Tape users, 2" RMGI SM900 or SM911 ??

[ihearsounds]

Hey Ya´ll

Gone been thru few threads about tape discussions but couldnt really find so much comparison between specially SM900 and SM911 2" Tape..

I´m about to order some reels and hoping to hear your opinions if you´ve had chance to hear the difference between the two! The manufacturer promises SM900 more "dynamic" and "high output", so i might just go for that.

I´m running Studer A80 2", at 15ips (mostly)

And warm HOliday greetings to all who have chance to have some!

[OKden]

You really should get one of each and decide for yourself. I use 900 mostly for reasons of noise, but 911 has a very cool sound of its own. Let us know which one you like best. thumbsup

[Mike H]

I strongly encourage to also get a reel of ATR Magnetics tape and A/B them.

I used SM900 1/2" for quite a while until I A/B'ed it against ATR, and ATR was the clear winner, to my ears.

[Jeancab]

Originally Posted by OKden

You really should get one of each and decide for yourself.

+1

Is your A80 a 16 or 24 tracks ?
For a 24T, at 15ips, I would probably choose the SM900, for noise reasons.

[ihearsounds]

Yeah, i should get one each but i have a session coming in 2 weeks and got no chance to do it, so i think i might go for the SM900 and get one SM911 in the same delivery and do the A / B on those.. good idea!

I have 16 tracks, with few channels not in condition to record unfortunately, so its more like 13tracks

" I use 900 mostly for reasons of noise, but 911 has a very cool sound of its own."

-Why do you think so?

[ihearsounds]

Any other tape-operators with opinions on the matter??

[tombak]

I'm a big fan of the BASF 911 on 1/2" and 1". I haven't tried/heard firsthand either of the RMGI formulas yet.

However, I'd love to compare the ATR against the SM911.

Not quite the answer you're looking for.....

[Plush]

RMGI SM900 is the tape to beat because it is the most modern tape with high output and velvety soft background hiss (especially true using CCIR EQ).

SM911 is an Ampex 456 type tape with superior sound and is the most proven analog tape for archiving purposes. It shines when running the machine at lower operating levels.

As far as sound is concerned, I find the SM900 to be a clearer sound than SM911. SM900 also has the ability to record (and hold) more bass energy than SM911.

[ihearsounds]

Originally Posted by Plush

RMGI SM900 is the tape to beat because it is the most modern tape with high output and velvety soft background hiss (especially true using CCIR EQ).

SM911 is an Ampex 456 type tape with superior sound and is the most proven analog tape for archiving purposes. It shines when running the machine at lower operating levels.

As far as sound is concerned, I find the SM900 to be a clearer sound than SM911. SM900 also has the ability to record (and hold) more bass energy than SM911.

OK, That´s an opinion !! stike

I´ll think i order bunch of SM900´s and a SM911 to make the comparison test for all my gearslutz!

[DigitalMahem]

If you're running a Studer, you should take advantage of the higher output capabilities of either SM900 or ATR Studio Master which is even higher output than the SM900. I'd compare these two tapes, not SM911 and SM900. SM911 might be best suited for a TASCAM or Otari type setup. I think SM911 is too grungy sounding for mastering on our ATRs. But for tracking, it might be what you want. Of all three, I like the ATR sound the best, but it is a bit more money.

Simcha

Originally Posted by ihearsounds

OK, That´s an opinion !! stike

I´ll think i order bunch of SM900´s and a SM911 to make the comparison test for all my gearslutz!

[DigitalMahem]

Originally Posted by Plush

RMGI SM900 is the tape to beat because it is the most modern tape with high output and velvety soft background hiss (especially true using CCIR EQ).

SM911 is an Ampex 456 type tape with superior sound and is the most proven analog tape for archiving purposes. It shines when running the machine at lower operating levels.

As far as sound is concerned, I find the SM900 to be a clearer sound than SM911. SM900 also has the ability to record (and hold) more bass energy than SM911.

How is SM911 an AMPEX 456 type tape?

[Plush]

Originally Posted by DigitalMahem

How is SM911 an AMPEX 456 type tape?

The answer is that both tapes are standard bias tapes made to run at a maximum of +6.
They were both*developed in the same era and bias set-up is similar. I was trying to differentiate these two tapes from the more modern +9 tapes. In my opinion, SM911 is a high quality tape and a better made tape than 456.

I cannot agree that SM911 is not suitable for Studer or ATR machines. What you said is not a fact at all. Also, the main "sound" of a tape is created by the tape machine, not the tape itself. If you have a murky sounding experience with SM911, then your machine is not set up correctly. Any tape can sound dull if the machine is not aligned to the tape.

[DigitalMahem]

Originally Posted by Plush

The answer is that both tapes are standard bias tapes made to run at a maximum of +6.
They were both*developed in the same era and bias set-up is similar. I was trying to differentiate these two tapes from the more modern +9 tapes. In my opinion, SM911 is a high quality tape and a better made tape than 456.

I cannot agree that SM911 is not suitable for Studer or ATR machines. What you said is not a fact at all. Also, the main "sound" of a tape is created by the tape machine, not the tape itself. If you have a murky sounding experience with SM911, then your machine is not set up correctly. Any tape can sound dull if the machine is not aligned to the tape.

I agree SM911 is better made than 456 was, especially at the end. I didn't say SM911 isn't suitable for Studer or ATR decks, I was saying that you might as well take advantage of the elevated operating levels of SM900 or ATR tape on a true pro deck as opposed to prosumer.

