The "damage" has been done, is probably irreversible.. THE WORD FROM MAXELL

[Blue Jinn]

In Maxell's case this all makes sense, if a lot of the production was outsourced, those companies out of business, and the whale oil problem. However, two things come to mind: I can't say this with any certainty, but I'm assuming there are other *proven* formulas that don't require whale oil and don't have SSS: e.g. Scotch 206?

Also, whatever "new" formula Quantegy switched to in 1995 they were still making tape in 2007, and while I can't speak to what the hell they are doing now (see Beck's theory above... .) here is something they had to say fairly recently:

Manufactured cost of a GP9 2 inch inch in 1997 was $87.00. In 2007 when we stopped it was $125.00 Quantegy Fact

That suggests they were *making* tape in 2007, and not just using up NOS barrels of whatever goo goes into making tape, I'd again guess that figure just isn't increased labor cost over that period of time, but increased cost of raw materials as well.

This isn't exactly new technology, putting oxide on plastic and magnetizing it has been around since what the 1930s? And there are plenty of tapes that haven't succumbed to sticky shed, and don't contain whale oil.

Certainly there are chemicals and such that were used in the 1960s 70s etc that can't be used or obtained today. But again, I'd assume that whatever goes into RMGI 911, isn't asbestos or whale oil....

 

[cjacek]

Again, I agree whale oil isn't necessary but tape formulations are hard to get right, if done from scratch, case in point the whole shedding AMPEX fiasco, certain SCOTCH / 3M and some others... I guess what I'm getting at is that we had rock solid tape formulations, as recently as QUANTEGY and EMTEC and other "proven" formulas but the question is, how do we know that we're getting the real deal now, in 2011? Are companies dipping in untested ingredients? Will we see another AMPEX situation down the line? IF QUANTEGY comes back, for example, are we assured of the same time tested formula / manufacturing or some cheap Chinese knockoff with the "Q" logo, that falls apart in the not too distant future? I can't answer that question but it makes for food for thought, especially in light of recent discussion and long time speculation.

 

[c7sus]

Time for you Luddites to move into the 21st Century.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/digital-recording-computers/

 

[cjacek]

Time for you Luddites to move into the 21st Century.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/digital-recording-computers/

Na, I'd rather deal with known demons.

 

[lo.fi.love]

Time for you Luddites to move into the 21st Century.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/digital-recording-computers/

I absolutely refuse to! I'm the most computer-averse 28 year old I know, and I'm a software engineer to boot!

 

[lo.fi.love]

Best to put a grin or wink smiley when making I joke, I found.

I just laugh really loud and hope the others hear it.

 

[Blue Jinn]

Time for you Luddites to move into the 21st Century.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/digital-recording-computers/

And that would be what? Computer based digital recording is so 1957....

Digital recording - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blue Jinn]

Again, I agree whale oil isn't necessary but tape formulations are hard to get right, if done from scratch, case in point the whole shedding AMPEX fiasco, certain SCOTCH / 3M and some others... I guess what I'm getting at is that we had rock solid tape formulations, as recently as QUANTEGY and EMTEC and other "proven" formulas but the question is, how do we know that we're getting the real deal now, in 2011? Are companies dipping in untested ingredients? Will we see another AMPEX situation down the line? IF QUANTEGY comes back, for example, are we assured of the same time tested formula / manufacturing or some cheap Chinese knockoff with the "Q" logo, that falls apart in the not too distant future? I can't answer that question but it makes for food for thought, especially in light of recent discussion and long time speculation.

That's a valid point, although I guess it would come from substituting compound y for compound x in the formula for tape type number number.

As to Quantegy, who knows, I suppose we can take them at their word that

We do not and will not release anything that is not up to the standards of Quantegy tape.

But I'd think it would be better business practice to just increase the cost of a new reel when the cost of compound x gets more expensive, sure you could market a changed product under the same name (I read somewhere that Tsingtao beer isn't quite the same as the original German....) but I'd think you'd risk more than you'd gain by an increase in price. Maybe I'm too naive....

 

[cjacek]

That's a valid point, although I guess it would come from substituting compound y for compound x in the formula for tape type number number.

I'm no expert but this substituting compound y for x always makes me nervous but, hey, I may be off base for even worrying.... but, read on....

