Just thought I'd brag...
 

XH A1 number 2 came in today... well... my work's...

I convinced my work to buy one after I was so impressed with mine... the thing is i'm the only one who'll use it... so it's mine :D!

It's not everyday that your work tells you spend as much money as you can on whatever equipment you want... I'm going to for a new sound package, along with an Marshall HD camera monitor next. Not that couldn't fine with an SD one... but if they have the money!

Cheers

BTW, that lens hood that comes with the Petrol bag fits like a charm. No worries at all.

Should I be worried on the MQ tapes, or should I bump up to AMQ?

What is wrong with the MQ tapes?

I don't think anything's wrong with them... but everyone seems to be on the AMQ train.

I have yet to see significant evidence that AMQs are better over the MQs, as they both use the same lube (dry) and that is the main concern with tapes... well maybe tape strength too, but I've yet to know anyone who plays there tapes more than twice: One to record, one to transfer... everyone wants to save their heads. Everytime I ask as well, dealers say "they're just better"... but don't know why. Someone needs to talk to a Panny rep.

AMQs are not HDV "branded" tapes, which is a good thing... as that is what probably keeps the cost nice and low (that name is money). Still though, that small amount between the MQs and AMQs adds up when you are buying loads of tapes...

Been using the MQ's for s few months with nary a dropout in sight.

I've been using the AMQs because the guy at Zotz says he's sold lots of XL H1 and XH A1s and most of his customers are using the AMQ and happy with it. There's not all that much difference in price. With the Sony "HDV" tapes, you get the nice bigger case, but that's not worth the almost double price. My only quibble with the Panasonic tapes is that even when you buy a case, each individual tape comes wrapped in plastic, and it's a pain to rip off. That kind of packaging is not necessary and is irritating. But for the approximately $8 price, I can live with saranwrap.

I believe the Panasonic MQ's are being discontinued.


Ray

They'll drop the MQs and rename them to the MQs :D

Our tape supplier, who is a pretty decent guy, told me a few years ago, when I asked about DVCAM tape, that all the tapes were slit off the same wide sheet moving across rollers at a very high speed, but the higher quality tape came from the middle of the sheet and the cheaper varieties being cut from the edges. In theory everything is more stable to the middle, less stretching, less dirt, etc. Sounds good, but who knows. He also said he could not find any info from Sony that proved their more expensive DV master (or whatever they're calling it now) was any different from the regular good quality DVCAM tapes, except for the packaging.

I suspect the AMQ tapes are probably similar--the cream of the crop, so to speak. I don't know about DV tape, but back in the old 2" and 1" days, we would buy "pallet" stock for dubbing and "mastering" stock for editing. It was the same tape, but the mastering stock was checked for dropouts more frequently. They had statistics published about how many times per running meter the automated system would verify that the tape was OK. The cheaper stock was run through at fewer times per meter. I assume the more times the tape is checked, the slower it has to run and therefore the more it costs to make; or maybe they could just charge more for the verification process. It could be that something similar goes on with today's tape stock.

I've always been a fanatic about good tape stock, but there's good and there's too good...ie., if the AMQ is Panasonic's top of the line for about 8 bucks a pop, why pay almost double for Sony?

Chris, who cares about tape. I just want to work for a company that actually believes in giving someone adequate resources for doing their job. I didn't think those places existed anymore.

-gb-

So what is the difference between the MQ and the PQ tapes? The PQ are a little cheaper than the MQ, which adds up when you buy a whole bunch as Chris said.

I had an XL-2 before my XH-A1, and I ran nothing but PQs through them... using MQs for "special situations". Those PQs are great, and wouldnt put it past that they'd do just fine in the XH-A1 with cleaning every now and then with the panny cleaning tape.

That's really interesting about the cutting of the tape... pretty strange but makes sense.

And yes it is pretty releaving for a company to be supplying me with what I want. I just put in the order for the sound package and HD monitor another 4 grand or so of an order. Though, it was still pulling teeth for about a year... this was all until I did some youtubes (out of all things) that really impressed them.

My budget just went from 0 to about 100,000 in 1 day after the director saw the little videos. I can't believe a youtube got them above everything else i've done... now im trying to pull away from youtube.

I'll be back later with a report on that Marshall monitor and my interesting sound setup.

I've used nothing but PQ's so far with my A1 with absolutely no problems. I think the lubing between the PQ's and the MQ's are identical. I don't know why I should move to a better tape (excluding less-chance for dropouts)... anyone want to tell me?

And here all along for so many years I was led to believe that the differences are based primarily on "formulation"..., but I'm sure that's what manufacturers want you to believe :-\ According to what Bill's post says, this formulation is simply the difference between "head, mid & tail". Who knew?

Bill

Well, if they are grading the tapes in a dropout inspection procedure, as they did back in the 2" and 1" days, even though the formulation might be the same, the pricier stuff may be less prone to trouble, and therefore better. I think, for example, the AMQ tapes are worth the couple of dollars' difference over the MQ, just in case they might be better. If they're not, it's not a big deal. But I don't see the almost double cost of the Sonys to be worth the gamble. That's just my opinion.