I'm not so sure we should really be concerned about what kind of tape we are using so much as we should be concerned with how much tape we are using.
Does it really matter anymore? I'm not talking about sound quality issues, tape pack, flaking, shedding, slitting, level, or any of those things. I'm talking about the fact that if we don't continue to use tape as often, and we get hung up on minor issues such as the number on the box, that we are only hurting ourselves.
I'm fully aware that this (using less tape in general) has already happened to quite a few, if not most of the people that I know. So, it's not really a new issue. But, can I please ask you to stop worrying so much about which tape formulation you should use and ask you to just use more tape, period.
russ
Tape Choice, who likes what?
12[quote="steveI]499: my least favorite in sound. The high end seems slightly brittle to me.
Emtec 900: Really smooth performance in the transports. Excellent quality control Emtec, by the way has begun packaging their 900 tape in plain silver reels (Je déteste le swoosh bleu!), as requested by Bob Weston's petition at the Tape Op 2002 conference. Thank you Bob! [/quote]
I agree with all of the above (my thanks, too, Bob!), and would add that I've found 499 to shed like crazy. -E
Emtec 900: Really smooth performance in the transports. Excellent quality control Emtec, by the way has begun packaging their 900 tape in plain silver reels (Je déteste le swoosh bleu!), as requested by Bob Weston's petition at the Tape Op 2002 conference. Thank you Bob! [/quote]
I agree with all of the above (my thanks, too, Bob!), and would add that I've found 499 to shed like crazy. -E
Tape Choice, who likes what?
13Ben Adrian and all,
For a lot of years Ampex 456 was the standard in every pro studio in my area except one who was using AGFA. I was never once disappointed with performance of either one pre-1980. Most guys around here switched to 3M 996 but you can't get it anymore (unless you work for the U.S. Government). My opinion is this was the best tape ever made and if you can find a stash of it somewhere you'll probably get reel happy. 499 was introduced specifically to compete with it but sounds noticeably different than 456 and doesn't share the "9db hotter" characteristic of the 3M 996. Quantegy acquired ownership of the 3M formulas shortly after 3M quit making audio tape for public consumption and several months later introduced GP9 claiming it was actually 996 with a new name. I am not convinced the formula is identical and all their QC has certainly been intermittent ever since then. Emtec 900 gets my vote at this point in time.
David
For a lot of years Ampex 456 was the standard in every pro studio in my area except one who was using AGFA. I was never once disappointed with performance of either one pre-1980. Most guys around here switched to 3M 996 but you can't get it anymore (unless you work for the U.S. Government). My opinion is this was the best tape ever made and if you can find a stash of it somewhere you'll probably get reel happy. 499 was introduced specifically to compete with it but sounds noticeably different than 456 and doesn't share the "9db hotter" characteristic of the 3M 996. Quantegy acquired ownership of the 3M formulas shortly after 3M quit making audio tape for public consumption and several months later introduced GP9 claiming it was actually 996 with a new name. I am not convinced the formula is identical and all their QC has certainly been intermittent ever since then. Emtec 900 gets my vote at this point in time.
David
Tape Choice, who likes what?
14DaveiZDave wrote:Most guys around here switched to 3M 996 but you can't get it anymore (unless you work for the U.S. Government). My opinion is this was the best tape ever made and if you can find a stash of it somewhere you'll probably get reel happy.
If you don't mind buying used tape, TapeTape apparently has a Fort Knox-sized vault of the stuff, as they'll try and sell it to you no matter what you're looking for.
I've actually bought 8 used reels of 996 from them -- despite being ridiculously heavy (Is it thicker than GP9, even?), I was happy with the sound, and the bands were happy that they only spent $65 for the reel.
mb
Tape Choice, who likes what?
