BASF 911 -vs- Ampex 456 Showdown.... Best Tape ???
MAS017
The Showdown comparison.....
Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
Let's hear what you have to say.
Scott Dorsey
Well, I'll pick Ampex 406 over either one, any day. But then, that's
the church I belong to.
--scott
(about to do a gig on BASF 468 too)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Fletcher
>
> Okay recording buffs
> The Showdown comparison.....
>
> Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
>
> BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
>
> Let's hear what you have to say.
Kinda depends on what you're doing...I generally prefer BASF 911 for my
24 track master, but will often record guitars on a different machine
using 456, compressing the crap out of them with the tape, then bouncing
them over to the master...often the same with backing vocals.
456 seems to have nearly infinate compression in the midrange, and gets
a bit brighter when you slam it...problem...it also carries around
modulation noise on low frequency tones (like bass) that I don't
experience with 911...911 seems clearer and quieter to me, but doesn't
have that wonderful compression for loud RTH GTRS...so I guess no matter
where you go...there you are.
BTW, FWIW, IMHO...BASF 900 kicks everone's ass on larger track width
formats like 1/2" 2 track or 2" 8-track...and 499 bores me to death.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
http://www.mercenary.com
Tommy Uzzo
>Okay recording buffs
>The Showdown comparison.....
>
>Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
>
>BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
>
>Let's hear what you have to say.
Neither. The question is BASF 900 or Ampex 499.
The BASF 900 definitely wins for me as far as sonics go, but the Ampex
wears a little better.
Tommy Uzzo
Mirror Image Recorders
Fulltone
for me as far as sonics go, but the Ampex
wears a little better.>>
I like SM900....slam as hard as you like and it's still sweet. Try that with
499...yikes.
Michael Fuller / Fulltone Musical Products Inc. / http://www.fulltone.com
Roger W. Norman
996 through my Tascam 38 for about 4 years without that type of problem.
I'd expect it with Ampex tape if it was old, but is this happening with new
tape? Perhaps you need to set up a new maintenance schedule. Something
along the lines of once a month or so for cleaning the heads and tape path,
or even more frequently if you're using it a lot. Some of my 7 year old 499
tapes don't exhibit the problems you are describing. And don't forget
demagnetizing the heads.
Roger W. Norman
Kiira Triea wrote in message ...
>Tommy Uzzo (tu...@mindspring.com@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>+---
>| >Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
>| >
>| >BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
>| >
>| >Let's hear what you have to say.
>|
>| Neither. The question is BASF 900 or Ampex 499.
>+---
>
>Why? I mean why 900 as opposed to 911... I have a Tascam 38 (1/2" 8tr).
>
>I went to basf900 from 499 because the 499 was gooping up my machine...
>in concert with a pinch roller which had turned to something
>resembling the mutant offspring of flubber and fastack. Not good.
>
>Kiira
Jon Best
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Better check how you're storing the tape. I've run both Ampex 499 and 3M
> 996 through my Tascam 38 for about 4 years without that type of problem.
> I'd expect it with Ampex tape if it was old, but is this happening with new
> tape? Perhaps you need to set up a new maintenance schedule. Something
> along the lines of once a month or so for cleaning the heads and tape path,
> or even more frequently if you're using it a lot. Some of my 7 year old 499
> tapes don't exhibit the problems you are describing. And don't forget
> demagnetizing the heads.
Once a month? That's for VERY light use.... I am pretty part time, but I don't
like to put more than two reels up between cleanings, and I usually clean them
each time before I put tape on.
--
Jon Best
Recording Guy
Roger W. Norman
every 4 tapes, or maybe twice a week or whatever the schedule calls for,
meaning if I'm doing a lot of mixing from tape then I'll do it more often.
But usually now I take my taped tracks and transfer them to computer for
mixing, so I don't run the 38 very often at all.
Roger W. Norman
Jon Best wrote in message <35C72D41...@erols.com>...
