RMGI EMTEC SM468 review

[cjacek]

I asked Dorsey about the SM911 bias, compatability thing and here's what he replied with:

>Scott, you say in the article that you would not recommend SM911 on a
>TASCAM 38 but that the SM468 would be fine. Why ? Both of these tapes
>are the same operating level and bias is close, like 1db difference.

MOL on 911 is actually higher, so you can use it at higher operating
levels. The bias required is MUCH higher. Yes, the "overbias" number
is similar, but that is not a measure of bias, that is a measure of how
much over the 10KC peak you need to go to set the bias properly. You
will find if you set the bias that the peak on 911 is higher than on 468.

>Isn't SM911 a drop in replacement for the Quantegy 456 ?

For some value of "drop in." BASF used to claim it was "bias compatible"
with 456... but no two batches of 456 were even bias compatible with one
another. It's more or less in the ballpark as far as bias and operating
level goes, though.

>The TEAC
>80-8, TASCAM 30, 40 and 50 series and some others were setup for the
>456. It then figures that the SM911 would work too and so would the
>SM468.

Some of those machines have a very narrow range of adjustment, and on
machines that way, 911 might be a better bet. You'll know this is
the case if you try and set the bias with another tape and can't find
the peak.
--scott
--​

 

[cjacek]

Not to say that Scott is wrong and that the spec sheets lie but I get a feel, from his reply, that he's really splitting hairs more than anything. Am I off to think that ? I mean, yes, based on the spec sheets for the tapes, the MOL difference is there, between SM468 and SM911 but it's not that dramatic. It's small, maybe a couple of db, give or take one, at best. The bias issue is also suspect. I really don't believe Quantegy 456 and SM911 differ much on bias either. I personally feel Dorsey misinformed, in his article, about this and now he's trying to validate what he said but it all comes out, at least in my opinion, to splitting hairs and yet most who read his review will come out thinking that something like the typical TASCAM recorder cannot be setup for the SM911, which, again in my view, is erroneous. Again, am I off to think that ?

 

[Beck]

I'm afraid Dorsey is simply in error. My experience has always been that 468 needs more bias on the same machine than 456 or 911. In the real world you don't have to nail it right on, but if you wanted to, 468 will need a bit more bias.

But it's easy enough to answer regardless of individual experience.

Tape with higher coercivity needs higher bias level.

SM468
coercivity 380 Oe

SM911
coercivity 320 Oe (same as Quantegy 456)

See the attached pdf… it also clearly shows that RMGI, like BASF before them bills SM911 as their answer to AMPEX 456. It was formulated by BASF for that very reason.

It's a shame that the only review of tape I've seen in a recording mag in years has such critical errors.

The bottom line is if you are using 456 the drop-in replacement is SM911, and if using 457 the drop-in is LPR 35. SM468 is also a great tape, but Dorsey's facts are just plain wrong, and I'm afraid will only confuse an already confused home recording community when it comes to choosing tape.

SM468 is just fine. My only fear is his review will hurt sales of SM911 among newer analog users. And how ironic it is too, as SM911 is arguably the best bias compatible tape ever made.

 

[cjacek]

Oh yeah, I'm with you on that. No doubt. Dorsey simply misinformed on a couple of points, which turn out to be pretty important things to get wrong, especially for someone of his experience.

 

[cjacek]

Right and product spec sheets, for both SM911 and Quantegy 456, bear out the fact that the two can be interchanged. Both share similar magnetic and physical characteristics like coercivity, retentivity and MOL (Maximum Operating Level).

 

[cjacek]

Actually, in retrospect, it's good I took down the damn files. I was so gung ho about the SM468 review that I didn't catch the errors, especially the TASCAM 38 and SM911 reference. Who would have thought someone like Dorsey would get it wrong. I wonder if he even worked with a 38 before, much less with any of the TASCAM units. Blah!

 

[cjacek]

My only fear is his review will hurt sales of SM911 among newer analog users.

I've thought about it some and I don't think this will be a problem. IMHO, most newer analog users will be much quicker to find info online, on forums such as this one than shell out the bucks on some magazine, especially one which caters mostly to the digital crowd. Plus, an unintended result of this thread seems to be CORRECTING what should have been made right in the first place. Shame on Scott Dorsey for screwing it up like that and royally I might add. I really do feel good came of it, though, cause it made people aware of the review and quickly were the errors cought (thanks Tim) and made known. Misinformation is brutal, especially in this instance, from a seemingly legitimate source.

