Alan,

Can you tell me more about the specs on EMTEC 911 tape? Also, would my TSR-8 have to be recalibrated in order to use it?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, have been flat out in the studio this weekend. As others have said, the 911 and the 456 are almost identical calibration. I used to get reels of 456 turn up that clients had bought, the results were still very good even though my machine was calibrated to 911.

Alan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top