Premier Rock Forum

After a long period of recording on ADATs and a shitty reel to reel 8 track I'm finally getting occasional work in an analog studio. There seems to be a 499 vs. GP9 debate where I work. One engineer likes one, another engineer likes another. Who prefers what and why?

thanks,
ben adrian

This has always been a problem for me. I'm trying to establish what makes one tape better than the other. I basically narrow it down to how well it works with the machine. If the machine is used to a type of tape, and the tension is calibrated with that tape then that tape is better than the others.
We had listening parties where we compared different tape types. One of these parties included BASF/Emtec 900 to Quantegy 499 stand-off. We did as close to an a-b setup as we could (2 of the same 24 tracks syched together, monitoring through matched faders track for track on the Elite, and a ton of other details). There was a difference, but it sounded 99.98% same. I'd be willing to bet toes that it makes no technical or musical difference between the 3 high output tapes (calibrated correctly obviously). There is no chance you are going to point out in a recording what tape was used, or discover that it was the tape's fault that it sounded so good/horrible.
This is all based on the assumption that we're working with fresh reels. Not guitar center tape ( I saw an old Ampex 456 1/2" reel in one store. They stopped using that name 7 years ago).

Anyway, it becomes a matter of what you've had better experiences with. We have had good experiences with Emtec. Quantegy kinda dicked us around once. Our machines use all the tapes but mostly Emtec 900, and 911. I use GP9 for my 1/4" mixdown machine (because it has been working fine). I've heard that the smoother backing on Emtec tape upsets some machines at first. I don't know, works fine on the MCI,Studer, Ampex, and Tascam machines I've used it on the most.
All companies have bad batches from time to time.
My advise would be-
1. make sure you have enough to complete a project. You don't want to go though 3 reels of 2003 499 and then have to run out to guitar center and get an emergency reel of 1987 499. Buy more tape than you think you need. You know you're going to use it sometime.
2. calibrate your machine before every session (it's like tuning your guitar)

I don't know man, does anyone have a stong or other opinion?

I've had a few frustrating experiences with GP9 on our Otari MTR-90, namely poor packing (due to slitting problems, perhaps?) and "loopback" problems. I tried out a reel of 900 in its place two years ago, and haven't looked back.

I have used both GP9 and 900 on our 1/4" with good results, but like Greg said, the differences between high-output tapes are so miniscule that I feel you might as well choose a tape formulation on a technical basis. You won't ruin anything by recording on 499 vs. GP9, so do a project on each and see if you have a preference.

mb

matthewbarnhart wrote:I have used both GP9 and 900 on our 1/4" with good results, but like Greg said, the differences between high-output tapes are so miniscule that I feel you might as well choose a tape formulation on a technical basis. You won't ruin anything by recording on 499 vs. GP9, so do a project on each and see if you have a preference.

mb

Bonjour.

I have used Quantegy GP9, 499, 456 and Emtec 900 and 911 all within the last month, so my memory of the experiences is pretty good. My impressions are pretty much as they have been for the last few years:

499: my least favorite in sound. The high end seems slightly brittle to me. Other than 499, I don't really have a quarrel with the sound of contemporary tapes, and in any case, the differences are small.
GP9: lower noise and apparently better bass response (compared to 499). The measured difference was really small, and Jay McKnight says that LF response of tape shouldn't vary with type in any but the worst cases, but I noticed it and so did other people on different sessions. Very low noise.
456: seems to run quieter mechanically through the machines than the other two Quantegy types. There was a period in the 90s when the slitting on their 1/2-inch was up the spout, but it got better until we stopped using it.

Emtec 900: Really smooth performance in the transports. Excellent quality control, nice boxes (Je déteste les boites plastiques!), and other than occasional interruptions in supply (which we combat by placing huge, Novotny-terrifying orders), I can't think of anything to complain about.
Emtec 911: Their 456 equivalent. I would agree, except that EMTEC's QC is much better.

Quantegy were real dicks to us, expending a lot of effort to lose a 30 - 50 grand account. If they are willing to work that hard to lose a 20-year customer, I'll let them have their way.

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!

beste,
steve en France

Hey Stephán,

What're you doing in France? Business, pleasure, industrial espionage?
Maybe you're becoming the Jerry Lewis or Woody Allen of recording? I heard they only appreciate Rapeman in France...

Later...

Dan




"'Camoflage' is a French word. It loses something in the translation..."

steve wrote: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!

Yes, I signed this petition myself.

Every once in a while, a reel or two with the hideous purple/grey swirly business makes its way into our studio. I then say something shocking in French, do a jig, and continue to wallpaper the lounge with those "Your EMTEC media CD-R missing!" papers they include.

mb

benadrian wrote:After a long period of recording on ADATs and a shitty reel to reel 8 track I'm finally getting occasional work in an analog studio. There seems to be a 499 vs. GP9 debate where I work. One engineer likes one, another engineer likes another. Who prefers what and why?

thanks,
ben adrian

I dunno, my dumb ears can't tell the difference at all. In my mind, tape choice should come down to whatever kind holds up over time the best. To that end, I don't know which is better.

I've been thinking about trying to make my own tape. I'm just wondering if I should use scotch or masking as a base. I'm thinking masking cos it'd *feel* more like real tape.

I converted to Emtec 900 a while back, because to me it had some of the qualities of 456, but in a high output tape, plus the low end is nice. On 499 there's something I don't like about the high end. I tried using GP9 several times until I walked out of the control room one day to look at the tape machine and there were little flakes of oxide all over the top of the machine, so that was the last time I used it. Nowadays I'll either use 900 or 456, depending on what suits the band. Lots of folks are requesting Pro Tools too, so I'm using 456 more and more to track and then transfer into PT, cause 456 sounds the most "analog tapey" to me.

anyone know what's up with them? i placed an order with markertek and they told me they've gone under and couldn't get any more tape. (then tried to get me to get 456 instead) that doesn't seem really possible to me - (maybe it is?) - where do you guys get your tape from? markertek was a lot cheaper than the other places, that's why i used them.

cal wrote:Lots of folks are requesting Pro Tools too, so I'm using 456 more and more to track and then transfer into PT, cause 456 sounds the most "analog tapey" to me.

Analog tape that sounds "Analog Tapey"? heh. That's a good one. I'll have to remember that one.