 

[cjacek]

Guys,

I wanted to share a post with you, one written by Tim (Beck), a response to a recent thread on rec.audio.pro

It's too well written and informative to pass up. Here it is:

Firstly, I think cutting Daniel a little slack is in order here. He
began by giving a thumbs up to Scott for reviewing one of the new RMGI
tapes, and it went down hill from there. IMO, the lack of civility on
web forums is more troubling to me personally than someone not fully
understanding copyright. Such is the nature of text forums I
suppose.

I also share Daniels enthusiasm, considering I haven't seen a reel-to-
reel tape review in a popular recording mag since Quantegy GP9 came
out in 1998.

Secondly, there are a few problems with Scott's information about the
tapes in question. BASF did in fact formulate SM911 as their bias
compatible alternative to AMPEX 456. I've used it for half-track
mastering and multi-tracking since pre EMTEC days.

At one time the following AMPEX 456 bias compatible offerings were
available, and were considered 456 equivalents.

3M/Scotch 226
AGFA PEM 469
BASF SM911
Zonal 700

468 was originally an AGFA product (PEM 468). RMGI lists 468 as
equivalent to Quantegy 478 low-print... and it is... sort of. But it's
also been used in place of 456 ever since I can remember, so it's
really in a league of it's own... truly a multi-purpose tape if there
ever was one. The popularity of 468 is the reason PEM 469 didn't
really catch on when it was introduced as a bias compatible. 468
already had the good rep.

The central message of Scott's review is accurate... RMGI 468 is
basically the same stuff as BASF/EMTEC 468, minus the nifty numbers
once printed on the backcoating. Since Don Morris of RMGI North
America was kind enough to send me samples of both SM468 and SM911
several months ago, I can attest to that. However, Scott's comments
about SM911 may constitute a bum steer for the uninitiated.

If you've been using Quantegy 456 and want to switch to the bias
compatible from RMGI... that would be SM911. I suppose we could debate
bias levels, as everyone has their religion in that regard. However
if using the standard down-from-peak method, I've never seen a machine
in which SM911 required a higher bias level than SM468. It's quite
the opposite. Qunategy 456 and SM911 are within a hair of each other
- both bias and level compatible.

Now if biasing by ear for lowest noise/distortion or using some other
guerilla method, results may vary. Track width, tape speed and gap
width also make a difference of course. The higher the speed the
closer the bias levels become between various tapes to the point where
it can be too close to call at 30 ips.

However, the data shows SM468 as having a higher coercivity of 380
Oe. Compared to SM911's 320 Oe. Higher coercivity tape requires a
higher bias level. Quantegy 456 also has a coericivity of 320 Oe, and
is most similar in every way to SM911.

Perhaps Scott could clarify some things in a follow-up piece or in a
future review of SM911. Tape selection can be confusing. It would be
a shame if young/new analog users walked away with misconceptions
concerning their options after reading the review. It should be
understood that SM911 is a perfect tape for use on anything setup for
Quantegy 456, from a TASCAM 32, or Otari MX-5050, to a Studer 807.

SM900 is a different story. That's their +9 offering in the same
league with 499 and GP9.

Anyway, thanks to Scott for the review. He deserves credit for his
time and effort in this digital world... especially splicing the EMTEC
and RMGI tapes together for the ultimate test. That was a great idea.

~Beck​

 

[cjacek]

You can follow the discussion here:

http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/5e17ccd416164c0a/c0e54657e17bf4b9?hl=en#c0e54657e17bf4b9

 

[themaddog]

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.

Hey Beck,
Is this still in the works?

-MD

 

[Beck]

Hey Beck,
Is this still in the works?

-MD

Well MD, it is in my mind, but kids, the economy and relationships keep interfering with things I want to do. But yeah, I really want to put something that pulls all the bits and pieces into one place. I know it’s needed and things have a way of getting buried in forums, so I really do want something I can just post a link to.

I have it about half done, but keep getting interrupted.

 

[evm1024]

Well MD, it is in my mind, but kids, the economy and relationships keep interfering with things I want to do. But yeah, I really want to put something that pulls all the bits and pieces into one place. I know it’s needed and things have a way of getting buried in forums, so I really do want something I can just post a link to.

I have it about half done, but keep getting interrupted.

