Tape for Tascam 22-2
- Thread starter themaddog
- Start date
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
All the Tascams from the 80's era were setup for...
456 (/457)...........
Is Maxell UD-35 a 456-compatible tape??
I don't recall if/where I've seen the 388 spec'd for UD-35, but all the docs I've seen specify 457. Thanx.
456 (/457)...........
Is Maxell UD-35 a 456-compatible tape??
I don't recall if/where I've seen the 388 spec'd for UD-35, but all the docs I've seen specify 457. Thanx.
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Ok, I'll go out on a limb, here,...
I think it's referring to 457, and it is a typo.
Eh?..........
I think it's referring to 457, and it is a typo.
Eh?..........
B
Beck
Guest
Nope -- not a typo... 356/357 is a discontinued series better known as GM-1800 (357) and GM-1200 (356) from the 70's and had an flying eagle on the box.. It was similar to the 406/407 series. 457 was already around when the manual was written -- Tascam just didn't recommend it.
All the tapes recommended in the 22-2 manual are 1 mil. Keep in mind the 22-2/22-4 are patterned after the X-series consumer decks. Though they have far outdone themselves performance wise they where originally marketed as a poor man's 32. 34, etc.
The whole idea was to give the small studio/home recordist a decent mixdown deck at low cost, using less expensive (at the time) Hi-Fi tape. They do an excellent job. Best tape out there right now is Ampex/Quantegy 407 -- the machine was practically built around that tape.
Other good choices that I've used are Maxell XL1 35-90b, 3M 207 and one standout 1.5 mil tape that gets along real well is AGFA (or BASF/EMTEC) 468. 468 is like John McCain in the Republican Party -- does its own thing, sounds different, feels different, no sticky shed, etc.
I've rambled extensively in past threads about matching tape with machine -- another lost art. I won't repeat it all here except to say that the 1.5-mil tapes like 456, 226, 911 aren't supple enough to conform to factory head contact specs of these "semi-pro" decks. So while the old standby is normally 456, with machines like the Fostex A-8, R-8, Tascam 22-2, 388 the thinner 407 wins the compatibility test.
457 would be fine too, but its +6 designation is more than the 22-2 can do anyway. It'll sound good, just different than 407 and more expensive. 457 and 456 also weigh a lot more as far as the transport is concerned. Believe it or not, more wear and tear and technically not within wow & flutter specs.
All the tapes recommended in the 22-2 manual are 1 mil. Keep in mind the 22-2/22-4 are patterned after the X-series consumer decks. Though they have far outdone themselves performance wise they where originally marketed as a poor man's 32. 34, etc.
The whole idea was to give the small studio/home recordist a decent mixdown deck at low cost, using less expensive (at the time) Hi-Fi tape. They do an excellent job. Best tape out there right now is Ampex/Quantegy 407 -- the machine was practically built around that tape.
Other good choices that I've used are Maxell XL1 35-90b, 3M 207 and one standout 1.5 mil tape that gets along real well is AGFA (or BASF/EMTEC) 468. 468 is like John McCain in the Republican Party -- does its own thing, sounds different, feels different, no sticky shed, etc.
I've rambled extensively in past threads about matching tape with machine -- another lost art. I won't repeat it all here except to say that the 1.5-mil tapes like 456, 226, 911 aren't supple enough to conform to factory head contact specs of these "semi-pro" decks. So while the old standby is normally 456, with machines like the Fostex A-8, R-8, Tascam 22-2, 388 the thinner 407 wins the compatibility test.
457 would be fine too, but its +6 designation is more than the 22-2 can do anyway. It'll sound good, just different than 407 and more expensive. 457 and 456 also weigh a lot more as far as the transport is concerned. Believe it or not, more wear and tear and technically not within wow & flutter specs.
Last edited:
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Good info.
Thanx................................
Thanx................................
Derrick111
Member
Whoa, Beck!! I was gonna order a case of Quantegy 456 for my Fostex A-8, but maybe I should reconsider!?!? The 456 will wear more on the machine and I suppose that tape saturation would be out of the question? Fostex A-8 recomends the Ampex 357 or the Scotch 457... what is the bias of these tapes??
Thanks.
Thanks.
B
Beck
Guest
All these tapes are bias compatible with 456. 407 and 457 are Ampex /Quantegy and 207 and 227 are the 3M/Scotch equivalents. BASF 468 and 3M 808 also do well on these machines. 
