Tapes to Buy While Prices Are High

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ofajen said:
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
Click to expand...

Good info... Interesting stuff I didn't know before.

As I understand it Scholz did upgrade to the M-79… had two of them I believe, and later used 3M 226 tape. I guess he has a bunch of nice empty precision reels too. ;) “Third Stage” was done with the M-79. I’m not sure how long before that he had them.

The stuff in the early 70’s with Tom and Brad Delp that ended up on the first album was all done with the scully 1” 8-track that Tom converted to 12-track.

Here’s an interesting read if you have some time to kill:

http://www.gonnahitcharide.com/walkon/content/view/21/59/1/0/

:)
 
Ok, now I'm starting to crave some Scotch 206 / 207, after all this talk! :eek:
 
Tim,
What's the different between PEM468 and SM468? :confused: (both by BASF)
 
_DK said:
Tim,
What's the different between PEM468 and SM468? :confused: (both by BASF)
Click to expand...

PEM 468 is the earliest BASF branded 468, which are actually AGFA “leftovers.” PEM is the AGFA designation. Once BASF got up to speed they changed the name to SM468. BASF branded PEM would be 16 to 17 years old.

Some of the AGFA PEM 468 has been known to leave more oxide dust on the tape path than is desirable, but has no binder breakdown per se. Yet some people have reported older PEM 468 having sticky-shed.

In 1990 BASF acquired AGFA’s magnetic tape division, so there would be no AGFA branded 468 made into 1991. However, tape that had already been made was put into boxes identical to the AGFA boxes, but with a BASF logo. Not too long after that BASF changed the box design and model number to SM468 and tweaked the tape formulation for better shedding properties. Tape makers were constantly improving tape to hold together better and shed less oxide. So the early BASF 468 (which was actually made by AGFA during the transition) can have the same dusty properties, and has a greater chance of having sticky-shed, if indeed any 468 ever had sticky-shed. BASF and EMTEC SM468 are the same newer formula.

A tricky thing about determining sticky-shed is that one can't be sure if the person reporting it knows sticky-shed from heavier than normal shed.

469 is a different animal and is one of the worst for true sticky-shed. It was AGFA’s attempt at making a 456/226 counterpart and they pretty much nailed it, right down to the sticky-shed problem.

I suppose it’s possible that AGFA experimented by making some later batches of PEM 468 with the new binder they used with 469, but I dunno. As for my own experience and the experience of others I know, the PEM 468 just sheds oxide dust at a greater rate than SM468. This translates into more cleaning, and more dropouts and tape path wear if you don’t keep up with the maintenance.

:)
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
469 is a different animal and is one of the worst for true sticky-shed. It was AGFA’s attempt at making a 456/226 counterpart and they pretty much nailed it, right down to the sticky-shed problem.
Click to expand...

LOL! Good stuff, Tim!

Cheers,

Otto
 
"SORRY, UNITED STATES BIDDERS ONLY." ......."Sorry, NO PayPal."

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
 
cjacek said:
"SORRY, UNITED STATES BIDDERS ONLY." ......."Sorry, NO PayPal."

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just don't get that one... we're like brothers and we get dinged by our respective postal authorities for wanting to trade with each other.

The only hope I see is if US/Canadian libraries get together and demand reform. Seriously there is some clout in that group. Especially if universities get involved. There should be some kind of media rate between the two countries like we have here in The States.

I should be able to send something to British Columbia as easily as I can to Seattle WA, which are roughly the same distance from me.

Oh well. :(
 
Yeah, Tim and it's not like I'm in Cuba! :eek: :D ;)
 

Attachments

  • biografia-fidel-castro.webp
    biografia-fidel-castro.webp
    4.6 KB · Views: 300
Just wondering if the 3M/Scotch 966 is compatible with my Fostex E-16 recorder, as the service guy mentioned that it's best not to use Quantegy / Ampex 449 if possible although it works but in the long term causes problems with wear & tension? As Quantegy aren't made any more I'd like to try some other brands.

The compatibility post at the start of thread lists 3M/Scotch 966 as replacement for both 456 & 499 so I'm not to sure about using that tape?

