RMGI EMTEC SM468 review

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjacek
  • Start date Start date
I've scanned the articles in large, high quality format. When you access the images, click on 'em to make them larger (if applicable). :)
 
Last edited:
Update: I re-scanned the originals in a larger, higher quality format. View or download again if you don't have the newer versions. ;)
 
cjacek said:
For those of you who have not seen the review, I have scanned and uploaded the article, from the February 2007 issue of RECORDING magazine, for your reading pleasure. Enjoy! :D ;)

http://members.shaw.ca/ftp_pro/01.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/ftp_pro/02.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/ftp_pro/03.jpg

:D :D :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Thanks! Scott continues to be a helpful guy! I'm using mainly 468 on my 1/2" M-79, so this review is great news.

Scott has another recent article I wouldn't mind seeing. He sold me a pair of modded SM-81s a few months ago. I mainly use the bodies with my SM-80 omni capsules, but the cardioid capsules sound great, too, without that slotted disc to extend the high end frequency plot (and mess up the transient response!) FYI, if you have the previous month's Recording mag (the one that came out about the first of the year, which should be January) , I think it has his article in there about this SM-81 mod.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Thanks Daniel! Nice article. :)

I've had some RMGI SM468 and SM911 for a few months now and I concur... the 468 is identical in performance to my AGFA, BASF and EMTEC, and the 911 is identical to my BASF and EMTEC. They even smell the same. The smell test was my first clue it was the real McCoy. I even had a cracker in between. ;)

The slitting and winding properties have always been a big plus for these formulations. I get a smooth wind even at fast winding speed.

The only thing I miss is the printing on the back of the 468. That was one tape you always knew what you had... no one could do a switcheroo. I got some early samples from RMGI-USA. I was hoping they would get around to printing the 468 on the back when they started selling it. Unless Scott also had a sample without the printing... don't know.

One thing Scott has turned around in the article is the bias level. 468 requires a bit more than 911. Could be a typo.

But in practice a lot of people used 468 on machines biased for 456. That will give it more high end, and is perhaps partly why 468 has a reputation for maintaining highs better than 456. Bias settings aren’t set in stone though... everyone has something they swear by.
 
Last edited:
I thought 911 was supposed to be the equivalent to 456? In that artical he says he wouldn't use it on Tascam 38. My MRL tape is on 911 tape.
 
Yeah, he's got the SM911 characterized completely wrong. It is the 456 counterpart and is more of a drop-in replacement than 468.

As you can see, keeping these numbers straight can be difficult.

SM900 = Quantegy 499
SM911 = Quantegy 456
SM468 = Quantegy 478, but is really in a league of its own. The reason 468 is compared to 478 is because it’s low-print and popular for Nagra. However, it has always been used where 456 would be used ever since I can remember… back when it was made by AGFA.

If you’re using 456 and want to switch either 911 or 468 are great choices, but 911 is technically the “Bias compatible” model.

Back in the day the interchangeable bias compatible +6 models were as follows:

AMPEX 456
3M/Scotch 226
AGFA PEM 469 (no longer made by anyone) Some people get this confused with 468.
BASF SM911
Zonal 700

It is very refreshing though to see an analog tape written up in a recording mag in 2007. But having read these mags since the late 70's I don't know that I've ever seen an article that had everything right.

:)
 
Yeah, I also thought the part about SM468 bias and SM911 (pertaining to the TASCAM 38) was a bit of a head scratcher. Possibly a typo and / or confusion. The RMGI SM468, Quantegy 456 and RMGI SM911 are so close in level and bias that something like a TASCAM 38 would have no problems with. I wonder what Scott thought when he passed on the 911 when referring to the 38 ? :confused:
 
Ok, I've been getting some heated comments about my posting the files so I may need to shut down the links. Bummer. :(
 
Ok, the files have been removed. I've been warned of possible copyright issues and the publisher getting pissed over the content. Sorry guys, I thought I was doing a positive thing ... Damn it! :mad: :(
 
Sorry to hear that.

