Best cassettes for recording?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Jamollo, Nov 29, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. colby2415

    colby2415 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canada

    I have heard of duplication.ca and actually bought some record sleeves from there. I was considering ordering some of the type 2 tapes, but the fact that the j-cards and cases are both extra drives the costs up. Still cheaper than NOS tapes.
     
  2. masterbucket

    masterbucket Senior Member

    Location:
    Georgia US
  3. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Maxell XL II-S

    ...anyone hear of Thats recordable tape?
     
  4. harby

    harby Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    Dolby C is an encoding/decoding scheme. If it was turned on when recording, it should also be turned on when playing back. It is quite good technology, which, when used alongside Dolby HX and metal tapes, can make cassette tapes that sound as good as the input. It helps to have a 3-head deck that also includes monitoring, so you can immediately review and compare the input with what's being recorded on the tape, and tweak tape bias if you have that level of control on your deck.

    If they aren't as good sounding using Dolby C again as intended (which also extends high-frequency response), then my guess is that the recording wasn't optimal, or more likely, the cassette tape has slowly been losing its signal. For accurate recovery of tapes like this, it helps to be a technie, get inside the deck, and adjust the tape head gain higher, so that the particular tape is played back at the correct level through the Dolby companding circuit. Unfortunately, self-erasing cassettes seem to lose the high frequencies first.

    The Portastudio recorder is likely a model with DBX noise compression, which doubles the dynamic range, but can also result in dynamic pumping when the playback tracking level isn't accurate. Playing back only on the same deck, as you would with a 4 track recorder, helps.

    Cassette's biggest drawback is it was not designed as a high fidelity medium. It took two decades of technology advancement to make it sound good.
     
    Nostaljack and JimSpark like this.
  5. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    I don’t follow. What I’m saying is that if you record at a low level on an analog cassette with no noise reduction, it will be noisier, and if you then bring that element further up in the mix, it will be noisier still. I feel that is a fact of analog recording (without noise reduction). The recording level becomes less of an issue as the tape size and speed go up, meaning reel to reel, but it’s still there. You can add noise reduction into the mix as well, helping things out.

    Or am I just missing your point? I’m good at that. :)
     
    DRM likes this.
  6. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    I'm less saying...the following in your statement: "if you then bring that element further up in the mix, it will be noisier still." I'm thinking in terms of planning ahead, maybe even via trial and error...and then putting in an exact/"just right" dash of this, a "just right" dash of that. Not bringing any given element further up in the mix...but adding other elements to the recipe. Other sounds. Building a sound structure. Which naturally builds the volume and "drowns out" the noise. To some degree. But not too much. Hopefully.

    Also, someone could record loud and the noise could actually still be there, it might just more easily blend in with the loudly recorded and ultimately homogenized loud sound.

    Additionally, the dynamics are a consideration. I'd rather have a sense of presence, space, dimension and "bounciness"/"movement"...even if it means introducing more "noise".

    I actually don't like noise reduction. One time a cassette recording sounded muffled and I wondered what was wrong.

    And then I saw the Dolby light accidentally turned on...

    If we don't want dynamics and view all "noise" as noise...we might as well do the "modern" brick-walling thing.

    With everything compressed to the max.

    And beyond.

    And call it a day.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  7. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Dolby C was the devil back then...
     
    DRM likes this.
  8. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Alright, I think we’re in the same chapter if not on the same page. :) Just to clarify, I’m only referring to tape hiss and recording peaks up around zero on the VU meters, not really slamming things super loud. Shew, all modern recording could use more room to breath, and we seem to agree on that. :righton:
     
    DRM likes this.
  9. tumbleweed

    tumbleweed Innocent Bystander

    Yes. Despite the odd name, it seems that That's (with the apostrophe) was decent stuff. I don't think it was Japan-sourced (where most good stuff was in those days), but my memory is a little hazy after thirty years. It didn't last long in the US...not surprising.

