PDA

View Full Version : The New RMGI/EMTEC LPR35 Test Report


Des-Lab
05-21-2008, 07:29 PM
UPDATE: Since the original report printed below was published here on Tapeheads in May of 2008, there has been a major change in the status of this tape. Please read this follow up (http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=12647)involving the tape detailed below, written in April 2011. Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For pride of place here in the reel to reel section of TapeHeads V2.0, I will post again my full test report that I wrote up a few months ago. Hopefully this will serve as a useful guide in determining whether or not you might be interested in the tape. This is because among us 'tapheads', there is a lot of confusion over what type of tape to use. Also, the RMGI tapes are rather new. And many folks have not tested it

Back in December of last year, my wife and I did our Christmas a few days early. We both agreed to do so that way we wouldn't have to wait another few days to begin enjoying our gifts to each other. One of the items on my list was five boxes of the RMGI/EMTEC LPR-35 tape (1.0 mil quarter inch 10" X 3600').
Well sure enough, I got them and quickly decided to test that tape. It is new to me and I wanted to see how it performed.

I asked that she buy the plastic reel version. This is because 1) they are cheaper, 2) I don't like the styling of the metal reels that are available with this tape, and 3) I have plenty of empty reels that I DO like.

So I started out with one tape as shown here.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/RMGI_Tape_Plastic_Reel.JPG

And after looking at my stash of unused metal reels, I decided on a Scotch/3M twelve screw 'precision' reel to transfer it on for eventual use in rotation and play.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/emptyMetalReel.JPG


These tapes (as did the Quantegy's, with the mysterious exception of 7" X 1800' #457) come leaderless. So I had to put my own on. So I rolled out one spool of each color to decide what I thought would look best.
http://x-2000r.angelcities.com/images/tapestuff/LeaderColors.JPG
After mulling it over, I decided on blue for the head end and yellow for the tail end.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/RMGI_Tape_Kit.JPG

Because the tape was going to be transfered into a metal reel before using, I had to attach the 'back', or 'tail' end leader first. So before going any further, I put the yellow on while still in the original plastic reel. I should point out that the enclosed directions from USR recommend snipping the first 8-10 feet (!!! not a typo) from each end. I feel that's a bit much, so I only snipped the first layer or so (approx 18") from the end before splicing on the leader.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/YellowEnd.JPG

After doing this, I proceeded to clean and demag the deck. I'll have more on this below.

Now, I was ready to do a dead-head transfer. I loaded both reels onto my X-2000R and simply ran it. This served the dual purpose of loosening up the pack as well as smoothing out any possible outcrops of oxide on the tape. Because I did not want to possibly skew my testing, I ran it without the record feature on. I would like to hope that it isn't needed on a virgin tape anyway.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Transfer_Begin.JPG

...and here we are while the transfer was in progress, just before the halfway point. If anyone wants clarification the looks of metal versus plastic reels, see for yourself.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Transfer_Progress.JPG

And at the end, the usable length clocked in at 1:36:25, as per the meter on the deck.


I stated above that before doing this, I cleaned and demagged the heads first. Here is the headstack just after cleaning:

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/HeadStack_Clean.JPG

This tape had an unusual effect on my pinch rollers that left me baffled. After looking around for excess oxide shed, I looked at the rollers. The amount of oxide found was negligible and basically insignificant and nothing to be worried about. The rollers on the other hand, had developed a strange cloudy band in the tape path with the little bit of oxide. It makes for a rather unusual color combination.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/HeadStack_Dirty.JPG

The difference between the above two pictures is indeed just one pass of a virgin tape.

Now that the tape was transferred, I had to put the front (head) end leader on. Remember, I chose blue. And so here it is. If you look carefully at the center of the windage hole facing the camera, you can just barely see the yellow 'tail' end.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Blue_Leader.JPG

Finally, as a last crowning touch, I peeled the RMGI label off of the original plastic reel and affixed it to the metal reel. It shows a little class. Although I found out that the ink used on that label is very fragile and some of it crumbled and flaked off because of the peel and transfer. It still looks better than the plain empty reel.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/RMGI_Stickered_Reel.JPG

Now I was ready to get down to business. Now that the transfer was complete and leaders attached, I re-loaded the tape onto the Teac and used a nominal Maxell "double-M" reel as the takeup.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Metal_Reels_To_Test.JPG

To evaluate the tape, I chose three songs that represent a large cross section of what I typically like to listen to. They also encompass a number of different vocal and instrumentation ranges.

They were:

1. "Learning To Fly" by Tom Petty

2. "Fable" by Robert Miles

3. "Rennaissance Man" by The Ocean Blue

The testing process was the same and repeated for each song.