SmlTwnGuy
> I have a Tascam 38 (1/2" 8tr).<BR>
>><BR>
>>I went to basf900 from 499 because the 499 was gooping up my machine...<BR>
>>in concert with a pinch roller which had turned to something<BR>
>>resembling the mutant offspring of flubber and fastack. Not good.<BR>......
If you're using your '38 with dbx, there's no reason for you to use 900 or 499
tape. The noise reduction will give you quiter performance than high output
tape ever will. And the older machines are not built to take the thicker,
goopier modern tapes. If you have dbx, you should choose between 911 and 456.
Kiira Triea
+---
+---
I chose 900 because I do not have noise reduction at all.
Kiira
ToddRo
worked it daily on a Studer 827 for over 6 months and never had a single
problem. A little shedding, a little wear, but nothing out of the ordinary at
all, esp when you consider how many times it passed over the heads. At the end
I compared the tapes to some DAT roughs I made at the original tracking
sessions and the difference was very, very minimal - if any at all. I aligned
for +6/250 with 2 dB overbias @ 10k and it sounded great. Just keep the heads
clean and demag'd -- and let 'er rip!!!
Todd R
Nashville
DrPat
>
> In article <199808010230...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mas...@aol.com (MAS017) writes:
> >Okay recording buffs
> >The Showdown comparison.....
> >
> >
> >BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
> >
> >Let's hear what you have to say.
>
> the church I belong to.
> --scott
> (about to do a gig on BASF 468 too)
Give me the PINK Illford stuff. It may not sound very good, but at least
it's ugly!
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--
LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone who sends me unsolicited/commercial e-mail
will be charged a $500 proofreading fee. Consider this official
notification. Failure to abide by this will result in legal action.
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."
Shai Drori
Ampex SUCKS
John Vestman
> Basf RULES and it doesn't matter whitch tape. The 468 is also amazing
> Ampex SUCKS
With 23 years of experience under my belt, I wouldn't say Ampex "sucks"
- it just sounds really bad compared to Basf! Ampex is cloudy and dull,
although 499 is a little better. I have more information about tape
alignment/elevation tricks and other mixing and mastering info on my
site:
http://home.pacbell.net/jvestman
Cheers,
John
Mike
>
> Basf RULES and it doesn't matter whitch tape. The 468 is also amazing
>
> Ampex SUCKS
Someone I know had bought some basf 911 tape for a tascam 8 track reel
to reel and the reel was to thin for the machine
Shai Drori
I just worked with a client who decided to do his album on ampex tape.
Since our machine is aligned for both I didn't care too much (he is
the customer after all).
So.......we record ruthm section on three tapes with punch ins ( I
don't know if it's common practice but I do it often ) aand no
problems. On the forth reel we made a punch in and imedeateley noticed
that this tape is not coming back with all the highs (slightly
different bias needed). Now go and explain to the artist that the
machine is in perfect condition and that it's not your fault he chose
SHIT TAPE!!!
So I'm sorry if I'm the minority on the subject but BASF Rules!!!!!
Shai Drori
Scott Dorsey
>Here is another reaason why I say Ampex is hsit tape.
>I just worked with a client who decided to do his album on ampex tape.
>Since our machine is aligned for both I didn't care too much (he is
>the customer after all).
>So.......we record ruthm section on three tapes with punch ins ( I
>don't know if it's common practice but I do it often ) aand no
>problems. On the forth reel we made a punch in and imedeateley noticed
>that this tape is not coming back with all the highs (slightly
>different bias needed). Now go and explain to the artist that the
>machine is in perfect condition and that it's not your fault he chose
>SHIT TAPE!!!
No, this has nothing to do with the tape. These tapes are not bias
compatible, really. You need to change the bias when you change tape.
You need to change the bias when you get a new batch of tape, even. And
you should rebias once a week or so just to make sure things don't drift.
You had a machine set up for 911. You ran 456 on it without resetting.
It's your fault.
>So I'm sorry if I'm the minority on the subject but BASF Rules!!!!!
I like the BASF tape too, but that's a secondary issue.
--scott
MR TAPEGUY
>Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
>>
>>BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
>>
>>Let's hear what you have to say.
