Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu (Jim Dobbs)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Tape AMPEX 456!
Message-ID: <7246@uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 90 13:04:25 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 63
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

lrb@rrivax.rri.uwo.ca (Lance R. Bailey) writes:


>In article <7190@uwm.edu>, rich%island@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Fanning) writes...
>>I had much the same experience with several reels of Scotch 150, 206 and 207.
>..
>> 
>>Several reels of cheap Radio Shack Concertape also survived.  It doesn't sound
>>very good, but it's probably as good as it ever was. :-)
>> 
>>I also have some acetate tapes which were recorded in 1962-64, and these

>i'm curious as to what the rest of you are using for tape brands on a regular
>basis. this includes
>	- mastering
>	- archiving
>	- personal 

>I have a good source for ampex pancake and maxell UDXL and have been using
>the latter with nice results on my reVox.

>I also have a reel of reVox 641 (gift) that i am saving for a special 
>mastering (gosh, it's pricey).

>because essentially all machines can be biased for any tape, we will
>ignore that issue, (although that still leaves room for preferences of
>'X tape on A machine, but never on B machine'.)

>Lance R. Bailey, Systems Manager 
>================================   box: Robarts Research Institute
>email: lrb@rri.uwo.ca                   Clinical Trials Resources Group
>  fax: 519.663.3789                     P.O. Box 5015, 100 Perth Dr.
>  vox: 519.663.3787 ext. 4108           London, Canada N6A 5K8

I use Ampex 456 - all the time.  I have tried some others - 3M, Maxell,
etc., but I have had consistently great results from 456.  I operate
a small recording studio, and use both 1/2" and 1/4". The character-
istics of Ampex 457 are supposed to be the same, with the difference
that 456 is 1.5 mils thick while 457 is 1.0 mils.  I refuse to take a
chance on it (457) stretching - especially in a pro application.

I have had really mixed results, however, with Ampex 3/4" U-Matic
video tapes.  I have repeatedly lost work and seen glitches, dropouts,
sparkle, etc.  This seems strange as Ampex INVENTED video tape.

For duplication, bulk cassettes loaded with ampex tape are O.K., but
BASF seems a little bit better.  Once you go with hi-speed dubbing
you can forget audiophile criteria altogether.


UNSUBSTANTIATEDRUMORUNSUBSTANTIATEDRUMORUNSUBSTANTIATEDOHYOUGETTHEIDEA
I was told about a year ago by a friend that there was a _BAD_ batch
of Ampex 456 on the shelves.  I never had any problems during that
time, and the rumor may not be true, but the story was that it was
_BAD_ in the sense of a tape whose coating and backing refused to
remain together in eternal bliss for MORE THAN A FEW MONTHS-ONTHS-onths.

-Jim Dobbs (Metamusic Productions) 
--
    ^ -   James C. "Jim" Dobbs - jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu
  ( O-O   "The correct pluralization of 'smurf' is 'smurves.'"
     >                     - James C. Dobbs
     ^    DISCLAIMER - Nobody ever agrees with anything I think.