Copyright is tricky, and it really depends on how big of jerks the people involved want to be. Some publications like SOS are much better at sharing this sort of material for free on their sites. Recording mag is not.

Also, who is doing the warning? If it's not the publisher or Dragon don't worry about it. When/if someone with legal standing directs you to remove the content, then you remove it. Otherwise it's not an issue.

You do have the right to tell us there is a review in the magazine and to quote segments of the article under fair use as long as you cite the reference.

For example you can say so-and-so said in such-and-such magazine that the new RMGI 468 is pretty much the same as the old BASF. Put it in quotes and give credit to the author and you're covered. Dorsey's opinion is now public record, and he has proclaimed himself an authority on the subject. Anyone has the right to quote him. :)
 
Last edited:
cjacek said:
Ok, the files have been removed. I've been warned of possible copyright issues and the publisher getting pissed over the content. Sorry guys, I thought I was doing a positive thing ... Damn it! :mad: :(
Click to expand...


Oops, I never would have expected that myself.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty pissed about that. No it wasn't Dragon, anyone on this site or the publisher. I posted the article on another usenet discussion group, as a way to share. It was there that I found out about the review and wanted to do a postitive thing.

I wasn't profiteering or stealing anything. I gave credit to the author and the source. If they don't want my praise about that magazine, the author or what have you, then screw that.

I certainly see a problem with scanning whole issues and distributing that for free or taking money but this was so insignificant, that it's not even funny.

Most of those mags, like 99% are about DAWs and am I to believe that the publisher lost sales as the result of my scanning and sharing ?

Everyone either infringes upon something, insults someone, is politically incorrect or wants to sue for whatever reason. F*ck that!

I will do one of two things .... I will either ask the author / publisher for permission or will just repost the material (so the links work again) and wait until I get word from someone in legal standing, as Tim points out, to take the material down.
 
Beck said:
Here's the essence of the review according to Dorsey. Really all we need to know... and it's public domain. :D

"Basic summary: you can splice a short length of the RMGI 468 into a
reel of BASF 468 and get away with it. That's impressive."
-Scott Dorsey
rec.audio.pro Jan 24, 2007

http://groups.google.co.zw/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/c0777055dc99c0a7
Click to expand...

Yup, and I replied to that, thinking I'd be a good thing to do, with scans and sharing of the material, which I thought was pretty groundbraking. The basic summary is cool but I thought the article was very interesting (save for a few hickups). ;)
 
Btw, thanks Tim for your own mini review of the SM468 and SM911. :) ;)
 
And here are my own pics of my various 1/2" SM911... Pre-EMTEC BASF, BASF by EMTEC and RMGI. They all look, smell, feel and sound the same. And I won't sue anyone if they want to snatch the photos for their own use. :D
 

Attachments

  • sm911.webp
    sm911.webp
    32.8 KB · Views: 217
I was working on a review to post at tascamforums.com when I was moderating there... but they became assholes (or always were assholes and I didn't know it). Anyway I put both 468 and 911 to the test several months ago, before Dorsey's review, but didn't have anywhere to post it. I didn't want it to get lost here so I've been slowly working on a website... basically a tape buying guide with reviews and other info.

Now I have to rewrite a lot of it because of the latest Quantegy fiasco. I’ve also been waiting for ATR Magnetics to either fish or cut bait. I can’t get any info or samples out of them so far.

It will eventually get done, but between the mistreatment from the small minds at tascamforums and the foot dragging of ATR, it’s been on the back burner.

I will say so far I think very highly of RMGI-USA. Don Morris sent me free samples to review, and has been available and very helpful. That experience combined with the quality of the product is very encouraging. :)
 
Beck said:
I've been slowly working on a website... basically a tape buying guide with reviews and other info.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is a GREAT idea!! I look forward to it! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top