15since a few people have mentioned "shedding" in this thread, I will share my contribution to a discussion of tape shed from the Ampex forum a few years ago:
Whenever I'm involved in a discussion on tape shedding, it bothers me that the term is used to describe several different effects, and I'd like to propose a new standard nomenclature for these effects:
"Shed" -- tape losing oxide particles as dust or irregular flakes, which may collect on mechanical parts of tape machines, unaccompanied by any stickyness or binder deposits.
"Shear" -- tape losing oxide coating from the cut edges of the tape as it travels in the tape path. Oxide coating will appear as "hair," or slivers, and will be most apparent when A) changing to a new tape formulation after some time using another as a "standard," or B) tape manufacturer changes slitting procedures or equipment.
"Stickyness" -- tape surface becomes sticky from depolymerization of binder over time, causing build-up of binder gum on mechanical parts of tape machine, "squeal" in tape path, and loss of oxide through adhesion.
Please, feel free to refer to this as the "albini nomenclature," because, to date, nothing else has been named after me.
Shed (albini nomenclature) is exceptionally rare, except in archival tapes of very old red-rust formulations, which are mercifally free of both shear and stickyness. I can only suggest that you clean the machine often, wind the tape gently, and don't play the tape any more than you have to for the work you need to do. I have never seen this condition make a tape utterly unplayable, so we're good for another century.
Shear (alb. nom.) is a nuisance, but is only rarely a manufacturing defect. I have heard countless times that one tape or another "sheds like crazy," and that one tape or another "don't shed a lick." The people saying this are usually referring to shear (a.n.), and have misplaced the blame. If a tape machine uses a single type of tape for a long period, all the mechanical parts become slightly worn to accommodate it (metal oxides being abrasives). Since tape manufacturers all have slightly different tolerances and standards for tape width (I always suspected 3M tape was slightly narrower than Ampex), changing tape brands may subject the new tape to a groove literally "cut" into the tape path that it is slightly too large for, and its edges will shear(a).
When the new "heavy coat" tapes were introduced (996, 499, GP9, 900), they were also stiffer than the old formulations, and didn't deform in the tape path as much, which made them especially prone to the problem.
This shearing will correct itself in time, as the new tape stock recuts the tape path to accommodate itself. This is no doubt the reason everyone says "but it ain't do it no more -- they fixt the rotten tape finally damn."
Quantegy _was_ making 1/2-inch 456 in the mid-90's that was pure bullshit in the slitting department, which caused shear and really bad azimuth problems. They invested a fortune in new slitting equipment, and it got better by 1997.
Stickyness is easily solved by baking, and the baking can be repeated in another 20 years or so when you have to play the tape again, and again after that, so quit crying about it. Quantegy will do it for free, and you can do it yourself in a food dehydrator over a weekend.
If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as did several sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can wipe the surfaces of the tape, inch-by-inch with a cotton pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads often) as you wind the tape by hand onto a new reel. It'll take you all night to do it, and you'll need to clean the tape heads after every play, but it works. I don't know if this removes sufficient water from the de-polymerized chains to effect a long-term cure, but you can meet a deadline.
Of course I am referring to analog masters. Digital masters (which are also on tape, I remind the digital apologists in attendance), won't survive even the mildest of any of these defects, all of which they are subject to.
I should also point out that digital masters on metal-particle tape are particularly nasty in storage, because the metal particles are chemically aggressive enough to oxidize in air over time, which will make them unplayable if none of the above do.
In all of the above deterioration scenarios, the analog master tapes will -- in some manner -- be playable. Digital tapes, when subjected to the slightest of either deterioration or deformation, become utterly unplayable. I rejoice when I think of the music from this era that will be lost forever due to this shortsightedness. As an old man, I can play my Stooges records, my Glenn Gould, my Rachel's, my Clarence Carter, and when I get bored, I can string up an Ampex and listen to some old master tapes -- but I'll never have to hear Alanis Morissette or Beck again!