B
Beck
Guest
B
Beck
Guest
My Name said:A little off topic.. well kind of ...
I can see why a using a thicker tape than the recomended can be an issue, but can using thinner tape cause any problems??
See.. Not too of topic
Thinner tapes were sold for longer run times on consumer decks, but I wouldn't even use them for that. Print-through and stretching are problems with thinner tape. You can buy 0.5-mil tape (Quantegy 651), but there's no good reason to use it on something like the 22-2.
1-mil is the practical minimum for decent mastering. There are so many good choices too... Quantegy 407 & 457, Maxell UD 35-90 & XL 35-90B and BASF LPR-35 (soon to be reintroduced by RMGI). It’s a great time to be an analog aficionado.
Derrick111
Member
I have a Fostex A-8 and the manual recomends Ampex 357 or Scotch 457... would you recomend I use GM-1800, 407, or somenting else instead of Quantegy 457??Beck said:
True of the A-8 as well?Beck said:
Damn, I missed out on those ramblings... will the 407 give me the same high end and clarity as 456?Beck said:
So what designation is the old Ampex 357 or Scotch 457??Beck said:
I don't really know what that's telling me (sorry for lack of experiance). What bias level is this 357 tape, is it +6 like 457??Beck said:This is from the back of a box of Ampex GM-1800 (357), so you won't have to wonder "Does anyone really know?"
Derrick111
Member
Thanks for the manual, JP!!jpmorris said:Hi Derrick, I see the manual served you well
B
Beck
Guest
This should clear things up…
I posted the photo from the box of 357 because the question has come up now and again whether 357 is a typo or is an actual tape. The answer is… it’s a real Ampex tape model number that was discontinued before our time (my time, anyway).
457 is/was not made by Scotch; not to my knowledge. 226 and 227 were the 3M/Scotch counterparts to Ampex/Quantegy 456 and 457 respectively.
To make it easy just remember Quantegy 407 or 457 (and maybe RMGI LPR-35 when they start production.) When in doubt buy these and buy them new, sealed in the box.
It’s best to leave the nearly unnavigable minefield of old tape, strange tape, dates and packaging to the handful of analog Jedi members.
I posted the photo from the box of 357 because the question has come up now and again whether 357 is a typo or is an actual tape. The answer is… it’s a real Ampex tape model number that was discontinued before our time (my time, anyway).
457 is/was not made by Scotch; not to my knowledge. 226 and 227 were the 3M/Scotch counterparts to Ampex/Quantegy 456 and 457 respectively.
To make it easy just remember Quantegy 407 or 457 (and maybe RMGI LPR-35 when they start production.) When in doubt buy these and buy them new, sealed in the box.
It’s best to leave the nearly unnavigable minefield of old tape, strange tape, dates and packaging to the handful of analog Jedi members.
Derrick111
Member
Yes, but I'm trying to learn what I need to know to become the Jedi you see.Beck said:
So the answers to my questions below are very important to me o masterful one. Strange... my Fostex A-8 manual recomends "Ampex 357 or Scotch 457"... I wonder if that was a typo? Anyhow, good to know! Does 226 or 227 suffer from SSS or other problems?Beck said:
I'm trying to learn the details that produce such a suggestion.Beck said:
I also want to know:
1- why 407 is better for my A-8 then 457
2- are you saying that 407 is most like the old 357? If so, how is the 407 closer then say 457?
3- what the differences are between 407 and 357 and 457
4- will the 407 give me the same high end and clarity as 457?
5- I know that 457 is +6 but I'm still wondering what bias designation the old Ampex 357 and the current 407 is??
Thank you so much for your patience!
Derrick111
Member
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
B
Beck
Guest
Ampex 357 appears to be very close to Ampex 457, but not exactly. Coercivity is very close on 357, 407 and 457 (305, 330, and 320 Oe respectively.) 357 Retentivity is 100 points down from 457, but 100 points higher than 407. Frequency sensitivity @ 1 kHz and 10 kHz are a bit less for 357 than 457, but not much. I've always thought of 357 as on par with 407, but maybe it's technically in between 407 and 457 (making it completely unnecessary… probably why they don’t make it anymore).
I would characterize modern 457 as a new and improved 357, or just a better cut (closer to the center) in the manufacturing process.