As with so many other things in recording, this is a highly subjective issue.
But first, let's start by comparing apples to apples.
The industry standard tape for years was the Ampex 456, followed in general
characteristics by 3M 226 and Agfa 469. When 3M introduced 996 as the first
high output tape, much of the recording industry changed. 3M initially offered
this tape as allowing an additional +6db for recording a hotter signal or
additional headroom. Ironically, Ampex reportedly had a high-output
formulation for some time but had no reason to rock the boat since 456 owned
the market.
With the dramatic response to 3M 996 from producers who not only loved the
enhanced capability but those who used the opportunity to take their first
serious look at 3M tape, the market shifted largely to 3M and forced Ampex to
come out with it's own high output tape, Ampex 499. About that time BASF had
repurchased AGFA and brought up the rear by releasing SM 911, more of an
improvement to SM 469, and finally their own version, SM 900 Maxima.
Since that time, 3M has exited the tape business and many of it's loyal users
have switched to BASF SM 900, not because of the output but because it sounds
more like 996. Meanwhile Quantegy, who purchased Ampex and the rights to 3M's
formulations, has been reportedly working on remanufacturing 996.
Even with the advent of high-output tapes, there are still engineers who prefer
the sound of Quantegy 456, particularly the tape compression. If you're
looking for available headroom or output, the SM 900 beats 456 hands down --
499 would be a better alternative. But in terms of which is best, it depends
on what pleases your ears, which only you can decide.
=====
Craig Berlin aka MR TAPEGUY, Professional Tape - Image * Sound * Data
(512) 443-3911 (http://www.Pro-Tape.com) APOGEE * BASF * DENON * FUJI * JVC *
HHB * IOMEGA * LOWELL* MAXELL * QUANTEGY * SONY * TASCAM * TDK * ZONAL
Fletcher
>
> >Subject: Re: BASF 911 -vs- Ampex 456 Showdown.... Best Tape ???
>
> >Which analog reel-to-reel tape is better ??
> >>
> >>BASF 911 -or- Ampex/Quantergy 456 ??
> >>
> >>Let's hear what you have to say.
>
> As with so many other things in recording, this is a highly subjective issue.
> But first, let's start by comparing apples to apples.
>
> The industry standard tape for years was the Ampex 456, followed in general
> characteristics by 3M 226 and Agfa 469. When 3M introduced 996 as the first
> high output tape, much of the recording industry changed. 3M initially offered
> this tape as allowing an additional +6db for recording a hotter signal or
> additional headroom.
226 was pretty much a bust out of the box...those of us into the "Scotch
thing" were into 250...which was a +5 tape while 456 was considered a +6
tape...996 and 499 came along later purporting to take +9 (although the
adverts for 499 said it could take 9 over 250nWb/m which was total
horseshit).
Ironically, Ampex reportedly had a high-output
> formulation for some time but had no reason to rock the boat since 456 owned
> the market.
>
> With the dramatic response to 3M 996 from producers who not only loved the
> enhanced capability but those who used the opportunity to take their first
> serious look at 3M tape, the market shifted largely to 3M and forced Ampex to
> come out with it's own high output tape, Ampex 499.
Or then there were those of us that thought that 996 sounded like shit,
really plastic sounding, but liked the elevated level characteristics
and found that 499 was a nearly acceptable alternative...however neither
of them worked for shit on Studer decks except in "library wind" mode,
and you had to realign the transport tensions for every other machine
you put the tape on as well...yep, sure was a pain in the ass!!
About that time BASF had
> repurchased AGFA and brought up the rear by releasing SM 911, more of an
> improvement to SM 469, and finally their own version, SM 900 Maxima.
I'm sure I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that BASF had
911 and 900 prior to purchasing AGFA. They still MFG'ed the AGFA
product, and did so in a far more reliable manner than AGFA.
>
> Since that time, 3M has exited the tape business and many of it's loyal users
> have switched to BASF SM 900, not because of the output but because it sounds
> more like 996.