-steve
Whenever I'm involved in a discussion on tape shedding, it bothers me that the term is used to describe several different effects, and I'd like to propose a new standard nomenclature for these effects:
"Shed" -- tape losing oxide particles as dust or irregular flakes, which may collect on mechanical parts of tape machines, unaccompanied by any stickyness or binder deposits.
"Shear" -- tape losing oxide coating from the cut edges of the tape as it travels in the tape path. Oxide coating will appear as "hair," or slivers, and will be most apparent when A) changing to a new tape formulation after some time using another as a "standard," or B) tape manufacturer changes slitting procedures or equipment.
"Stickyness" -- tape surface becomes sticky from depolymerization of binder over time, causing build-up of binder gum on mechanical parts of tape machine, "squeal" in tape path, and loss of oxide through adhesion.
Please, feel free to refer to this as the "albini nomenclature," because, to date, nothing else has been named after me.
Shed (albini nomenclature) is exceptionally rare, except in archival tapes of very old red-rust formulations, which are mercifally free of both shear and stickyness. I can only suggest that you clean the machine often, wind the tape gently, and don't play the tape any more than you have to for the work you need to do. I have never seen this condition make a tape utterly unplayable, so we're good for another century.
Shear (alb. nom.) is a nuisance, but is only rarely a manufacturing defect. I have heard countless times that one tape or another "sheds like crazy," and that one tape or another "don't shed a lick." The people saying this are usually referring to shear (a.n.), and have misplaced the blame. If a tape machine uses a single type of tape for a long period, all the mechanical parts become slightly worn to accommodate it (metal oxides being abrasives). Since tape manufacturers all have slightly different tolerances and standards for tape width (I always suspected 3M tape was slightly narrower than Ampex), changing tape brands may subject the new tape to a groove literally "cut" into the tape path that it is slightly too large for, and its edges will shear(a).
When the new "heavy coat" tapes were introduced (996, 499, GP9, 900), they were also stiffer than the old formulations, and didn't deform in the tape path as much, which made them especially prone to the problem.
This shearing will correct itself in time, as the new tape stock recuts the tape path to accommodate itself. This is no doubt the reason everyone says "but it ain't do it no more -- they fixt the rotten tape finally damn."
Quantegy _was_ making 1/2-inch 456 in the mid-90's that was pure bullshit in the slitting department, which caused shear and really bad azimuth problems. They invested a fortune in new slitting equipment, and it got better by 1997.
Stickyness is easily solved by baking, and the baking can be repeated in another 20 years or so when you have to play the tape again, and again after that, so quit crying about it. Quantegy will do it for free, and you can do it yourself in a food dehydrator over a weekend.
If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as did several sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can wipe the surfaces of the tape, inch-by-inch with a cotton pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads often) as you wind the tape by hand onto a new reel. It'll take you all night to do it, and you'll need to clean the tape heads after every play, but it works. I don't know if this removes sufficient water from the de-polymerized chains to effect a long-term cure, but you can meet a deadline.
Of course I am referring to analog masters. Digital masters (which are also on tape, I remind the digital apologists in attendance), won't survive even the mildest of any of these defects, all of which they are subject to.
I should also point out that digital masters on metal-particle tape are particularly nasty in storage, because the metal particles are chemically aggressive enough to oxidize in air over time, which will make them unplayable if none of the above do.
In all of the above deterioration scenarios, the analog master tapes will -- in some manner -- be playable. Digital tapes, when subjected to the slightest of either deterioration or deformation, become utterly unplayable. I rejoice when I think of the music from this era that will be lost forever due to this shortsightedness. As an old man, I can play my Stooges records, my Glenn Gould, my Rachel's, my Clarence Carter, and when I get bored, I can string up an Ampex and listen to some old master tapes -- but I'll never have to hear Alanis Morissette or Beck again!
-steve
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
Tape Choice, who likes what?