The first step was to determine where a flat bias lies. Because the X-2000R has both adjustible bias and live monitoring, I was able to set it in real time while doing an A/B comparison. To further validate it, I would often A/B only one channel at a time. The short but noticable time delay between the two sides unfortunately creates a nonbalanced reverb effect. But I do it anyway just to try all parameters. Note the meters are not in synch because of the slight aforementioned time delay.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Monitor_Settings.JPG

Much to my surprise, this tape is incredibly high bias. Playback with a flat bias was somewhat dull. The best sound was with the bias on this deck turned down almost as far as it can go (about -5%). At that point a flat , perfectly matched sound was heard. I should point out that the base noise was extremely low. There was virtually no hiss to speak of. Had I been using the DBX, it would've been as silent as a CD.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Input_Setting.JPG

Next was to see how much input the tape could handle before saturating. This is where I was really surprised.

http://x-2000r.0catch.com/images/tapestuff/Pegged_Meters.JPG

Here is what I found. On above song #1, I was able to turn the input gain to the maximum. VU needles were pegged. No audible distortion. That song has a very pronounced accoustic guitar line and only mid level vocals and weak percussion.

Song #2 was able to carry about a sustained +4 with peaks pegging before there was noticable saturation. Song has emphasis on high note piano and heavy electronic beat. Some secondary female background vocals and substantial backing synthesizers.

Song #3: The weakest performer. Was barely able to hit peaks of +4 without noticable distortion. Very heavy drums, bass, and percussion tracks along with electric guitar.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall a very good tape. It's high bias not doubt contributes to the eye-opening headroom. Unfortunately, if you are using a deck without bias controls, you will almost certainly need to compensate with EQ treble controls turned up. Otherwise the very high bias needed will result in a dull (but rich) sound.

For vocals and high notes (such as keyboards and accoustic guitars), this has to be one of the cleanest tapes I've ever heard. For those kind of sources, I recommend it highly. Unfortunately, this tape seems to struggle with the deep lows (drums, electric guitars, and percusssion tracks). For material that has heavy emphasis on those lows, you will likely be disappointed. In which case I would say go with another tape.

These results were based on biasing with a sound as close to neutral and indistinguishable from the source as I could do. Had the bias parameters been set differently, very likely, the sound outcome would be different.

Thanks for reading.

Skywavebe
07-23-2008, 10:16 AM
Hello Group-
I just joined but some may know me from elsewhere.
I tested this tape on the bench as working on some tape decks. What I found
was that this tape when set up on a machine with good heads and precise
calibration that it did very well allowing a recording sweep at 7.5IPS all the way up to 25KHz. Not every tape will do this.
I would have to say that for a 1.0 mil tape this does an excellent job and RMGI has done their homework with respect to formula.

Sam Palermo, Chicago area

Doug_Olitsky
09-28-2008, 10:33 AM
Des;

Can you make a hi-rez scan of the lpr35 label on the box for me I want to make a reel label like I did for the 900 and 911.

Des-Lab
09-28-2008, 12:31 PM
Which did you want? The RMGI logo or the "Studio Master" one? It might be hard to take a scan because my scanner isn't big enough to hold an entire reel box. And I'd really rather not peel the labels off the box. But I could probably do a high res frontal true-color picture for you.

Doug_Olitsky
09-28-2008, 01:02 PM
Des-

My bad, I meant to specify.. the one that says Studio Master - LPR35.

A picture should do the trick if your camera can do a macro / close-up

Des-Lab
09-28-2008, 01:21 PM
Asketh and ye shall receiveth: An up close, true color straight on angle of it.

Doug_Olitsky
09-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Des-

Thanks! I made a reel tag like the others, and put it in the sticky!

iamhifi
10-28-2008, 03:29 PM
I also test this tape and found that is lean on the mid low and lower and there for can't go to the deepest octave, although is very clear sound. Every deck is diffrent.
Angel

Doug_Olitsky
10-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Does any body know which bias setting (normal or high) should be used on a TEAC 2300s when using RMGI LPR35?

I dont have a manual for this deck (anybody have one?)

kevinkr
11-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I have a couple of reels of LPR35 produced by BASF and have observed the same general characteristics as Deslab mentioned in terms of headroom and bias with the newer RMGI version - sounds like it is consistent with older product. It sounds just great on my recently revived (new heads, etc) ReVox G36. I plan to purchase some RMGI produced LPR35 sometime in the near future. (I might ask my wife to get me a couple of reels for Christmas along with some leader tape and splicing materials.)

I thought the bass performance was pretty good, but did note some limitations in performance at very high levels in the bass. Something I think I can live with..