As to Quantegy, who knows, I suppose we can take them at their word that:

We do not and will not release anything that is not up to the standards of Quantegy tape.

Looks to me that they're trying to source their raw materials and why is that? Are the original source(s), which supplied original QUANTEGY, out of business, unavailable or too expensive? That would maybe explain the awful long time that we've been waiting for something to happen, from Q's side. It also gives credence to what MAXELL has said that "there is no reputable company left on the planet that still makes the long lasting materials needed for long term integrity that Maxell and Quantegy tapes enjoy", again, if you believe the source of the statement.

But I'd think it would be better business practice to just increase the cost of a new reel when the cost of compound x gets more expensive, sure you could market a changed product under the same name but I'd think you'd risk more than you'd gain by an increase in price. Maybe I'm too naive....

Maybe I too am naive but you make a lot of sense and I agree with you.

***BTW, guys, we're having a conversation and in no way is anything that is said here necessarily fact or some indisputable proof of something or another. This is a public forum for, hopefully, civil exchange of ideas and opinions, nothing more, so take it with whatever weight you deem appropriate.***

 

[purerad]

hmmmmm.............time to go real retro? how bout the shellac based disk recorders? or some wax cylinders! I know we can get those materials! lol

 

[Beck]

One thing about magnetic tape in general is that it's a pretty simple concept, basically rust on ribbon. Of course tape companies put a lot of resources into research and improving the rust (oxide formulations) and they've tweaked products over the years so the later runs of tape aren't the same as the earlier. Take Ampex/Quantegy 456 for example. It's been changed many times since it's introduction and nothing to do to the binder instabilities. The raw materials for tape will always be there. When one source of materials runs out another can be found, but the intensive to do the research in today's digital world just isn't there. The type of engineers that were employed by tape companies in the past to find suitable replacements for for materials when a source runs out or gets too expensive aren't much in demand these days. It's not necessarily a bad thing if RMGI is a bit different than BASF as long as the company knows what its doing. Not sure that they do though. Tape formulations were once guarded as closely as the recipe for Coca-Cola so unfortunately we can't google for details and make comparisons.

 

[miroslav]

Well...I may rethink my plans to purchase a 2" deck....

I probably have enough fresh (original EMTEC and BASF) 911 and 468 to last me another 20 years if I only use it for my own recording projects and stay with my current 16 track deck.

For my 2-track....mmmmmmm....it's going to be a bit touchy, I don't have a lot of 1/4" tape, and I've already purchased some RMGI pancakes, though I do have a bunch 7" reels with original EMTEC and BASF tape. It's not really a major issue since I only use the 1/4" for mixdowns and immediately transfer them to the DAW off the PB head. So, if the RMGI stuff breaks down at some point, I'm not going to lose any masters, since my masters are in digital format...and the 7" reels are OK for mixdowns...I can get 3 songs on them pretty easily.

But AFA going for a 2" deck...I'm honestly not sure anymore. The cost of 2" tape is nuts, and if new tape production is seriously doomed... ...I don't want to have a rather large doorstop in the shape of a 2" tape deck.

 

[Beck]

Yep my days of wrestling with 2” tape are long past and I’ve had no desire to mess with it anyway even before the Tape Crisis pushed prices into the stratosphere. But now looking at the price of 2” tape gives me chest pains. LOL Looking at tape prices in general gives me chest pains. Years ago when I decided on a format for home use I went with 8-tracks on ½” tape, so that’s what I have… tons of ½” in every brand NOS. I also have plenty of ¼” tape of every kind, but I started leaning towards 7” reels long time ago. For me managing a project just seems easier that way and if you use 7” you have more options for replacement decks if the one you have goes south. I’ve been a fan of the Tascam 22-2 for years and have two of those. One is all tricked out and modded to the nine’s… sounds awesome. But they only take 7” reels. Same with the Fostex A2, Model 20 and of course a host of consumer stereo decks.

As for the ½” tape for tracking I’ll be staying with that. If I ever wanted to go 16-tracks I’d stay with ½” and get a Tascam MSR-16 or Fostex E-16/G-16. I never thought I’d see the day when the expendables like tape would become the deciding factor cost wise. We were paying less for tape in 2004 (actual dollars) than we were in 1994, so yeah…. Holy Crap! That’s what I say when I look at RMGI or ATR new tape prices.

