Tapes to Buy While Prices Are High

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beck

Guest
Well, hopefully most people around here know what tape to avoid by now, so here’s what to look for if you can’t afford the going rate of RMGI, or are in a wait-n-see over their shedding issues. Buy only sealed New-Old-Stock (NOS) and backcoated for serious multi-tracking or mastering.

Also… forget descriptions and comparisons by many eBay sellers… they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I won’t mention any names, but tapeandtape are his initials. Information on eBay concerning tape properties is very unreliable.

The following are +6 and generally bias and level compatible with 456:

AMPEX/Quantegy 456 and 457 made from 1995 to 2004. (1994 or older is likely sticky or will become so. 2005 and later is more likely to have really bad slitting). 457 is 1 mil long play.

AGFA PEM 468 (The original 468)
BASF, EMTEC or RMGI SM468 (Same formula as AGFA… good stuff)
BASF, EMTEC or RMGI SM911
BASF, EMTEC or RMGI LPR35 (1 mil thickness like 457)

3M/Scotch 966 and 967 (renamed 986 and 987 respectively) made to replace 226 and 227, which had sticky-shed problems. (967 is 1 mil thickness like 457.)

Zonal 700 (Currently only make ¼” width, but used to make others so you may find NOS).

**********************************************************

The following are +3 and generally compatible with 406. These work just as well as +6 tapes in many applications, especially with noise reduction. 406 is/was preferred by many for mastering.

AMPEX/Quantegy 406 and 407 made from 1995 to 2004. (1994 or older is likely sticky or will become so. 2005 and later is more likely to have really bad slitting). 407 is 1 mil long play.

3M/Scotch 206 and 207. Most of this is ok, but there have been bad batches that shed, so it goes in the good risk category. I’ve never had a problem with it. IMO a great mastering tape at 15 ips.

Maxell XL or XLI 35-xxB (35-90B is 7” reel. 35-180B is 10” reel) 1 mil like 407.

Zonal 840 (1 mil like 407).

**********************************************************

The following are +9 and generally bias and level compatible with 499. These aren’t recommended for semi-pro multi-tracks because of wear and tear on the transport and heads. Many machines can’t even bias up for it, even some pro decks. And if you have noise reduction there is really no reason to use it.

AMPEX/Quantegy 499. Any year up to 2004. 499 never had sticky-shed.
Quantegy GP9 made from 1998 to 2004

3M/Scotch 996. The original +9 high output tape

BASF, EMTEC or RMGI SM900

Zonal 999

**********************************************************

Some non-backcoated tapes of note. Generally backcoated tapes are better for tracking and mastering… smoother tape handling and less print-through, but the following are good tapes nonetheless.

AMPEX/Quantegy 632

3M/Scotch Dynarange 212
3M/Scotch Highlander 229

Maxell UD 35-90

TDK AUDUA

**********************************************************

A reminder of what NOT to buy:

AGFA PEM 469 (which is nothing at all like 468, despite what a certain eBay seller claims, whose initials we all know). Buy this only if you have a death wish.

AMPEX 456, 457, 406, 407 made 1994 or before.

3M/Scotch 226 and 227 (Historically not as bad as old AMPEX, but is known to develop sticky-shed and all of mine have now gone sticky)

Sony SLH – all bad

Data logging and instrumentation tape like AMPEX/Quantegy 799, 797 or 3M/Scotch 8207.

Digital tape like Quantegy 467

There are plenty of desperate sellers looking for equally desperate and uninformed buyers. They will sell you tape unsuitable for music recording if you are willing to buy it.

So there you have it… some helpful tape secrets that I bet the Department of Homeland Security thought they would have to inject truth serum to get. :)
 
Very helpful summary Tim. Wish I'd known this stuff years ago. Would have saved a lot of problems.

Tim G
 
i purchased 2 cases of this emtec lpr 35. i have used it for several projects with no problems on my msr-16. i was a little worried about it being only one mil thick, but i tried a reel before i bought. i have had no problems and being 3600' just means you get more time! check it out...

http://tapeworkstexas.com/basf_audio.html

i am in no was affiliated with these guys just thought i might pass it on with the price of tape these days.
 
Can you tell me more about Sony and other Japanese tapes?

Beck said:
**********************************************************

A reminder of what NOT to buy:


3M/Scotch 226 and 227 (Historically not as bad as old AMPEX, but is known to develop sticky-shed and all of mine have now gone sticky)

Sony SLH – all bad
Click to expand...

Thanks, Beck, for another of your in-depth posts. I'm in Japan and on Yahoo Auctions (no E-pray/E-prey here) and come across a fair number of tapes by Scotch and Sony which are hard to find information on. If you know any of these, could you tell me what you think of them?

As far as NOS goes, there's precious little. It tends to be Sony SLH (is it bad because of shedding/stickiness?) and Sony ULH. Some other Sony:

ＳＯＮＹ　Ｐｒｏｆｅｓｓｉｏｎａｌ　ＰＬＮ－[length]Ｂ
SONY ＰＲＡ (looks to be low grade stuff)

As for Scotch:
ＳＣＯＴＣＨ　ＪＭＴ－３１００
Scotch 1500

And for fun:
TDK 555

FWIW, I'm just now starting experimenting now with tape, with the idea of recording vocal/acoustic tracks and dumping them into my computer. My best RTR option is a Pioneer 1050 two track stereo recorder (15 ips).

Thanks again for all the excellent posts.

