Quantegy plant to reopen soon.

On 10 May 2005 18:48:41 -0700, "Cartrivision1"
wrote:

Yes, I believe that they were the "472's". A couple of them had
quality issues like locking up during playback/rewind or they were just
plain noisy during playback. snip

As with any cassette tape, biasing is critical in newer formulations,
especially on Type IIs. Too much bias, and the noise goes up and the
top end goes away.

As for dynamic range, 472 has about as hot an MOL as any, including
Maxell's XL, IF the deck is biased correctly. I've used 472 for
studio work since it came out, and once your record bias is set up
right, there's not a problem hitting those things at 320 nWb/M or even
hotter...just don't hit it any hotter than that, or you hit the roof
really quickly, as you do with any Type II. The thing I always liked
about Type I cassettes with Dolby "B" was that there was lots of
headroom in the bass region...far more than any Type II, infinitely
more than the dreaded Type III ferrichromes.

The majority of them did work just fine
though but I was not at all impressed by their dynamic range. I prefer
a good quality TDK or Maxell tape over the Quantegy's anytime. snip

QC problems plauged Ampex/Quantegy cassettes from Day 1, going back to
the earliest in the '60s. "Noisy" transports problems were always
there, but not to the extent of those awful Scotch cassettes, and
certainly not as bad as those hoary BASF Pros...those REALLY sucked.
As with any Type II formulation, headroom is truncated when compared
to a good Type I ferric oxide. Since a Type II is inherently less
noisy, you compensate by lowering your normal operating level. So,
it's really a trade-off...you sacrifice noise floor on a Type II to
get 'headroom', so, all things considered, you wind up with almost
exactly the same thing. The redeeming factor on a Type II is that
there's more headroom at the top end, important with jazz and
classical, not so important with head banger stuff.

I'd agree with you on the issue that Maxell and TDK produce a much
better cassette mechanism than did/does Quantegy. Maxell invested a
lot of R&D dollars into their shells, whereas looking inside a
Quantegy is sort of a trip back to 1975. Quantegy analog video tape
sucks, too...noisy as hell with saturation problems galore. That was
what sunk Quantegy last year in the first place...their largest buyer
of analog video tape quit doing business with them, and the loss of
income drove them into bankruptcy.

WORD TO THE WISE: The Wall Street anal-ysts are all nattering that GM
will file Chapter 11 in two months. The Bush Crash is coming; convert
those dollars to Euros while you still can. One good side effect:
This will destroy the Republican Party for years to come.

dB

On 9 May 2005 16:05:39 -0700, "UNIVERSAL GENIUS"
wrote:

I got a huge collection of recording blanks from a friend who passed
away, his mom was cleaning his house out. snip

FIgures that a friend of Chuckie Noodles would be in his 40s and still
live at home. Friggin' potheads!

I simply bulk erase them and
presto, instant high quality cassette tape. Half of them are the metal
tapes and there must be 200 tapes there.

You are right, buying new reel to reel tape is dumb. You can go on
ebay and buy all you'd ever need for $1 a reel, and get high quality
stuff too. Just bulk erase it and you're in. snip

Of course, Noodles has no idea how professional recording works, has
no ideas of the pitfalls of buying old crap off of ebay, and is
generally clueless. Shut the **** up, Noodles.

I got 2 huge boxes of Scotch original reel blanks for $1 each on ebay.
been recording like crazy on them and still have not even used half of
them. Quantegy is a good idea, but who needs them really when there's
so much old stock around ? snip

BECAUSE OLD ANALOG TAPE IS NOT RELIABLE FOR PROFESSIONAL QUALITY
USAGE, DUMB****! Do you think I'd want to play back a client's work
with dropouts and the like? I don't THINK so. As for old Scotch,
checked your guides and heads for oxide shed lately, or do you use one
of those lame Akais as a "reel machine?" You wouldn't know a
professional quality tape machine if I shoved it up your huge ass.

and you can always load empty open reels with 8-track cartridge tape in
a pinch snip

Oh, brother, now THERE'S an idea....you idiot, why don't you go crawl
under the rock you came out from?

Charlie Nudo, aka 66fourdoor on ebay and varios scam names on Usenet,
is a well documented fraudster and con artist. One would be very wise
to avoid any of his "advice," and surely avoid all his scam auctions
on eBay, as well as his scam sales on Usenet.

dB

On 9 May 2005 16:06:48 -0700, "UNIVERSAL GENIUS"
wrote:

ps- Maxell is only middle of the road stuff, over-rated in my opinion.
They have a cool name and logo, that's about it. snip

Test results don't lie. Maxell UDXL-I and -II were the best
performing cassettes ever on the consumer market, and were the choice
of pros for years. It's a shame they were discontinued, leaving only
the less competent XL-II. Maxell doesn't even make a "premium" Type I
anymore.

