• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Quantegy 456 - Very Nice!

johnfalc

johnfalc

Well-Known Member
I picked up a reel (7.5") today for a buck just to try it out - brand new, never used.

Well ... I am really pleased - absolutely great response on my Tandberg 6041x - I know my ears aren't what they used to be but I really cannot tell the difference between source and tape going from pristine vinyl - I'm quite pleased. I also picked up several reels of Maxell UD 35-90 (N) but haven't run those yet - by repute the bias conditions for the two emulsions are very similar - we'll see (as will the measurements!).

John
 
Register to hide this ad
I've heard it's a great sounding tape, but haven't used it myself. I did read on the Quantegy website that they are planning to restart production of 456. That would be sweet, hope it goes through as I am a little leary of using older tapes. Currently using RMGI SM911, also a nice tape.

Dave
 
I just was reading where one place is saying that they are now selling Quantegy tape again. Who would have thought that Quanetgy could rise from the dead Twice now!

This is pretty amazing: now there are three R2R tape manufacurers in production again! But as much as I love Quantegy 456/7, I think that my next order will be for some of the ATR tape. I have read too many good things about that tape, and now I need to give it a try to see if it lives up to the hype. If it does, then I'm not sure if I will continue to buy 456 anymore or not.
 
Last edited:
ATR Tape is a +9 output tape. Tandbergs can't correctly bias it. Made for 15/30 IPS studio recording on high end studio machines only. RMGI SM 911, SM 468, or LPR 35 is much better suited to your Tandberg and are bias compatible.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
ATR Tape is a +9 output tape. Tandbergs can't correctly bias it. Made for 15/30 IPS studio recording on high end studio machines only. RMGI SM 911, SM 468, or LPR 35 is much better suited to your Tandberg and are bias compatible.
Click to expand...
Are you certain about this? This may be a +9dB tape like GP9, but I've done a little research, and its bias requirements are not supposed to be as high as either GP9 or 499. The claim is that it can supposedly accept an extremly wide range of bias/eqs setting and that the studio's love this ability to taylor how it sounds by biasing it on a different part of the curve without really compromising its performance. The claim is that even an A77 can bias high enough, and I know that my Tandbergs will easily record on tapes that my A77 can't erase (my A77 struggles to erase even 456)

Anyways, I simply intend to buy one reel at first to see how it works for me. But since they don't make any 1mil tapes I will probably keep my buying 457 as long as I can, even if I should fall in love with the ATR tape.
 
Last edited:
Your Tandberg is a later machine which is a borderline case. It''s just that the 456, SM 911, and SM 468 have all the headroom your machine can deliver and you gain nothing with ATR tape at best. These 3 alternatives are less expensive to boot.
 
The main problem with ATR tape is that it is the thickest & heaviest to date and will not only put too much strain on a typical consumer / semi-pro deck (will be physically harder to pull) but will not yield the type of frequency response and specs that you'd get from something along the lines of the Quantegy + 3 / +6 tape or even Maxell, which are all great and ideal tapes for most of us in the game. The head-wrap thus head contact would be be better which would give you best response. There's also the issue of proper erase ratio among other things, which would work out to your advantage with something like a Quantegy, a lower operating level tape.

BTW, the ATR is a +10 tape and is spec'd even higher (and thicker) than the GP9 or SM900, which I would never recommend on consumer / semi-pro gear.
 
Last edited:
Took some ATR Tape home and used it on my wife's Tandberg TD20A SE. Not impressed, very underbiased (and the bias is full clockwise on the internal adjustment), the TD20A SE couldn't fully erase it either. He's right.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
Took some ATR Tape home and used it on my wife's Tandberg TD20A SE. Not impressed, very underbiased (and the bias is full clockwise on the internal adjustment), the TD20A SE couldn't fully erase it either. He's right.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info! I guess that I'll just stick with 456 for my consumer machines. I will still need to get a reel of the ATR to try on my Otaris and my Tascams though.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for experimentation and trying things out but, IMHO, you'd be better off sticking to Quantegy 456 / RMGI SM911 (or its equivalent), over the long haul, on a TASCAM, TEAC, OTARI or FOSTEX and especially the countless consumer decks out-there, the Pioneers and such....