16Okay, what about non-high output formulations? I'm on an Otari MX-5050 1/2" 8 track and an MX-5050 1/4" 2 track. These guys are pretty old and not designed with the thicker backing in mind and don't really have the juice to get anywhere close to the high outputs that would make the newer formulations worth the cost, at least in terms of noise performance.
So, the discussion of 911 is a bit of news to me, since I didn't really know anything about it. Is it bias compatible with 456 or just similar? I know Ampex/Quantegy 406 is bias compatible with 456 and is supposed to be maybe a more "vintage" mellow sound, but I haven't encountered any to try. And how about the Emtec 468? I know it's a different bias setup than 456, so I'll have to tweak it to try it, but I've heard just enough that I think I want to. However, I've been boring and stuck with the 456.
Bear
So, the discussion of 911 is a bit of news to me, since I didn't really know anything about it. Is it bias compatible with 456 or just similar? I know Ampex/Quantegy 406 is bias compatible with 456 and is supposed to be maybe a more "vintage" mellow sound, but I haven't encountered any to try. And how about the Emtec 468? I know it's a different bias setup than 456, so I'll have to tweak it to try it, but I've heard just enough that I think I want to. However, I've been boring and stuck with the 456.
Bear
Tape Choice, who likes what?
17steve wrote:If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as did several sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can wipe the surfaces of the tape, inch-by-inch with a cotton pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads often) as you wind the tape by hand onto a new reel.
-steve
Sorry, this scared the bejayzus out of me.
You're saying wipe the tape with alcohol. Won't that remove the coating completely????
Am I missing something???
BTW, this is "interesting":
http://www.rogernichols.com/ArchivePack.html
Tape Choice, who likes what?
18swordfish wrote:steve wrote:If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as did several sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can wipe the surfaces of the tape, inch-by-inch with a cotton pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads often) as you wind the tape by hand onto a new reel.
-steve
Sorry, this scared the bejayzus out of me.
You're saying wipe the tape with alcohol. Won't that remove the coating completely????
Am I missing something???
Yes, experience.
It won't hurt the tape, as long as you don't scrub violently in one spot or use Brillo.
BTW, this is "interesting":
http://www.rogernichols.com/ArchivePack.html
I always knew Roger Nichols was a blowhard, but I never knew he was just plain full of shit.
Unintentional comedy abounds as Roger tells us with crumbling grammar and syntax that all of our analog recordings are deteriorating, but if we "archive" them to digital formats, then they will sound "truer." The second half of the piece is a description of all the problems with these digital formats.
That he constantly refers to the "state of the art" is the best though. His art is apparently frozen in 1986.
Highlights:
"For the first time, analog masters can now be archived to digital BACKWARDS at HALF SPEED using state-of-the-art 20 bit converters and custom designed sample rate conversion systems."
"Roger has used his extensive science background in nuclear physics (a former Nuclear Engineer at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California) to design many of the machines used to recover audio at a much higher quality than was previously possible."
"Digital Atomics is very meticulous about the quality of their work. Every effort is made to insure that each tape is transferred to archival media at the highest possible resolution resulting in an archival copy that will be indistinguishable from the original...If no additional resolution is obtained or necessary, then 16 bit storage will be the final format."
"It doesn't matter what brand or type of analog tape you use, there is still a generation loss, and it degrades the sound of the master. With new masters being produced on digital 48 track machines and mixed on consoles like the AT&T Disq system, it is a major slap in the face to artists and producers to even think about archiving to analog tape."
"Archival CD-R discs are playable on any CD player, it doesn't have to be some special professional machine."
A 48-track digital tape machine: I don't know, maybe $4000 if it works.
Knowing Roger Nichols is full of shit: Priceless.
-steve
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
Tape Choice, who likes what?