I disagree that the main sound of a tape is created by the deck. The sound of the tape itself is independent of the deck. The deck adds it's own flavour to the audio, but that's not the sound of the tape. It's the sound of the tape deck which should be nuetral unless you're trying to achieve a different sound.

SM911 does NOT sound as clean as SM900 or ATR tape and I DO know how to properly set up a deck. But this difference is a tool you can use, depending on what sound you want to achieve. It's that sound of the tape.

[bass man]

And did you check it out ? Can you explain the sound difference between sm 911 and sm 900 or even sm 468 ?

[themaidsroom]

both rmg and atr smell more than any other tape i have experienced.
they have different smells.




be well


- jack

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by DigitalMahem

If you're running a Studer, you should take advantage of the higher output capabilities of either SM900 or ATR Studio Master which is even higher output than the SM900. I'd compare these two tapes, not SM911 and SM900. SM911 might be best suited for a TASCAM or Otari type setup. I think SM911 is too grungy sounding for mastering on our ATRs. But for tracking, it might be what you want. Of all three, I like the ATR sound the best, but it is a bit more money.

Simcha

I have an Tascam ATR 80 and the 900 has been just fine for me

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Plush

The answer is that both tapes are standard bias tapes made to run at a maximum of +6.
They were both*developed in the same era and bias set-up is similar. I was trying to differentiate these two tapes from the more modern +9 tapes. In my opinion, SM911 is a high quality tape and a better made tape than 456.

I've run both of these recently at my studio, running at +6, and although you're right that the bias setup is similar I think they sound quite different. Personally I prefer 456 but I could see how someone might prefer 911 for what I hear as a more clinical sound.

456, to me, is often worth the trouble for what it brings to the party. 911 not so much.

-R

[bass man]

Any direct comparaison beetwen RMG sm 468 ,sm 900 and sm 911 ?

[blivetaudio]

Hello tape-types,

I have just finished restoring a Scully 280 (1" 8-tack) recorder here in the UK and intend to use it as our main tracking machine.

Can anyone in the know (preferably a fellow Scully user) let me know what tape would be best or what tape you are using on your machine.

Maybe I should get both and try but does that not mean I would need two MRL line-up tapes (one for each specific formula?).

I used the old Ampex 456 for a few years and never had any problems with the sound but have never used any of the higher gain formulations such as 900 or GP9.

I seem to remember hearing that GP9 was harsher on the heads as it passed through?

I am after the highest quality recording possible.

Thanks in advance.

[Overdrive]

RMGI tapes almost made me stop believing in analog. To my luck I managed to purchase an NOS stock of BASF SM900, SM911 and Ampex (!) 499 that are real good and play as new. The RMGI stuff with it's sticky shed, new out of the box could not possibly compete with it's ancestors.
As we often say round here - YMMV. Definitely!

[Victory Pete]

I have been using RMGI 911 on all My Tascams, MSR-24, MS-16, and TSR-8. I think it sounds better than any 456 I have ever used. It is clearer sounding. I just bought a reel of 1/4" 900 to use on my Tascam 42, I havent set up the machine yet, I am not sure if the 42 is capable of producing enough bias for the 900. If it does or not will determine the test tape I will need and the level I will finally use. 250 or 350 nwb/m.
VP

[blivetaudio]

Thanks guys,

I find it interesting that although the vast majority of tape users seem to be using RMGI as NOS tape is now nearing it's sell by date there are still a huge number of people warning against RMGI?

A lot (relatively) of negative experiences?

[gevermil]

Ive been using 911 for awhile and it seems fine to me (no shedding) , and
I use it on an old scully that has a transport like a stagecoach .

[Steve Anderson]

ATR Services tape, while lovely with great quality control, is similar in formulation and bias requirements to GP-9.

A lot of folks here in L.A. weren't big on GP-9, preferring either Ampex/Quantegy 456/499. But it's a little like arguing Les Pauls vs. Strats/

That said, I've seen first hand that certain older machines do not handle GP-9 well. Ampex 1200s might not erase properly. After warning that this might be the case, a producer asked me to go ahead and try to set his machine up. After going through it with a fine-toothed comb and aligning the heck out of it, it still wouldn't erase well. That becomes a serious problem when you're re-printing take upon take before you transfer it into the box.

Likewise, I've had, at times, Studer A-80s that wouldn't erase GP-9 well too.

Emtec sounds lovely, but the quality control and consistency is sketchy. Open one box, it's great. The next box sheds badly and you have trouble with hi-freq tones.

If you choose to go with either Emtec formulation, my strong suggestion is to take the time to print 15-30 sec. of 1K, and 15-30 sec. of 10K on each reel, then see how it plays back. If it's solid, go ahead and record to it. If not, return it to the dealer and get a new box.

[DannyMac]

If yu have an 820/827......check out (if you can find it) original EMTEC 900

fwahhhh ...mmmmmmm

[theatomicgarden]

Ive been using RMG 911 (2") on my MTR-90 II for the last year and it has been nothing but a beautiful experience. A while ago I had some shedding issues with their 1/4" but they've taken care of all that since then.

[Sput]

Originally Posted by theatomicgarden

Ive been using RMG 911 (2") on my MTR-90 II for the last year and it has been nothing but a beautiful experience. A while ago I had some shedding issues with their 1/4" but they've taken care of all that since then.

Same machine here. I have been working with RMG 900 and it sounds fine to me. Do you recommend to also try the 911?
Have you compared the 2 of them with the Otari?
Have you tried ATR?