Expatguy
 
Sony ULH is bad too. Has sticky shed like SLH. So avoid tapes like ULH 550BL and SLH 550BL.

There are so many Scotch models there might as well me a million to try to sort through. Anything with Dynarange in the title is a good bet… there are several different model numbers within the Dynarange series.

I would think there should be a lot of Maxell in Japan. UD 35-90 and XL/XLI 35-90B are always good choices.

One I forgot to mention… the most recent Radio Shack “Studio Quality Recording Tape” #44-1844. Believe or not, it’s not bad for a nonbackcoated tape. IMO it’s a bit better than AMPEX 631/641. But forget Realistic CONCERTape… maybe the worst tape on the planet.

If you see EMTEC SM468, even one pass, it’s really good stuff. Of course when you can buy new that’s the best option, but it sounds like your choices are limited.

Stay with 1-mil or 1.5-mil thickness. Anything thinner is a poor choice because of stretching and print through. So something like realistic 2400 on a 7-inch reel is only 0.5-mil thick… very bad.

TDK 555 I don’t know it. Look for AUDUA L-1800 or L-3600, depending on what size reel you’re looking for.

:)
 
Beck said:
3M/Scotch 206 and 207. Most of this is ok, but there have been bad batches that shed, so it goes in the good risk category. I’ve never had a problem with it. IMO a great mastering tape at 15 ips.
Click to expand...

This means I should give some of this a try! A buddy sent me about a dozen reels of 1/2" 206 and 207 back when I picked up the 1/2" machine, but I don't think bothered to try them out. Around that time, I also picked up a few reels of 226 for a few bucks each, figuring they would probably be sticky, and they are. Still a fine deal on a bunch of precision reels and nice boxes! Somehow, I mistakenly got the impression that since 226 went sticky, as did Ampex 406/407/456/457 that Scotch 206 and 207 all went sticky, too. Maybe I'll be lucky and these reels will be OK. Thanks for the info!

Cheers,

Otto
 
_DK said:
I'm still curious about AGFA PEM 468. A lot of people had bad experience with it. Like here: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/arsclist/2006/03/msg00279.html
Click to expand...

I'm curious, too. I can only vouch for BASF/EMTEC 468. That's mainly what I use on the M-79 1/2" 4-track. It's a superb tape, especially for my (not necessarily "loud") type of recording, where the consistent noise floor is appreciated. I will also definitely try out the 206 and 207 reels, now that I know there is some hope they will not be sticky.

Cheers,

Otto
 

Attachments

  • tape shed.webp
    tape shed.webp
    24.3 KB · Views: 592
ofajen said:
What about Scotch 250? I seem to remember that it has sticky problems, too.
Click to expand...

Don't know about that but the above list may not be complete? :confused:
 
ofajen said:
What about Scotch 250? I seem to remember that it has sticky problems, too.

Cheers,

Otto
Click to expand...

Yep, sticky shed info is in bits and pieces all over the web. ;)

The link from Daniel is a good one.

However, I have not yet seen a complete list all in one place. And even though I've tried to remedy that by gathering all the info on this forum I'm sure there are some I don't even know about.

Anyway, 250 is usually sticky and is a frequent guest star in my "List of Bad Tapes on eBay" thread.

It’s too bad because so many of these tapes were the bee’s knees when they came out. It pains me to see these beautiful new-old-stock specimens still sealed in pristine boxes because I know there’s a mad genie of sticky shed inside just waiting to come out.

Any word on the 3M 206 yet?

~Tim
:)
 
Beck said:
Any word on the 3M 206 yet?
Click to expand...

Well, I threw one reel of 206 on and it seems to handle just fine. No evidence of sticky shed. No problems with play or winding or sluggishness of the transport handling. There is a modest amount of oxide shedding, but with an old, free tape, I don't feel I should complain. Thanks for the heads up! I figured these were just some more spare precision reels in the making. Now I have some more decent tape stock! :) Of course, the four remaining reels of 226 will just be emptied into the trash and used for nice spare reels.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Good to hear about the 206.

That is one good thing about the old 3M reels... and a few savvy eBay sellers have caught on, dumping the tape and selling the precision reels. I have a few of those nice reels myself left over from 226 that I had to dump a few years ago.

206 is what Scholz used on the original Boston basement tapes with his Scully for the first album. So, my pick for the best rock ‘n roll song in history, “More Than a Feeling” began on Scotch 206. Can’t be all bad, eh?

~Tim
:)
 
Beck said:
206 is what Scholz used on the original Boston basement tapes with his Scully for the first album. So, my pick for the best rock ‘n roll song in history, “More Than a Feeling” began on Scotch 206. Can’t be all bad, eh?

~Tim
:)
Click to expand...

Wow... a Scully! Here and I thought Tom was just an M-79 guy!

I may have mentioned this already, but when Scotch introduced the 206/207 tapes in about 1962, IIRC, they kinda shot their 3M recorder division in the foot. 3M had come out with their recorders in about 1959 and they had by far the best performing tranports at the time and Dynatrack, an early form of noise reduction that worked astoundingly well, increased S/N by about 15 dB, but required two tape tracks per audio channel.

Well, when the 206 and 207 tapes came out, the studios decided it was far cheaper and easier to upgrade by buying new tapes than whole new machines that required doubling the tape width! So, 3M had to start selling standard NAB eq machines for use with the new tapes, and Dynatrack never caught on. Of course, they had to introduce the new 200 series tape or stand to lose sales to someone else who would create the state of the art tape.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top