Subjectively this tape also has rather low noise levels..

I did a full dub of Elvis Costello's "Il Sogno" and it sounds very good, lots of detail, imaging present completely intact, great dynamics, and very clean, extended highs. A very good match to the G36 requiring bias levels well within the deck's capability.

TheReeler
12-14-2008, 06:22 AM
You have convinced me. I placed and order and has just arrived...

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

http://mb.abovenet.de/forum2/bildupload/Emtec_1a.jpg

Kidding... *reelspin*

DolbySProject
02-09-2010, 11:10 AM
I finally decided to actually record on a reel of LPR35. I used the settings that the manual for my deck (X10R) suggested: Rec Bias "2" / Rec EQ "1". All I can say is that as good as my TC-KA1ESa cassette decks sound with chrome/metal tape, the X10R's running the LPR35 at 7 ips. just run all up and down it. The only way I can describe it is, more "balls and chunk with crispness". The bass is more authoritative yet nothing else suffers. It still has great midrange and still retains clear highs. The only thing I had to compare it with was Scotch 150. (I know, stop laughing.) Not a fair comparison. If the SM900/911 and ATR are better than this... I may need to take a nap. I have got to get more of this stuff. Heck, I gotta get my PR99 fixed!

My test recordings were: Screaming Headless Torsos - Live! (CD) and The Rascals - See (LP)

Skywavebe
02-09-2010, 12:12 PM
As to the bias question of a A2300S or any machine of that age, the tapes made today are vastly superior to the tapes made back then and even when set to the high bias position- both switches up, there is always a reason to have your machine adjusted to the tape of today or the tapes you have a lot of blank of.
As far as response at the low end, there aren't any tapes I can think of that have any trouble with the low end especially since only the very highest Tascam models have a pot adjustment for low frequency adjustment. Why is this needed? Because due to the contour of a tapes decks head there are always low frequency head bumps that can not be taken out with the usual controls in the deck. Also a reason for a poor base or mid base response would be the bias is set too low. External bias settings on a tape deck like the X2000 can not compensate sufficiently for some of the tapes needs these days. The Otari MX5050 do have a better control. Teac was forced to limit the bias adjustment range as too many people would bias their deck out of recording at all so it was set to be limited almost to the degree that it does no good. Not only that, the tracks need different bias setting not one. LPR 35 may be 1 to 2 dB lower print level than the better 900 or ATR tapes but for what it is there is no reason whatsoever to consider this tape unworthy- I think it is great stuff!

dreamsound
03-25-2010, 12:35 PM
If the SM900/911 and ATR are better than this... I may need to take a nap

According to the RMGI site, LPR35 is the 1 mil version of 911. So I wouldn't expect a much different experience with 911. Whether there's a benefit to be had with 900 or 468 would depend on the deck alignment.
http://www.rmgi-usa.com/rmg_studio.html

If the OP's deck is maxed out & can't push LPR35 over the edge with the record level all the way up, it really makes me wonder if the OP's deck is aligned hot enough to get everything out of LPR35 that can be had. Also, the statement "Had I been using the DBX, it would've been as silent as a CD." seems to enforce the idea that the deck is aligned to operate at lower levels to tape...ie: closer to the noise floor instead of being able to reach the top end of LPR's dynamic range.

Anyway, great reading anyway. Still wish they'd come up with an LP version of 468 though :-)

todd

Bob Boyer
08-05-2010, 04:42 PM
This stuff's hotter than a $2 pistol!! *yip*

Have recorded two reels of it after Nakdoc got my deck biased for it last week - one reel at 7.5 ips (which is the speed I biased for) and the other at 15 ips just for fun. The headroom is amazing!

Tom said my treble might bump up a bit at 15 ips but it's not much of an issue - at least on the new WB Dire Straits remasters I archived Tuesday night. I'll try some different stuff as an experiment with the next reels.

The Doors stuff I bumped over at 7.5 ips is wonderful - almost a perfect match to the vinyl. Very, very nice tape.

Des-Lab
08-07-2010, 06:55 PM
It IS good stuff. But as I mentioned in another topic, this stuff doesn't seem to be selling all that well these days. No doubt the $50+ per roll price is a factor, which is a tough pill to swallow when you consider that most of us remember when Maxell XLI's were available for about half that price less than a decade ago. Too few users. And most of them are still chasing NOS or even so-called "one-pass" tape. Unless there is a huge underground market for this stuff that even I don't know about, I honestly don't know how much longer this fine tape will continue to be made. Barring some abrupt uptick in interest, I give it a year. Maybe two tops.