19this is related to the conversation i believe - it appears emtec is going under officially.
http://www.medialinenews.com/issues/200 ... 15_2.shtml
http://www.emtec-group.com/Public_Relat ... _Releases/
as recording people, what can we do? it seems money is the only thing imation, emtec or whomever really care about - but really, is there something we, collectively as recording people do? bob weston's petition to get rid of the blue swirls worked - what about a petition to keep them going??
it really seems that most people would rather have emtec around than not, so how can we help them stay around? maybe i'm a little too optimistic and young and naive, but it seems like there's got to be something that the recording community can do to keep emtec 900 going [even if it turns into imation 900 or whatever].
from steve's comments regarding quantegy [poor customer service], and the no brainer-econ 101 reasoning against a monopoly - what can we as consumers do to prevent this? russ already suggested buy more tape - but are they really gonna care if i only buy 2 or 3 reels of 1" every couple months? what if there were a tape collective or something that pooled resources and purchased en masse?
am i totally off base here, or are we really just supposed to let emtec fade away without a fight? [cue rocky music!] steve - you're clearly the most seasoned professional here on this topic - what are your thoughts?
nick
http://www.medialinenews.com/issues/200 ... 15_2.shtml
http://www.emtec-group.com/Public_Relat ... _Releases/
as recording people, what can we do? it seems money is the only thing imation, emtec or whomever really care about - but really, is there something we, collectively as recording people do? bob weston's petition to get rid of the blue swirls worked - what about a petition to keep them going??
it really seems that most people would rather have emtec around than not, so how can we help them stay around? maybe i'm a little too optimistic and young and naive, but it seems like there's got to be something that the recording community can do to keep emtec 900 going [even if it turns into imation 900 or whatever].
from steve's comments regarding quantegy [poor customer service], and the no brainer-econ 101 reasoning against a monopoly - what can we as consumers do to prevent this? russ already suggested buy more tape - but are they really gonna care if i only buy 2 or 3 reels of 1" every couple months? what if there were a tape collective or something that pooled resources and purchased en masse?
am i totally off base here, or are we really just supposed to let emtec fade away without a fight? [cue rocky music!] steve - you're clearly the most seasoned professional here on this topic - what are your thoughts?
nick
Tape Choice, who likes what?
20steve wrote:swordfish wrote:BTW, this is "interesting":
http://www.rogernichols.com/ArchivePack.html
I always knew Roger Nichols was a blowhard, but I never knew he was just plain full of shit.
From what I’ve heard, he’s in dire financial straits. Hard to imagine given his prominence in the recording industry, until you get a load of all those extra-curricular hobbies detailed on his website (I just love the pictures of the exams he had to take at San Onofre). I have witnessed him first-hand spend hours laboring over a Dolby SR alignment with an assistant, repeatedly calling the studio where the tape originated, insisting the tones were faulty, baffled at why the Dolby tone was playing back “low” (it is recorded at about –15dB, as is clearly stated in the manual).
steve wrote:Unintentional comedy abounds as Roger tells us with crumbling grammar and syntax that all of our analog recordings are deteriorating, but if we "archive" them to digital formats, then they will sound "truer."
It’s worse than that. His research “facts” also change mercurially, and he provides no cross-referencing whatsoever to back up his claims. I think we’re expected to take him at his word because he’s a nuclear engineer and he’s worked for Steely Dan (who canned him) and John Denver. Unintentional comedy indeed. Some more lowlights, quoted out-of-sequence and out-of-context to facilitate my rebuff:
Digital Atomics wrote:Because the predicted life of CD-R is more than 100 years, and the fact that CDs are immune to EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse), made this storage method more desirable to this particular client [sic].
We have been working with Kodak concerning CD-R media for long term storage. As of today, Kodak CD-Rs will last over 200 years. If you transfer old analog tapes to CD using 20 bit converters and Super Bit Map or UV-22 processes, you can be ensured that you won't need to make transfers again for a very long time.
