Trying Out Some PYRAL LPR-35 Tape

Des_Lab

Journeyman
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
190
Tagline
---
#1
My faith in the then new RMGI LPR-35 tape was shattered when after just a few years, the tape literally began to disintegrate. I became disillusioned with it and became highly averse to it for a few years. I was initially very impressed with this tape and had very high hopes for it. But those hopes were dashed following the defects and subsequent denial from RMGI that a problem existed despite the mountains of evidence I presented. By the time they finally admitted in private that there was in fact a problem, the damage was done. I wanted nothing to do with this stuff.

Meanwhile, RMGI went belly up and was bought out by PYRAL. The RMGI brand exists now as an in name only outfit representing the distribution network but no longer makes tape.

I had since bought a couple of follow up rolls and tried one and have been cautiously optimistic.

So after some time, I was willing to give it another chance. I invested in nine rolls of the new production PYRAL stock. I was excited to get it.




Because I don't really care for the RMGI/PYRAL style reels, I decided that I would use the tape to fill empty reels and boxes that I have. For pride of place here, I elected to go with this empty Denon reel and a black plastic tape care box.



After hauling out the Quantegy 407 empty reel that I call 'the whore', which I use for staging pancakes and loaded it, one thing I immediately noticed was the overall diameter of the tape. Or rather, the lack of it. Considering this is supposedly a high end back coated tape, there was sure a lot of room left in the reel. I did a side by side comparison of two other 3600' back coated tapes.





How does it stack up? Quantegy #457 (top), Maxell XLI (middle), and the PYRAL (bottom).



Moving on, had to attach the tail end leader. This tape is thin and it was evident by the tape coiling up like a spring as soon as I removed the tag. It was quite a challenge to hogtie and hold it down. It put up a fight but I was able to get the leader on.



And ready to do the "first pass" to get it unwound and to access the head end for that leader. Loaded it up on the Teac X-2000R, spooled it up, and did a no play, no record play speed transfer.




One pleasant surprise: this tape has a minute and a half of "extra" time, as do most other tapes. It can definitely be a life saver when doing a dub or a tight mix. Previously, I had used a few rolls and they didn't have any extra. You hit 1:36:00 and that was it. One roll actually stopped just short at about 1:35:40. For those of us who have been using 3600 footers for all our lives have come to count on that extra that runs anywhere from thirty seconds to two minutes over. I have one TDK AUDUA and one Quantegy 457 that do just breach the 1:38 mark without adding any extra.



And yes.....as you can see. This stuff is thin and promptly curled up on the head end as well. I hope that the missing back coating on those last few inches doesn't portend future problems as had bedeviled its earlier incarnation.



And putting on the head end leader. Note how the snipped end is coiled like a rattlesnake at the upper right corner of my little tray. It did that on its own. No other tapes I've worked with have ever done that.





Time to give it a test recording......




This deck is biased for Quantegy 457, so it didn't quite sound flat and true at the neutral settings. But upping the bias by a percent or two, setting my input right at a steady 0dB with the occasional peak to +3, and we have a winner of a tape. Almost identical to the venerable Maxell XLI. It also needs to be stated that I do not technically own or use any sophisticated test equipment such as sonic readouts and oscilloscopes, so I rely on empirical evidence to report my findings such as doing A/B comparison between 'Source/Monitor'.

So on its own, it sounds great and is easy to use. My only concern being how thin it is. So I will be doing a follow up at some point in the future to check for print through. See and hear a brief video of a portion of the test recording.

Assuming that it's not a concern and that the issue that proved ruinous to the 2008 batches, this is a good tape to stock up on.

Thanks for reading.

 

Fast Forward

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
6,277
Location
Chaska Minnesota
#2
Glad everything came together Des, I must confess I haven't messed with my R2R for a while, I just crank it up every once in a while and do a function check
 

62vauxhall

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
2,317
Location
Southwest Kootenays BC
Tagline
No such things as bad days, just bad moments
#3
A month or so ago, there were some used Pyrel tapes for sale on the local Craigslist. The seller could not provide any "model number" just a photo of the box. It looked very "old fashioned"'so I declined. I'd not heard of Pyrel before and what little I could find to read suggested it was or had some connection to AGFA/BASF.