Bob Boyer
08-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Indeed. It is kinda stiff price-wise. And the reels I gave away with the Revox back in 2001 or so cost a lot less than $25 as I'd had them for some years before selling the machine. But that's the price you pay these days. I'll be going for the plastic reels after I fill up the empty Ampexes I have laying around with pancakes. That saves a little, but even $33 per pancake means a reel every month or two on my income. All of which just means I'll be pretty choosy about what gets recorded.

And one can hope that the small resurgence in some of the analog recording houses will help keep things going. There was certainly a nice stash of LPR and 911 at ProSound (a recording studio supply house) in Nashville the other day when I bought my 7" reel - which indicates some use professionally.

Digital recording definitely makes things handy if you're a songwriter or musician, but as Roger Hawkins commented a while back, and artists are beginning to realize again, what they are missing these days is the magic that happens when a group of musicians sit in a studio and say - "wonder how this sounds?" And there seems to be enough activity - at least in these parts - to keep some tape-based studios going. Even if they are small.

Des-Lab
08-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Economies of scale bro. Remember that demand for a product or service need not drop to zero before it dies. There are certain fixed costs that must be recovered regardless of the number of units sold. If demand support falls below whatever that magic number is, the parent company will have no choice but to shut it down even in the face of that small but loyal audience. The only other option is to raise the price enough to offset declining sales. But that almost never works because it just results in demand destruction because of still fewer people buy it and thus it just hastens its demise. Just like the human body and water. A 200 pound mans body is what? 120 pounds water? He need not lose all of that water before succumbing to dehydration. A loss of probably as little as 15 pounds will be enough to prove fatal.

Pentium100
08-08-2010, 06:54 PM
Still, they could try to offset some of the fixed costs by making a lower quality but cheaper tape (the Maxell UR/TDK D of R2R). Though they probably did the math and people like me (who like R2R but do not have a lot of money and/or top quality equipment/ears/sources) are even rarer than those who use R2R and care about quality and have a lot of money so introducing a new type of tape would not pay off.

Dogface1956
08-08-2010, 11:05 PM
Still, they could try to offset some of the fixed costs by making a lower quality but cheaper tape (the Maxell UR/TDK D of R2R). Though they probably did the math and people like me (who like R2R but do not have a lot of money and/or top quality equipment/ears/sources) are even rarer than those who use R2R and care about quality and have a lot of money so introducing a new type of tape would not pay off.

I agree with you, $50 bucks for a new tape is just to expensive to purchase too many. If they could make a new tape in the $20 range then I would be willing to purchase a few each month to support my habit. But right now I have to purchase used Maxell tapes to support the habit.

Jeff

Des-Lab
08-09-2010, 05:41 AM
I agree with you, $50 bucks for a new tape is just to expensive to purchase too many. If they could make a new tape in the $20 range then I would be willing to purchase a few each month to support my habit.

There are only three ways that would be possible:

1. Move production to the Third World. ATR is made in the USA. That means real wages must be paid to those who make it. Strict environmental laws for the chemical process is in place along with the infrastructure (building, property taxes, electricty, etc) all adds significantly to the cost. RMGI has many of those same issues as well and with them, throw in the tanking dollar against the Euro.

2. Create such a huge resurgent demand for them (I'm talking on the scale of 100x the current consumption rate) that would enable the per-piece manufacturing price to come down by virtue of the sheer numbers.

3. Create a tape that's had so many corners cut and quality sacrified that it would be possible to sell at that low of a price. Thing is. Who would buy it?

Pentium100
08-09-2010, 12:52 PM
3. Create a tape that's had so many corners cut and quality sacrified that it would be possible to sell at that low of a price. Thing is. Who would buy it?

Depends on how many corners would be cut. For example, most people on this site bash current production Maxell UR and to a lesser extent TDK SA tapes, but I use them almost exclusively, because when copying a record, these tapes offer enough quality for me to not be able to hear a difference from the source or the difference not bother me, depending on the source record and whether it has a lot of high frequencies I use either SA or UR.

Maxell and TDK seem to make money from the cassettes they make., otherwise they would discontinue them.

So, a reel tape that has the quality of current production Maxell UR would probably be OK to me, depending on the price. But then again, I have ~50km of cheap NOS tape, but I do not know how good or bad the quality is, since I don't hear a difference between source and tape at 19cm/s.

Bob Boyer
08-09-2010, 01:01 PM
I think if there's going to be a resurgence in demand it's going to have to come from the pro side. Those are the guys, what's left of 'em, who back charge the clients for the tape - and who can purchase in something resembling bulk. Even that, these days, amount to a few reels per month at best.

The rest of us are gonna be buying 3 or 4 reel a year...