Any advice would be welcome!
 
trancedental said:
Just wondering if the 3M/Scotch 966 is compatible with my Fostex E-16 recorder, as the service guy mentioned that it's best not to use Quantegy / Ampex 449 if possible although it works but in the long term causes problems with wear & tension? As Quantegy aren't made any more I'd like to try some other brands.

The compatibility post at the start of thread lists 3M/Scotch 966 as replacement for both 456 & 499 so I'm not to sure about using that tape?

Any advice would be welcome!
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on Fostex machines, but if 456 is OK, then 966 (and 986 which is the same tape) should be also. 996, OTOH, may cause the same issues to arise that Quantegy GP-9 and 499 cause because of greater thickness. 966 was 3M's later equivalent to 456, not 499.

As a general rule, small diameter capstan machines (1/4" and 1/2" and so on) don't tolerate tape thicknesses other than what they are designed for, while larger diameter capstan machines like my 3M machines don't really have any long term issues with the thicker tape, but I do need to readjust the the pinch rollers for proper tension (takes a minute or so, since I'm used to the machine).

FWIW, I've used 986 and 996 and they are both excellent tapes. I used them both at no higher than 355 nWb/m reference level (+6), since my machines really can't do 500 nWb (+9) without some electronics mods that I'd prefer not to bother with. With 996, that allocates the extra signal level to increased headroom (or reduced distortion if you prefer), rather than increased S/N ratio. Sometimes I do the same with 986, Quantegy 456 and Emtec 911 and 468, calibrating at 250 nWb (+3) and leaving more headroom.

Cheers,

Otto
 
trancedental said:
The compatibility post at the start of thread lists 3M/Scotch 966 as replacement for both 456 & 499 so I'm not to sure about using that tape?
Click to expand...

Read carefully...

966 (Nine Six Six) is listed with the 456 class.
996 (Nine Nine Six) is listed with the 499 class.

3M's model designations make it a little confusing -- easy to misread. 3M renamed 966 to 986, probably to help eliminate the eyestrain. The formula that 966/986 replaced was 226. Something like 266 or 286 would have made more sense, IMO.

:)
 
OK Thanks for that Beck! I'm probably 'gonna need glasses soon!
 
I've got an email in which 100 reels of 2" 3M 996 tapes are offered to me, it says only one pass tape.

How's this tape in relation to sticky tape shed? I understand it's an equivalent to 499 and Emtec 900 right?

He's asking only €10 per reel which is very reasonable, actually it's a give away, new tape costs at least twenty times as much.
 
Han said:
I've got an email in which 100 reels of 2" 3M 996 tapes are offered to me, it says only one pass tape.

How's this tape in relation to sticky tape shed? I understand it's an equivalent to 499 and Emtec 900 right?

He's asking only €10 per reel which is very reasonable, actually it's a give away, new tape costs at least twenty times as much.
Click to expand...

Han, 996 is not a tape which is generally regarded as having sticky shed but some claim to have experienced it, from what I've read. Others claimed a lot of shedding (not sticky shed though). Yet others claim it as their favorite tape with absolutely no problems. It's a bit of a gamble, IMO.

996 is a +9 tape, bias equivalent to 499, GP9 and 900. In any case, make sure there is no splices in that tape and that it's in generally good cosmetic condition, including the reels, which should be straight. Is that 10 in EURO? That's like 20 dollars, which is cheap, IF the tape is in good condition. Still, I'd be hesitant, just because I don't like to take bigger risks than neccessary and 996 is just that, a bit of a risk, especially that it was used and stored god knows where (and in what) and for how long. It's your call though.:)
 
So it's a bit of a risk, the tapes have been stored for some five years he says. But otoh 10 euro is $14.70, which is next to nothing for a reel of 2" tape these days.

Thanks for your reply!
 
Han said:
So it's a bit of a risk, the tapes have been stored for some five years he says. But otoh 10 euro is $14.70, which is next to nothing for a reel of 2" tape these days.

Thanks for your reply!
Click to expand...

There's always the good chance that a portion (maybe all) of the tapes are still good and for 10 euro each, you'd at least have nice take up reels, for which you'd have to spend about 5 times that. I'd still check 'em out and see. Perhaps it's worth the investment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top