Scotch made the best tape, ever. snip

In the '50s, maybe. Scotch 203 and 223 and 250 were problematic at
best. Scotch cassettes SUCKED. The only Scotch product that seemed
to be a good compromise in its field were the 8 track cartridges...the
"Dynarange" series, which was the same formulation as 203 reel tape.
The only Scotch tape that was truly a legend was the acetate backed
111 and later Mylar version 211 of the '50s and '60s respectively.
Scotch 306/307 of the '70s was good "black" oxide tape, but by that
time, Ampex had come out with 406 and 456, both clearly superior by
the numbers in studio use.

Shut the **** up, Noodles...you know zero, and your innane comments
make you look more stupid than you really are...if that's even
possible.

dB

the earliest in the '60s. "Noisy" transports problems were always
there, but not to the extent of those awful Scotch cassettes, and
Ha, I had not thought about those stinkers in ages! Sounded like an
old International 2 Ton with a bad rear-end. I actually just now went and
rummaged around in my basement, dug one up, and tried to give it a listen.
They were especially bad because at the time I was using a portable deck
(Sanyo?) for all my recording and listening pleasure. The little 2" speaker
barely rose above the din emitted by the cassette. I also have a Woolco
cassette here that gives it a run for it's money.
WWW

of those lame Akais as a "reel machine?" You wouldn't know a
professional quality tape machine if I shoved it up your huge ass.
Ouch.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:02:35 GMT, "William W Western"
wrote:

Ha, I had not thought about those stinkers in ages! Sounded like an
old International 2 Ton with a bad rear-end. I actually just now went and
rummaged around in my basement, dug one up, and tried to give it a listen. snip

I had one too, in a box of old junk cassette. They were a real joke!

Columbia used Scotch for prerecorded cassettes in the mid-70s for
awhile, and they had the same problems. I've got several
new-in-cellophane Columbia cassettes back from when I was on the hit
list for several record promotors. The few I uncorked and stuck in a
deck were just gawdawful...the tape would squeal and chunk along,
noise was very high and high frequency info was non-existant.

BASF cassettes sold in the US were as bad, sometimes even worse. I
got a box of BASF "Professinal I" and "II" cassettes back in the same
era, and they were uniformly bad...noisy, both mechanically and
magnetically, with really bad top end on the Type I. The Type II had
good top end, but was still noisier than any of the Japanese
cassettes. I only tried one of each; the rest are still sealed.
Perhaps I should ebay them and find a sucker!

dB

cassettes really suck, esp. for the car- and suck BAD ! They are just
barely acceptable in a pinch with a good home player, i.e. Yamaha,
Technics, Pioneer...but that's about it.

I'd take an 8-track over a cassette anyday. Cassettes get all wrinkled
with time and start squealing just as bad or worse than 8-tracks- and
they are so THIN and flimsy tape-wise that they are more difficult to
fix.

cassette is the ****ty MP3 of the analog world !

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 10 May 2005 18:48:41 -0700, "Cartrivision1"
wrote:

Yes, I believe that they were the "472's". A couple of them had
quality issues like locking up during playback/rewind or they were
just
plain noisy during playback. snip

As with any cassette tape, biasing is critical in newer formulations,
especially on Type IIs. Too much bias, and the noise goes up and the
top end goes away.

As for dynamic range, 472 has about as hot an MOL as any, including
Maxell's XL, IF the deck is biased correctly. I've used 472 for
studio work since it came out, and once your record bias is set up
right, there's not a problem hitting those things at 320 nWb/M or
even
hotter...just don't hit it any hotter than that, or you hit the roof
really quickly, as you do with any Type II. The thing I always liked
about Type I cassettes with Dolby "B" was that there was lots of
headroom in the bass region...far more than any Type II, infinitely
more than the dreaded Type III ferrichromes.


I think I meant "frequency response", not dynamic range. The
Quantegy's did not seem to have the same high end response that some of
the better Maxell tapes seem to. Also, Fuji made a very good Cro2 tape
if I recall correctly, as did Denon.

As far as setting the bias correctly, I own what is arguably the finest
consumer cassette deck ever produced (Teac V-8030s), and it has a nice
facility for setting both level and Bias, as well as automatic tape
type selector. I really wanted to like the Quantegy's but they ended
up being just average on the whole.

The externally adjustable bias knob on the cassette decks is a nice
feature- but I leave it set to zero with good results. My one Technics
deck has that option.

On 11 May 2005 19:15:58 -0700, "CAINE"
wrote:

cassettes really suck, esp. for the car- and suck BAD ! They are just
barely acceptable in a pinch with a good home player, i.e. Yamaha,
Technics, Pioneer...but that's about it. snip

....all "mid grade" players. Try a Nak, you idiot.

I'd take an 8-track over a cassette anyday. Cassettes get all wrinkled
with time and start squealing just as bad or worse than 8-tracks- and
they are so THIN and flimsy tape-wise that they are more difficult to
fix. snip

Moron...90 minutes cassette tape is the same backing thickness as 90
minute carts... .33 mil. Ever use a micrometer, you whackoff?

dB