900 sounds nothing like 996 (IMHO), it sounds more like elevated level
Scotch 250!! which is a good thing. Scotch 250 had the best/clearest
top-bottom of any tape madee by anyone ever...it was just unforgiving as
a mofo if you went even the tiniest bit over it's maximum operating
level.
Meanwhile Quantegy, who purchased Ampex and the rights to 3M's
> formulations, has been reportedly working on remanufacturing 996.
>
I heard that too...hope they don't waste their time doing it, but would
gladly give a testicle for Scotch 250 to be remanufactured.
> Even with the advent of high-output tapes, there are still engineers who prefer
> the sound of Quantegy 456, particularly the tape compression.
Especially on guitars and backing vocals!!
If you're
> looking for available headroom or output, the SM 900 beats 456 hands down --
> 499 would be a better alternative. But in terms of which is best, it depends
> on what pleases your ears, which only you can decide.
According to my ears, 911 rules on a 24 track deck, 900 for the 1/2"
2-track...I've done some stuff where we recorded the guitars and backing
vox to 456 then locked decks and bounced the tracks to the 911
master...that works great too, and I've never heard guitars/backing vox
suffer from additional bounces (ever wonder why those fucking Beatle
records sounded like they did?)...to answer the brother's original
compare contrast question...I prefer 911 and 900...I think I've outlined
why, but feel free to call me if I can offer a clarification of why...
Of course, I'm not Mr. Tapeguy, just an end user, so I'm probably wrong
about all this crap...
>
> =====
> Craig Berlin aka MR TAPEGUY, Professional Tape - Image * Sound * Data
> (512) 443-3911 (http://www.Pro-Tape.com) APOGEE * BASF * DENON * FUJI * JVC *
> HHB * IOMEGA * LOWELL* MAXELL * QUANTEGY * SONY * TASCAM * TDK * ZONAL
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
MR TAPEGUY
Fletcher sez:
>900 sounds nothing like 996 (IMHO), it sounds more like elevated level
>Scotch 250!! which is a good thing. Scotch 250 had the best/clearest
>top-bottom of any tape madee by anyone ever...it was just unforgiving as
>a mofo if you went even the tiniest bit over it's maximum operating
>level.
True, 250 was a high-output tape, but the print characteristics sucked. That's
the main reason why 996 was such a "revolutionary" product it offered the high
output with acceptable print-through, a combination previously unavailable.
>
>
>Meanwhile Quantegy, who purchased Ampex and the rights to 3M's
>> formulations, has been reportedly working on remanufacturing 996.
>>
>
>I heard that too...hope they don't waste their time doing it, but would
>gladly give a testicle for Scotch 250 to be remanufactured.
Sorry, they'll have it available very soon, and are not likely to be working on
250.
>
>
>
>> Even with the advent of high-output tapes, there are still engineers who
>prefer
>> the sound of Quantegy 456, particularly the tape compression.
>
>Especially on guitars and backing vocals!!
>
>
>If you're
>> looking for available headroom or output, the SM 900 beats 456 hands down
>--
>> 499 would be a better alternative. But in terms of which is best, it
>depends
>> on what pleases your ears, which only you can decide.
>
>
>According to my ears, 911 rules on a 24 track deck, 900 for the 1/2"
>2-track...I've done some stuff where we recorded the guitars and backing
>vox to 456 then locked decks and bounced the tracks to the 911
>master...that works great too, and I've never heard guitars/backing vox
>suffer from additional bounces (ever wonder why those fucking Beatle
>records sounded like they did?)...to answer the brother's original
>compare contrast question...I prefer 911 and 900...I think I've outlined
>why, but feel free to call me if I can offer a clarification of why...
>
>Of course, I'm not Mr. Tapeguy, just an end user, so I'm probably wrong
>about all this crap...
No, you're not wrong - as I mentioned, this is a highly subjective profession.
The fact that we had a significant customer base for 996 and most of those have
not gone back to Quantegy but rather moved to 900 is one indication that at
least some of them think it sounds more 996-like. Some of them have said so --
then again, some of them may just hate Quantampexegy.