I have a few lot numbers for sticky 456 if you are interested....

--ethan

 

[themaddog]

That's cool Beck, and I totally understand.

I just didn't know if such any address to such a website was "lost to the forum."

Anyways, it would be rediculous for me, or anyone else on this forum, to ask, "When's it going to be done?" because of the incredible amount of information you've put here over the past few years.

Hope things improve,
-MD

 

[leddy]

Looking to try a reel of SM468

If anyone has a reel of SM468 - either 5" or 7" - I'd like to buy it to try it out. I can only find it by the case.

New or used - no matter. I just want to see how it sounds on my Nagra.

PM me.

 

[leddy]

Found some

If anyone has a reel of SM468 - either 5" or 7" - I'd like to buy it to try it out. I can only find it by the case.

New or used - no matter. I just want to see how it sounds on my Nagra.

PM me.

Found a source that sells single reels.

I'm loving this tape. Took me about 5 seconds to set the bias on my Nagra IVs for it. I can get the response at 7.5 IPS (I record slow to conserve tape for live recording) to be much closer to 15 IPS.

The shame is that it's 1200' on a roll instead of 1800' like LPR35. I give up recording time, but I can get virtually no audible difference in frequency response between the source and the tape at 7.5 IPS. That's cool.

 

[Lance Lawson]

Found a source that sells single reels.

I'm loving this tape. Took me about 5 seconds to set the bias on my Nagra IVs for it. I can get the response at 7.5 IPS (I record slow to conserve tape for live recording) to be much closer to 15 IPS.

The shame is that it's 1200' on a roll instead of 1800' like LPR35. I give up recording time, but I can get virtually no audible difference in frequency response between the source and the tape at 7.5 IPS. That's cool.

Unfortunately RMGI 468 proved to be highly problematical on my TEAC A-2300 SD. Lots of issues with edge shaving and dropouts. When the 468 was behaving it sounded great but Both batches I tried had the same issues on my deck.

 

[leddy]

Unfortunately RMGI 468 proved to be highly problematical on my TEAC A-2300 SD. Lots of issues with edge shaving and dropouts. When the 468 was behaving it sounded great but Both batches I tried had the same issues on my deck.

Good to know. I've used it on my Nagra and I tried it on my Tascam 22 (I know the tape thickness is not in spec for that machine but I wanted to hear it) and it ran fine so far.

Actually sounded damn good on the Tascam too.

 

[Lance Lawson]

Good to know. I've used it on my Nagra and I tried it on my Tascam 22 (I know the tape thickness is not in spec for that machine but I wanted to hear it) and it ran fine so far.

Actually sounded damn good on the Tascam too.

468 is in fact formulated and slit to service Nagra machines so in that respect it is the perfect tape for a Nagra. The tape thickness of 468 seems to be the thickest tape I've ever used on the TEAC and is certainly the widest I've used on it.

 

[sweetbeats]

Unfortunately RMGI 468 proved to be highly problematical on my TEAC A-2300 SD. Lots of issues with edge shaving and dropouts. When the 468 was behaving it sounded great but Both batches I tried had the same issues on my deck.

What kind of tape were you using previously?

 

[Lance Lawson]

What kind of tape were you using previously?

Sweetbeats: When my TEAC was new in 1979 I used Ampex, Maxell, BASF and Scotch. But it was Ampex by far and away the tape I used most. Virtually all of the Ampex I tossed in the late 90's from sticky shed as I didn't know about baking tape then. The last store purchase of tape I made was in the late 90's and it was Radio Shack/Maxell. The TEAC always played everything very well and will still play and record on the old tapes fine. Last year after overhauling the TEAC I ordered in 3 reels of RMGI 468. I discovered that I was getting lots of edge shaving and oxide deposits that made recording difficult.

Eventually I notified RMGI and I sent the the tape back and they replaced it with new tape. I will say they were great about it too. But the new later batch RMGI 468 had the same issues as the first batch and its largely because 468 is wider than anything else I ran my machine in on when new. After a lot of adjustments and tweeking on the transport I have the 468 running OK, but just OK. It will still choke on its own shavings sometimes although not like it was at first. But I think my tape future lies with ATR. My conversation with them recently confirmed that ATR is essentially Ampex and is made and slit as Ampex was slit. This is perfect for my TEAC. Its very important that my machine will record reliably every time since I will record live performances with it.