Considering the fact that this is the last time that you will ever have to transfer your digital audio data, and that the data retention is more than 267 years, the cost for the satisfaction of knowing that your mixes will be there when you need them, is very modes [sic]
Basically, he says that tape, both analog and digital, is bad for a number of reasons, and that CD-R and optical media are the way to go (the very same, elusive “perfect media” the folks at RADAR told us doesn’t [yet] exist). He also gives differing accounts on the life expectancy of these media. I’d love to read some of the research done by Kodak and others, but alas, none is provided.
Along with standard methods of conduct when it comes to caring for delicate tapes, you must also involve "common sense" in the practical application of those methods. Recently (Summer `95) Digital Atomics was involved in transferring masters for Blue Thumb Records. Some of the masters had very loud clicks scattered randomly throughout the program material.. The clicks were present on tapes from different studios, recorded in different years, and by different artists. As it turns out, the clicks were put on the tape by playing the tapes. At some point, prior to our transfer of the material, the tapes had been played or wound from one reel to another. During this process static electric charges built up on the tape. When the static discharged, it recorded clicks on the tape even though the machines were not in record. Now when tapes in that condition are transferred to digital, the clicks added will have to be digitally removed.
Before the tape is placed on a tape machine, determination should be made as to the condition of that tape. You are not supposed to see if the tape has dried out by counting the number of static sparks. You do not ascertain whether the tape is sticky by trying to play the tape at full tension while watching the machine come to a complete halt.
Put away the electron microscope for a second. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem described above is due to sheer negligence and analog stupidity. If the involved machines were properly maintained and the heads demagnetized on a regular basis, this phenomenon would almost certainly not have happened. Blaming the gear is always a sure sign of bad engineering.
We talked about all of the digital formats that have dissappeared [sic], but remember, there are literally millions of CD players out there. Archival CD-R discs are playable on any CD player, it doesn't have to be some special professional machine. You are guaranteed of always being able to retrieve your material. The next time you will have to worry about protecting your investment will hopefully be 267 years from now.
We also want to make sure that if there is a giant leap forward in storage technology, that the material can be transferred to the new media with NO generation loss, and that the transfers can be automated. This increases dramatically the longevity of the current investment in today's archival process.
What is the distinction between an archival and consumer copy? Is it fair to say, “I went to Tower Records and bought an archival CD of Donald Fagen’s ‘The Nightfly.’ 267 plays later, and it still sounds truer than the original!” I think we should be alarmed that Roger’s essentially proposing we make our archives on a consumer format.
Why Not Backup to Analog?:
For the same reason that you don't keep color Xerox copies of $100 dollar bills in your safe deposit box. It might look good, but try using it for anything.
Seems to me that if you’re dealing with valuable digital information, the safe play is to make an analog archival copy in addition to whatever digital flavor of the month abounds. You know, just in case. Maybe that’s not cost effective for corporate record labels who would rather pay for “giant silos with robotics access to all stored tapes” so they can endlessly automate the duplication of these digital coasters.
Many companies transferred their catalogs of analog tapes to digital many years ago. I transferred the Steely Dan analog masters to 3M digital format in 1981. By transferring the tapes early in the "digital age", any further analog deterioration was halted. More recently the early 3M tapes were transferred to CD. The 3M tapes were marginal in their ability to play back correctly and finding a machine to play them back was a task in itself. Because the data was digital, it was possible to recover the albums completely with no further degradation during the additional 14 years of storage.
Fourteen years, my, that is a long time. I have a theory. Maybe Roger is claiming to have found the perfect medium (in CD-Rs no less) so that he will get everyone’s business and he can pay off the bill for his personal archive of Lowrance computers and SCUBA gear. Then, fourteen years later when that “giant leap forward” has been made and everyone’s replaced their CD players with whateverthefuck is next, everyone will come running to Roger again for his “special professional machine.” Anyone considering spending their money on one of these archiving “services” will undoubtedly get a carefully researched, painstakingly documented copy of their music, performed by an old pro. After all, he charges by the hour. With any luck, he won’t hijack your tapes and hold them for ransom on some remote Caribbean island.
-greasygoose