I've been accumulating 10.5" & 7" tapes for a while now in anticipation of using them on an old Teac I sent to Montreal for refurbishment last June. Still no sign of it even after a year but have been using a 7" Pioneer in the meantime. Part of the fun I found, is listening to what people recorded on these used tapes. Sure would be neat listening to what's on all the 10.5"'reels I wound up with.
 

Bob Boyer

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
3,001
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Tagline
---
#4
Glad to hear the good news, Des. Now to see if it poses any issues going forward. As another data point, I'm keeping an eye on my reels of LPR that I've had since getting back into the R2R game in 2010. Nothing wonky yet. Fingers crossed. SM911 is chugging along nicely as well. Have re-purposed the SM911 I was using in the studio to home use and they're doing well.

Hopefully the 2008 stuff was confined to a couple of production runs from that time period. Time will tell.
 

Des_Lab

Journeyman
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
190
Tagline
---
#5
I sure hope so. I really don't want to go through that fiasco again. I really do want this stuff to hang on for awhile.
 

Elite-ist

Administrator, (and straight-up pimp stick!)
Staff member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
9,908
#6
Thanks for taking the time to contribute an extensive review, Matt. I like reading your articles because they offer advice that is meant to educate. Always great pictures to go with the article and it's good watching the video clip. For me, there's much more satisfaction from recording a set of songs onto open reel than any other format.

Nando.
 

Lance Lawson

New Around These Parts
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
13
#7
I have the sense from Des's report that the new LPR 35 is perhaps thinner than previous versions. I would be cheaper to use thinner tape stock as it's overall less material going into the product. I've only been using ATR for the past 2 years and everything tends to feel thin in comparison. However my new deck may run the RMGI better than the A2300 does. I'm about ready to buy some tape and LPR-35 has been on my mind again.
 

Des_Lab

Journeyman
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
190
Tagline
---
#8
Oh it absolutely is thinner than the previous version, which of course gained some notoriety and extra free publicity following it's spectacular failure when it was just three years old. For comparison, see a picture of that infamous roll when it was still virgin, back in 2008.



So far, it SOUNDS good, and aside from it being thin (it's about comparable to Scotch Classic FYI) and difficult to handle because it's so squirrely, I have no complaints as of now. But I remain a bit guarded and cautiously optimistic. I haven't had any further problems, but given the sketchy financial ground that RMGI was on (and I don't know what PYRAL's fiduciary's look like, it does remain a cause for concern especially when coupled with the sporadic inconsistent availability of this tape.
 

Lance Lawson

New Around These Parts
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
13
#9
Oh it absolutely is thinner than the previous version, which of course gained some notoriety and extra free publicity following it's spectacular failure when it was just three years old. For comparison, see a picture of that infamous roll when it was still virgin, back in 2008.



So far, it SOUNDS good, and aside from it being thin (it's about comparable to Scotch Classic FYI) and difficult to handle because it's so squirrely, I have no complaints as of now. But I remain a bit guarded and cautiously optimistic. I haven't had any further problems, but given the sketchy financial ground that RMGI was on (and I don't know what PYRAL's fiduciary's look like, it does remain a cause for concern especially when coupled with the sporadic inconsistent availability of this tape.

I have a reel of Scotch Classic from 1980. I haven;t had it out in ages but is it thinner than say 407? When I handle the long playing tapes they feel especially thin and delicate because I've been using so much ATR. The bit of LPR-35 I have from 2011 feels like 407. Maybe a good micrometer can tell.
 

Des_Lab

Journeyman
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
190
Tagline
---
#10
Size 'Em Up

A collection of side by side comparisons of some popular 1.0 mil tapes in their full length packs so you can see how their thicknesses compare.

From top:

1. Denon DX-1101B
2. Quantegy #457
3. Maxell XLI
4. TDK AUDUA (non back coated)
5. Maxell UD
6. RMGI LPR-35 (note this is NOT the current PYRAL stock, which appears to be as thin or slightly thinner)
7. Quantegy # 407
8. Scotch "Classic"

 
Top