Habits have changed too. I remember when tape was so cheap it was common practice to throw tons of it away through dump editing, and splice the hell out of the masters with leader tape between every song. That was just the way it was. Now I don’t even put leader tape between songs. Cutting a perfectly good tape seems like some sin. I can’t do it. I may want to degauss a tape and use it again. You can’t really work between splices with new material, so that old tape is useless to me. I put leaders on both ends of new tape to get the most recording time. Within second of the tape hitting the record head I’m recording, where I used to let it roll for a minute. Now those minutes cost too much to waste.

 

[miroslav]

Years ago when I decided on a format for home use I went with 8-tracks on ½” tape..


.........

If I ever wanted to go 16-tracks I’d stay with ½” and get a TASCAM MSR-16 or Fostex E-16/G-16.

I'm there already, just in reverse!

I have the Fostex G16 and plenty of 1/2"....but I've been thinking about picking up an Otari or TASCAM 1/2" 8-track...so if I just want to bounce some drums or whatever and don't need 16 tracks, the 8 would give me a little more tape "fatness" and I can still use my 1/2" tape on both decks.

Now if I could find a decent priced 1/2" 2-track!!!
Though...my Otari 5050 BIII is the last model they put out, and it's literally almost new, so I'm set, even if it's only a 1/4" 2-track. Got it got for a silly price from a radio station closing ($500 for a $6k deck ), and this was their spare deck...it NEVER saw any use until I got it.

So here's a question...
I've noticed some folks suggesting that with decent/newer formulation tape...there really isn't a heck of a lot of issue with reusing the same reel a bunch of times. Frankly, I'll run a reel back-n-forth a lot of times when tracking various songs on the same reel...and I've not noticed any drop-outs or HF loss on the recorded tracks (at least not with the EMTEC/BASF tapes).

Also...while everyone is talking about the Maxell...back in the late 70s and early 80s I always leaned toward the TDK 1/4" open reel tape for my 4-track use. I have reels that are over 30 year sold...no sticky, no shed, and sounds like the day I recorded them (well, shitty, but I'm not talking about my skills over 30 years ago ). Not sure if TDK made their own or outsourced it like Maxell...but man, I loved that tape.

 

[miroslav]

Just scored 10 virgin (unused & sealed in plastic) 7" reels of original 1/4" EMTEC 911!

$115 w/shipping for the lot.

 

[Audiophallic]

This is pretty sobering, considering I'm still trying to get into it. Luckily, most of you guys set yourselves up for life years ago. I don't think I'll have that option.

 

[jpmorris]

Lots of tape is still manufactured, albeit with thinner backing for DAT, LTO and similar formats. I am not convinced it is beyond the wit of man to find a suitable supplier for audio tape which has far greater tolerances.

 

[SteveM]

It's not necessarily a bad thing if RMGI is a bit different than BASF as long as the company knows what its doing. Not sure that they do though.

I'm sure they do. Let's be positive here.

The 911 cal tape I have though that I got from MRL seems incredibly thin. It got stretched to shit when I was trying to fix the tension on a 3340. I wonder if it was 911 they used or something else.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Lots of tape is still manufactured, albeit with thinner backing for DAT, LTO and similar formats. I am not convinced it is beyond the wit of man to find a suitable supplier for audio tape which has far greater tolerances.

^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^

20 years ago vinyl was declared dead. There are actually more turntable and cartridge manufacturers today than there were then. The big guys got out of it because they couldn't make a billion a year at it. But that left enough business for many smaller companies to make a million or two a year on it. So you can still get most stuff that comes out on vinyl ...... there's a HUGE selection of phono-preamps, and turntables and cartridges to choose from. All smaller companies but more of them producing smaller runs of equipment and records.

If there's a market ...... someone will make the stuff available.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...I've wondered about that too...tape still gets made for a lot of other uses besides typical R2R recording...so why is it hard to make more tape for R2R purposes?

Apparently...it's all in the formulations and slitting processes.
It's like asking...why they don't make DeLoreans any more when cars are still being made?
Different product, different setup, different tooling...which all costs $$$, especially to get it all started back up again.
I guess R2R tape demand isn't big enough to allow comanies to absorb those costs AND to make a worthwhile profit from it.

To us here...we all feel that R2R tape still IS a big deal...but not really...not from the manufacturing and marketing perspectives.