With ATR tape, you're just gonna put needless wear and strain on your machines over time, with hardly any improvement in performance over the stock tapes, that these machines were designed around.

I have nothing against ATR tape but that it's more suited to wide track, pro designated machines.
 
Really? What makes the ATR so much stiffer? I had no idea that 1.5 Mil ATR was so much harder to pull than is 1.5 Mil 456.

FWIW: I have a Tascam 44-OB, a Tascam 52, a couple of Otari 5050 BIIs, and an MCI-JH110. These are all VERY solid, direct drive, 1/4" pro machines, which run either 2 or 4 tracks. None of these are the latest models, and none are in the class of the better Studers, or Stellas, but they all are definitely very solid pro machines.

If none of these can benefit from ATR tape, then what would? Do you have the same opinion of GP9, and 499 on these machines?
 
Last edited:
goldear said:
Really? What makes the ATR so much stiffer? I had no idea that 1.5 Mil ATR was so much harder to pull than is 1.5 Mil 456.
Click to expand...

1.5mil doesn't refer to the overall thickness of the tape. It mostly refers to base film / base material. When you take a look at the specification of each tape you will note that the ATR has a larger amount of oxide coating and backing than 456, 50% more in-fact, making the tape more heavy and stiff.

FWIW: I have a Tascam 44-OB, a Tascam 52, a couple of Otari 5050 BIIs, and an MCI-JH110. These are all VERY solid, direct drive, 1/4" pro machines, which run either 2 or 4 tracks. None of these are the latest models, and none are in the class of the better Studers, or Stellas, but they all are definitely very solid pro machines.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with those machines and I'm not questioning their quality but, again, none were designed to go even close to the type of tape that the ATR is.

If none of these can benefit from ATR tape, then what would? Do you have the same opinion of GP9, and 499 on these machines?
Click to expand...

The problem is that vendors which sell ATR will tell you that it's a fine tape to use on anything other than some very old tape decks, which is misleading. The ATR tape was seemingly made to fit many of ATR's specialty decks, such as the AMPEX 100 / 102 series and others in this category, ones which have electronics and tape transport which can deal with very high level operating tapes.

I would not use ATR master tape or GP9 on any of my recorders for the following reasons (even if they can bias to them): (1) heavier / stiff tape is harder to pull and will strain and likely burn out a capstan motor over time, (2) the head wrap is less than ideal (as a result of stiff tape) and will yield less than ideal frequency response (3) the electronics will distort faster than the tape will (basically you're paying for headroom you can't use) (4) sometimes proper, complete erase can't be made (5) there's some debate on this but I believe the heavier / stiffer the tape the more head ware it will cause.

The 499 is a little bit thicker than 456 but not as much as GP9 / ATR and I could possibly make a case for using it but why? It's not like there's a night / day difference for me to justify the extra cost or putting more strain than neccessary on my deck. I'll stick to 456 / 911 as max for my needs.

It comes down to needless wear & tear of your recorder and shelling out the bucks for the oxide that you won't use and why do that?
 
Last edited:
I know this is an old post but wanted to chime in because I just bought 3 7" reels of SM911:music:, LPR35:thmbsp:, and ATR :scratch2:(both 7" and a 10" pancake) to try them all (SM900 was out of stock). Even though no one uses 3 3/4ips I tried recording at that and 7 1/2 on my X-2000R (w and w/o dbx and 7 1/2 and 15 ips on my Revox PR99mkII and Sony TC-880-2. I was trying to figure out what tape I liked the best and figured I'd buy a reel or two every month of the kind I liked best. I expected tremendous performance for the raved about ATR, but it never lived up to my expectations. The PR99 and the 880-2 made it sound very good at 7 1/2 and better at 15 ips, but at 3 3/4 on my TEAC it sounded horrible compared to the LPR35 and SM911. I've come to the conclusion that in terms of the new tapes available fr all around us that the LPR35 and SM911 just stomp the ATR :thumbsdn:tape as far as my ears are concerned. I've used the SM900 when it was Emtec on the blue new wave reels in the 90s and it also sounded great at the lower speeds with the exception that I could drive it much harder. Anyhow--just my 2 cents.
 
Wow. And I was going to use ATR on my Otari B3 deck. So how does SM 900 fair on an Otari? I know it is also a +9db tape, but I always under record in levels anyway- so Im not worried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom