Richard, 467 was the number that Ampex/Quantegy used for all their digital products. As far as I know the oxide slurry was the same for all the different variations but there was a back coating applied to all the open reel 467 products. We used to do QC for Ampex digital products back in the days when Fred Layn was still there and would get batches of Umatic, DAT and open reel DASH tape to test for errors. We'd send back the error reports and keep the tape, usually a good deal except for a period of time back in the late 1990's/2000's when all that tape was plagued with a sheddding issue. To be honest, for the Umatic masters, we always used 197 at 1/3rd the the cost, got better CRC numbers and never had the shedding issue. I'm interested in the baking success because we were told by the folks that made the tapes that the binders were completely different and baking should have no effect. WRT checking error rates on DASH machines, the 3324 and 3348 had a row of LED's that blinked red for CRC and a single error light for dropout (usually it was pretty obvious which channel had the drop out by the locked on CRC light) The 3348 always had an order of magnitude worse error rates compared with the 3324 because of the insertion of the second group of tracks in the guard bands of the first 24 tracks. All the best, -mark On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > What is Ampex 467? I have no idea what Ampex 467 really is other than a > cool-looking marketing number that combines the 400 designation of the > successful Ampex analogue line (406, 456, 407, 457) with the sleek "jet age" > favourite digit of Boeing (707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777) and an > arbitrary tens digit that is greater than 50. > > The reason I am so cynical about this is that 467 was used on DASH and > (R)DAT tape and I am pretty certain the cross-section of these tapes is not > the same. I have 1/4-inch 467 here (and it did not seem to suffer from SSS > in 2006 or so when I played with it for the paper) and I don't think it > looks/feels like anything a DAT machine would be happy playing (if slit to > the proper width). While thin, it is not DAT thin. > > I have had one happy experience baking a DAT tape within the last six months > (and no unhappy experiences ever...unhappy is defined as making the tape > worse). Here is a sample of one that DAT baking is also a possible contender > to solve that format's problems. > Thanks again. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > > -- > Richard L. Hess � � � � � � � � � email: [log in to unmask] > Aurora, Ontario, Canada � � � � � (905) 713 6733 � � 1-877-TAPE-FIX > http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.