RMGI / Pyral / RTM ...

[c1ferrari]

Anyone try the newest SM900 from RTM?
Impressions?

[El Magnifico]

Excellent tape. You wouldn't be disappointed in any way. That's their best formula. For long play, then the LPR90 is the same, but thinner. Enjoy!

[Dre_J]

Anyone try the newest SM900 from RTM?
Impressions?

Hi Sam,

I have about twenty reels of the SM900 from RTM here. Eighteen of the tapes have music on them at either 15ips (IEC) or 30ips (AES).

My subjective observations:
I've had no issues using the tape and it always packs smooth. The edges are clean with no residue left in the tape path after use. Playback is excellent. Recording is also excellent and consistent from start to finish.

I purchased 4 additional reels from RTM (two SM468 and two SM900) to run a series of performance analysis scenarios to determine perceived sonic differences but haven't started the comparison yet. Partially, the delay has been setting aside the time to develop a test case and set/test proper biasing for each tape formulation.

Dre

[El Magnifico]

Dre is right on. I sell all 3: ATR, RTM and Capture and all are very good. I prefer RTM for pro'applications and Capture for domestic, though. We experienced an excessive debris on the first samples we received form ATR: MDS60. They corrected the issue. A good tape, but more expensive. I consume a case of 10 rolls monthly. Enjoy!

[c1ferrari]

Thanks for the data point, El Magnifico.

[Bruce B]

I go through about 4-6 cases of SM900 a month. Have never had a problem. The only tape I'd ever use!

[astrotoy]

Thanks, guys. What recommendations do you have for 1/2" tape these days? SM900, SM911, SM468 or ATR or ??? This will be dubbing 1/2" to 1/2" on two ATR-102s.

After reading the letter posted on the RMGI-America website, I'm a little confused about branding. It says that they will be distributing the tape, but it will be under the Pyral name, not RMGI. Am I correct that it is Mulann which is manufacturing the tape, but under the Pyral name and RMGI is just the distributor?

Larry

[El Magnifico]

RMGI is the distributor of Pyral's (Mulann) tape in the US, but the new name is "Recording the Masters". My colleague, Don Morris, is the principal. He's a very nice and knowledgeable person. He came to BASF from Maxell in the 90's. That letter is a little bit old. AGFA, BASF, EMTEC, RMGI, PYRAL & RECORDING THE MASTERS are all the same formulas from BASF.

[El Magnifico]

Thanks, guys. What recommendations do you have for 1/2" tape these days? SM900, SM911, SM468 or ATR or ??? This will be dubbing 1/2" to 1/2" on two ATR-102s.

Larry

What speed? Recording level/bias? I guess you go 15 ips, right? Any of the ones you mentioned are ok. If you are re-adjusting your deck to play with maximum level over 4 (+6dB)!, you go with the 900. If you are ok under +4dB, 911 or the classic 468 would be safe. During the 90's, only the Studers (with very few exceptions) could handle all that level after a proper re-calibration. Quantegy's (Ampex) offering were the famous GP-9 and 499. It was a real war between Quantegy and EMTEC.

[c1ferrari]

Excellent tape. You wouldn't be disappointed in any way. That's their best formula. For long play, then the LPR90 is the same, but thinner. Enjoy!

Hi El,

My A820/2CH's are biased for SM900 and ATR Magnetics stock. I have NOS RMGI and Pyral in 1/4" and 1/2" stock, but haven't tried RTM.

[c1ferrari]

Hi Sam,

I have about twenty reels of the SM900 from RTM here. Eighteen of the tapes have music on them at either 15ips (IEC) or 30ips (AES).

My subjective observations:
I've had no issues using the tape and it always packs smooth. The edges are clean with no residue left in the tape path after use. Playback is excellent. Recording is also excellent and consistent from start to finish.

I purchased 4 additional reels from RTM (two SM468 and two SM900) to run a series of performance analysis scenarios to determine perceived sonic differences but haven't started the comparison yet. Partially, the delay has been setting aside the time to develop a test case and set/test proper biasing for each tape formulation.

Dre

Greetings, Dre,

Regrettably, I've had some poorly-slit Pyral. Indeed, I had to return a suite of MRL cal tapes due to poor slitting.
Glad to hear RTM SM900 is acquitting itself well thus far!

[c1ferrari]

I go through about 4-6 cases of SM900 a month. Have never had a problem. The only tape I'd ever use!

How about RTM SM900...similar experience to Dre?

[Bruce B]

same same.......

[c1ferrari]

That's a relief!
Thanks, Bruce.

[c1ferrari]

RMGI is the distributor of Pyral's (Mulann) tape in the US, but the new name is "Recording the Masters". My colleague, Don Morris, is the principal. He's a very nice and knowledgeable person. He came to BASF from Maxell in the 90's. That letter is a little bit old. AGFA, BASF, EMTEC, RMGI, PYRAL & RECORDING THE MASTERS are all the same formulas from BASF.

Good synopsis, El. Are you satisfied with QC?

[astrotoy]

What speed? Recording level/bias? I guess you go 15 ips, right? Any of the ones you mentioned are ok. If you are re-adjusting your deck to play with maximum level over 4 (+6dB)!, you go with the 900. If you are ok under +4dB, 911 or the classic 468 would be safe. During the 90's, only the Studers (with very few exceptions) could handle all that level after a proper re-calibration. Quantegy's (Ampex) offering were the famous GP-9 and 499. It was a real war between Quantegy and EMTEC.

Carlos, thanks again. I'm doing 15ips. I'm probably sticking with the standard levels. So 468 or 911 and using LP35 for longer 1/4" tapes. Larry

[astrotoy]

I have several 1/2" tapes that were recorded in the 90's using Uher SM912 tape. They appear to be 1 mil tape, like the LP35 tape, but 1/2". Anyone heard of 1/2" tape thinner than the standard? These have 45 min + per 10.5 reel. some around 60 min (so they may even be thinner). Thanks, Larry

[El Magnifico]

Good synopsis, El. Are you satisfied with QC?

Hello Sam:

All I can say is that so far,so good. I have no complains at all. You should try it again and see how it goes...