The most important thing to know is that all these tapes are bias compatible as demonstrated by the coercivity figures above. Ampex/Quantegy 406, 407, 456 and 457 all require the same bias, as do BASF 911 and 3M 206, 207, 226 and 227… you get the idea. BASF 911 has a coercivity of 320 Oe, same as 456/457. BASF LPR-35 is 320 as well and fits into the same niche as 407/457 as a 1-mil tape for use on machines like the R8, 388 and 22-2.
But in the real world few care about this stuff -- all you need to know is that the tapes are “bias compatible” which is plain English for having a similar coercivity. 406/407 will have a smoother compression than 456/457, but the latter is brighter, though “glassy” if pushed too hard.
So if you have a typical machine set for 250 nW/m flux level, 456 will be bright and clean at 0 VU. On the other hand 406/407 at the same flux level will be closer to saturation and thus produce that pleasing distortion that everyone is after. But it has slightly less sparkle simply because the harder you push tape the lower the top end frequency response. It’s not much change though -- maybe 16 to 18 kHz as opposed to 20 kHz.
In answer to another question, yes I’ve had older (early 80’s) 3M/Scotch 226 fall apart all over my TSR-8 with sticky shed, but newer stuff (in the black box) was fine. 3M hasn’t made tape since about 1994/95, and everyone else is defunct except Quantegy and (God willing) RMGI bringing back the old BASF/EMTEC formulations.
Knowing this stuff is interesting in an academic sense, but if you’re really smart you’ll buy new Quantegy tape for your machine and forget about trying to bend Murphy’s Law in your favor when it comes to the canvas you put you precious work on.
There are really good tapes out there that fewer people are familiar with like BASF/EMTEC SM 468 and AGFA/BASF LM 526. 526 is bias compatible, but most people that still have it are jealously guarding this secret weapon. It’s something to look for though. It was designed for thousands of passes in mastering houses and is virtually indestructible. If you are going to put a tape in a time capsule, put it on 526, or 468 -- another of my favorites, which just happens to be bias compatible with GP9… imagine the possibilities there. All you would have to do is install a level switch and use two of the best tapes ever to come down the pike without having to re-bias. But I digress and now I'm rambling.
Hope that helps.
I would characterize modern 457 as a new and improved 357, or just a better cut (closer to the center) in the manufacturing process.
The most important thing to know is that all these tapes are bias compatible as demonstrated by the coercivity figures above. Ampex/Quantegy 406, 407, 456 and 457 all require the same bias, as do BASF 911 and 3M 206, 207, 226 and 227… you get the idea. BASF 911 has a coercivity of 320 Oe, same as 456/457. BASF LPR-35 is 320 as well and fits into the same niche as 407/457 as a 1-mil tape for use on machines like the R8, 388 and 22-2.
But in the real world few care about this stuff -- all you need to know is that the tapes are “bias compatible” which is plain English for having a similar coercivity. 406/407 will have a smoother compression than 456/457, but the latter is brighter, though “glassy” if pushed too hard.
So if you have a typical machine set for 250 nW/m flux level, 456 will be bright and clean at 0 VU. On the other hand 406/407 at the same flux level will be closer to saturation and thus produce that pleasing distortion that everyone is after. But it has slightly less sparkle simply because the harder you push tape the lower the top end frequency response. It’s not much change though -- maybe 16 to 18 kHz as opposed to 20 kHz.
In answer to another question, yes I’ve had older (early 80’s) 3M/Scotch 226 fall apart all over my TSR-8 with sticky shed, but newer stuff (in the black box) was fine. 3M hasn’t made tape since about 1994/95, and everyone else is defunct except Quantegy and (God willing) RMGI bringing back the old BASF/EMTEC formulations.
Knowing this stuff is interesting in an academic sense, but if you’re really smart you’ll buy new Quantegy tape for your machine and forget about trying to bend Murphy’s Law in your favor when it comes to the canvas you put you precious work on.
There are really good tapes out there that fewer people are familiar with like BASF/EMTEC SM 468 and AGFA/BASF LM 526. 526 is bias compatible, but most people that still have it are jealously guarding this secret weapon. It’s something to look for though. It was designed for thousands of passes in mastering houses and is virtually indestructible. If you are going to put a tape in a time capsule, put it on 526, or 468 -- another of my favorites, which just happens to be bias compatible with GP9… imagine the possibilities there. All you would have to do is install a level switch and use two of the best tapes ever to come down the pike without having to re-bias. But I digress and now I'm rambling.
Hope that helps.
Last edited: