Audio Cassette quality's

[Audio Al]

Hi

Having just rekindled a interest in audio Cassettes

Does anyone know what types are best ?

All makers seem to have different numbers / letters , chrome this and Dolby that

is there a top 10 on quality and why they are better ?

or a pointer to a web site that may be able to help me on this :)

Cheers

[seoirse2002]

That will be interesting for me too!:)

[Rare Bird]

I use high output audio cassette, refuse to use noise reduction.

[StanleyB]

is there a top 10 on quality and why they are better ?
At number 1 is the TDK MA-XG range. But unless you have a top end cassette deck that is mechanical sound you won't get the best out of it. And I don't recommend ever recording over it more than once. Playback quality is close to CD. Price: if you need to ask you can't afford them. Lottery winner territory.

[Audio Al]

Lottery winner territory.


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NOS-NEW-1986-Sealed-Blank-TDK-MA-XG-90-IV-METAL-CASSETTE-CASSTTE-TAPE-TAPES-JAPA-/320983718604?pt=US_Audio_Tapes&hash=item4abc1edacc

:stalks::stalks::stalks::D

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TDK-MA-XG-90-Blank-Metal-Cassette-Tapes-NOS-Box-of-5-Individually-Sealed-/140836704750?pt=UK_Sound_Vision_Audio_Cassettes_DA Ts&hash=item20ca8591ee

[Rare Bird]

Yes & you can spend stupid amounts of time & money buying in NOS tapes, quite frankly ive been using some of the last TDK's without noise reduction, they sound good enough to me

[RobHolt]

Back in the day 'metal' or Type IV was capable of the best results since it can accept more level before saturation, especially at HF where tape is weak.
The situation was more mixed for types 1 & 2 since the latter performed better at HF but often at the expense of LF performance, which was usually better with type 1.

I don't know if you can still buy metal tapes but those are best with a good recorder....and you need a good recorder since with lesser models the heads saturate before the tape.

If buying used tapes to re-record, TDK MA (IV), SAX (II), SA (II) and AD (i) are all excellent. SA is fine for most decks at sensible recording levels - so peaking no higher than +3dB.

Use Dolby B in preference to the alternatives as the side effects are less audible.
Dolby HX and HX Pro are useful as they dynamically correct bias.

Rob

[The Grand Wazoo]

All makers seem to have different numbers ........

Without wanting to state what might be the obvious to most people, the numbers indicate total playing time - C90 = 45 minutes per side.

[PLINIUS]

Hi

Having just rekindled a interest in audio Cassettes

Does anyone know what types are best ?

All makers seem to have different numbers / letters , chrome this and Dolby that

is there a top 10 on quality and why they are better ?

or a pointer to a web site that may be able to help me on this :)

Cheers
Having been down this road myself Allen, I can tell you that things aren't that simple these days. The obvious answer, in the past, was that you couldn't go wrong buying TDK AD/SA or Maxell UDXLI/II but these days they are no longer made( plenty counterfeit ones available). TDK D & Maxell UR are still available.

[jandl100]

TDK SA - a very decent tape at a decent price. You can't really go wrong with it, imo.

Very good sound. Very low hiss. Robust mechanics.
-- I am quite hardpressed to hear any significant difference between the original and the tape recording, tbh. You can't say that for most tapes.

It's still available on eBay - fill ya boots with a good supply! :thumbsup:

___

Taking this OT a little --
I've got lots of wonderful pre-recorded cassettes picked up from charity shops for 10p or 25p. The dolby noise reduction on these is very variable and played back with standard Dolby B eq often give very dull sound. Which is why I originally invested in a graphic equaliser - so I can fine tune the treble roll-off to suit each tape without using Dolby eq at all.
Works for me & often sounds fab! :thumbsup:

[RobHolt]

___

Taking this OT a little --
I've got lots of wonderful pre-recorded cassettes picked up from charity shops for 10p or 25p. The dolby noise reduction on these is very variable and played back with standard Dolby B eq often give very dull sound. Which is why I originally invested in a graphic equaliser - so I can fine tune the treble roll-off to suit each tape without using Dolby eq at all.
Works for me & often sounds fab! :thumbsup:

Pre-records were often a bit dull. They were duplicated at high speed which wasn't ideal. One thing to experiment with is head azimuth.
This was often 'off' with many cassette decks, so while tapes recorded and replayed on that machine sounded fine, those from other machines (inc pre recorded) are dull as the azimuth is wrong. On the head you'll see a small screw sitting on a spring which allows fine tuning of azimuth and this can sometimes bring back the top end. Just be aware that changing this setting will make any tapes recorded on the machine prior to the adjustment 'wrong'.

Apologies if you already know all this.

Rob

[jandl100]

Yep, fine.

But it's easier to press a couple of buttons on my graphic equaliser - job done. ;)

[Beechwoods]

Metal tapes work well with later tape decks and often yield good results, but good decks can make excellent recordings on 'simple' tapes. I have some great recordings (no NR) on cheapo TDK D tape, recorded on a Sony HX-Pro recorder. HX-Pro really was an excellent innovation, nothing to do with noise reduction and everything to do with dynamic bias, as mentioned earlier. This article is a great summary of what went on with HX-Pro.

http://www.beoworld.org/article_view.asp?id=145

Personally, my preferred 'work' tape is Maxell XL-II and XL-IIS. I would happily use TDK-SA as well, though the late 80's cases were sturdier than the 90's and later ones.

I've always had a feeling that Metal tapes compensated better for poor deck design, and better decks handled 'lesser' tapes with more aplomb. There was also an interesting branch in cassette technology that used Cobalt coating. I have some NOS Cobalt coated Maxell XL-I's which are utterly unlike any other Type I tapes I've heard...

Sony US-X Turbo Type II are also worth trying if you can get some. They don't look like much but they're very well made, and sound great.

One other thing, decks often record a lot better than they can play. I've done digital transfers of masters where the person who recorded the tape never heard it as good as the transfer I achieved on my deck. Friends with really well sorted decks have had similar experiences.

[DSJR]

You chaps make me laugh :lol:

Any of the better cassettes will be over twenty years old now and who knows what's happened to the mechanics and/or oxide over the years.. Most machines were total garbage in terms of scrape-flutter and wow and only the best ones, usually with twin capstan and three heads (the Sony 551 was one exception with single capstan) could give a pitch-stable performance from beginning to end of a tape.

The MA-XG is now desirable because of its heavy sexy case. the tape inside was about average and "Thats" metal tapes from a few years later were better, the increased noise being balanced by much higher overload margins if the record head would allow it. TDK SA also changed a bit in its time, but offered the lowest noise I believe, although repeated plays could shave a db or two off the treble. Most of not all "Type 1" tapes self erased over the years and many will sound muffled by now on recordings made on them twenty plus years ago. Dolby B and C makes this loss far worse and contributes to the crap talked against Dolby cassette noise reduction systems. This is where Dolby S worked so well, as the calibration of the machines using this was far more rigorous.

[StanleyB]

I have to disagree with you Dave as far as the MA-XG is concerned. Without incriminating myself, I did take my time to test a wide range of cassettes across several cassette players. The MA-XG could not be beaten as long as you only recorded on it once.

As for the cassette players: I did mention that you need a high flyer to get the best out of the exotic cassettes. But those were not hard to find.

[sparrow]

I have tapes over 30 years old and they don't sound any worse than they did when they were new..

[Rare Bird]

people take all this technical fartery too seriously imho..

The best one are those who moan about tape quality but listern to pre-recorded's :scratch:

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

People listen to cassettes? You've got to be kidding me. Why would you want to do that? Surely life's too short

[Audio Al]

People listen to cassettes?

Yes we DO and 8 track :)

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Can I ask why? Serious question BTW.

[Audio Al]

Can I ask why? Serious question BTW.

Several reasons for me , in no particular order

Because I can
Because I like too
Because I can buy tapes from my 70s and 80s era
Because I now have 3 cassette machines and one 8 track machine
Because I have 50 Bic Ballpoint Pen Blue Pack 50
http://www.ebuyer.com/318425-bic-ballpoint-pen-blue-pack-50-w822?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products
Because its all part of the fun for me on Boot Sale day hunting them out along with LP's and 12" singles
Because I like tinkering and trying different tapes , twisting knobs :D and sliding sliders
Nostalgia

Opps ! , got to go , dinner time :D

[Beechwoods]

Because sometimes recordings aren't available on any other format? Big reason for me.

[Rare Bird]

People listen to cassettes? You've got to be kidding me. Why would you want to do that? Surely life's too short

Anything else the almighty doesnt aprove of while were at it??

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Yeah bad spelling. It's approve :-)

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

And nowhere did I say I didn't approve. People can listen to whatever music the want in whatever format they like. I was just genuinely puzzled and interested. The replies above yours is fair enough.

[Stratmangler]

And nowhere did I say I didn't approve. People can listen to whatever music they want in whatever format they like. I was just genuinely puzzled and interested. The replies above yours is fair enough.

While we're correcting spelling :eyebrows:

[Tim]

And nowhere did I say I didn't approve. People can listen to whatever music the want in whatever format they like. I was just genuinely puzzled and interested. The replies above yours is are fair enough.
Shall we do grammar as well?

[Rare Bird]

Because I like tinkering and trying different tapes , twisting knobs :D and sliding sliders
Nostalgia



Im with that Al. I live Nostalgia, who want's serious Hi-Fi if your not happy with it. I personally don't care about it, i have'nt for a long time..


Because sometimes recordings aren't available on any other format? Big reason for me.

Not for me, i use tape extensivly for listerning. If i never see another CD it wouldnt bother me...

[Rare Bird]

Shall we do grammar as well?

Im specialist at Grammar

:rfl:

[StanleyB]

I even listen to vinyl, which is older than cassette.

[Lodgesound]

What was staggering about the cassette tape format was how good it actually got in terms of both sound quality and durability/ruggedness.

Let us not forget here that it was originally designed by Phlips as a dictation only format and actually ended up being the longest running and most successful consumer audio tape recording format in Human history!

[Rare Bird]

+1

[Lodgesound]

What is also worthy of note here is the sheer hardiness of magnetic recording tape in general.....

In my job I regularly have to replay video tape recordings from tapes that are over 40 years old on machinery manufactured in the early 1970's.

They replay 90% of the time without a single hitch.

[Beechwoods]

I agree. I'd trust cassette / tape over CDr, DVD/r or Hard Drive formats any day for longterm longevity. Providing they kept at room temperature or thereabouts, and not allowed to get damp, they will playback fine. I simply can't say that about CDr's I burnt 10 years ago, and the idea of a hard drive remaining reliable after all that time is laughable - backup backup and backup again!

I also agree at how good it got. Compared with quarter-inch tape running at 3/4ips cassette had a clear challenge being half the size and half the speed (1⅞ips), but 'done right' it can easily beat quarter inch open reel run at 7½ips... whodathunkit?

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Apologies for spelling and grammar. Entirely down to using iPhone rather than me being thick . . . Although I am quite thick. And thanks for the explanations. I genuinely did think cassette was a totally obsolete medium but now I know better.

[RobHolt]

You chaps make me laugh :lol:

Any of the better cassettes will be over twenty years old now and who knows what's happened to the mechanics and/or oxide over the years.. Most machines were total garbage in terms of scrape-flutter and wow and only the best ones, usually with twin capstan and three heads (the Sony 551 was one exception with single capstan) could give a pitch-stable performance from beginning to end of a tape.

The MA-XG is now desirable because of its heavy sexy case. the tape inside was about average and "Thats" metal tapes from a few years later were better, the increased noise being balanced by much higher overload margins if the record head would allow it. TDK SA also changed a bit in its time, but offered the lowest noise I believe, although repeated plays could shave a db or two off the treble. Most of not all "Type 1" tapes self erased over the years and many will sound muffled by now on recordings made on them twenty plus years ago. Dolby B and C makes this loss far worse and contributes to the crap talked against Dolby cassette noise reduction systems. This is where Dolby S worked so well, as the calibration of the machines using this was far more rigorous.

Hi Dave,

I have a top of the line all singing and dancing JVC with twin capstans, four motors, three heads, auto tape tuning and quartz locked DD drive - no belts!

So there!

Rob

[Audio Al]

I have a top of the line all singing and dancing JVC with twin capstans, four motors, three heads, auto tape tuning and quartz locked DD drive - no belts!

Rob

Prove it :D

:worthless:

We like photos :)

What model is said machine ?

[RobHolt]

JVC DD9.

I've a photo somewhere but if it's not to hand I'll take a snap tonight. I'll get her to flash her bits too just for effect :)

Rob

[Audio Al]

I'll get her to flash her bits too just for effect

Nice , I will look forward to this :lol:

[RobHolt]

It has something called BEST:

Bias, equalisation, sensitivity tuning.
The machine records a suite of test signals to the tape using one head and then monitors them with the other, adjusting the three parameters for best response, output level and Dolby tracking. So if say TDK changed their SA tape formulation, the DD9 will adjust, even accounting for differences between batches.
I had this system on their earlier KDA66 but that was two head, so the tape had to be shunted around and the process took about 45 seconds usually. Takes about 15 seconds on the DD9.

The technology and sheer complexity of these high end cassette machine is mind-blowing.

Rob