    Some info on the web suggests it came from Taiyo Yuden, well known for their CD-rs.

    Cheers,
    Larry B.
     
    Shak Cohen likes this.
  10. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I had a bunch...they were able to be pushed.
     
    Shak Cohen likes this.
  11. Cronverc

    Cronverc Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    I think "That's" ("Triad" for Japanese market) brand belonged to Taiyo Yuden in Japan. IMO pretty good tape, but as far as I remember it was one of more expensive brands.

    In early 1990s I was usually buying BASF CHROME EXTRA II or CHROME MAXIMA II (I wasn't living in the States back then), and later DENON and Maxell XL IIS - a pretty solid tape.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  12. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Shak Cohen likes this.
  13. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Shak Cohen likes this.
  14. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    The best pre-recorded Beatles cassettes, except for the U.K. paper label initial releases, come from Canada.
     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  15. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    I'm not one to ever wax nostalgic about typewriters (despite owning an IBM Selectric in the late '70s which, for a typewriter, was quite a nice machine), but I will say this -- in the early 1980's a fellow student at my uni bought a then pretty expensive Kaypro computer -- you know, 64kb RAM, 4 MHz , that sort of thing. She let me try it out for a bit and I swear from what I remember it did word processing faster and cleaner than Word does now on my two-year old MacBook Pro. So much for progress. And cost. And built in obsolescence. That thing did its job.
     
    vwestlife, DRM and GuildX700 like this.
  16. brianplowe

    brianplowe Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas
    When I record I consider it "for real." It's fun as well. As long as the tape doesn't jam it isn't any harder than recording digitally. You just have to perform well. You can punch in but you can't move a bunch of stuff around and use dsp and auto tune and the like. I consider using those tools less "real" than how an actual human performance sounds. Of course you can record digitally without using all the digital manipulation but the opportunity is too tempting for a lot of recording artists.
     
    Shak Cohen and DRM like this.
  17. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    Agreed. He wants to use his PortaStudio. And he chose why he wished to use it. We all use our tools. We choose them. Least you and I can do is respect his choice for good or ill. I get dissed just as much because of the tools I use, for me they work. They're practical. Consider his differences. I'm very much different. I respect our OP, so why not a little mutual respect? I give it here from McLover, from the heart. One of my favorite radio announcers ever used his old Royal manual typewriter until the day he died (Luther Massengill at WDEF-FM/AM/TV in Chattanooga and there longer than any other announcer in that field, and admired and loved by many thousands of people personal and professional). He also used analog media and learned and used new tools and used what finished his job the most efficiently. He was and is a Pro's Pro (and he even has his own little street in Chattanooga, TN named for him). OT aside, familiar workflow and methods we know and love get things done under pressure or make us relaxed enough to create, to do it. Luther was respected, got to choose his tools, he and our OP earned that, and I think so should you and I. Let's end this thread on a nice, friendly note and a positive one and "Let's Think About Living", and "Respect Yourself" because if you don't do that, then how can you respect anybody else.
     
    stereoptic, DRM and macster like this.
  18. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    My father was one of the chief electrical engineers on the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle project at Bell Aerospace in the 1960's. His younger brother was urging him, in later years, to move more toward digital computers but my father said he was more comfortable and experienced with "analog" computers...so to speak. Additionally, a lot of emphasis was put on computer testing in the aerospace field...but my father said, bottom-line, you really have to understand your subject, in his case: flight, movement, velocity, wind and other dynamics, and machinery. His specialized work on the LLRV was to balance out the landing with the effects of gravity on the moon. His direct supervisor ended up training Neil Armstrong.

    One great book made note that some of the best electrical engineers grew up on farms...because they had hands on and direct/personal contact with machines at a younger age. My father did grow up on a farm, at least during his high school years.

    And then on to Carnegie Tech...now known as Carnegie Mellon.

    To really know your subject is key.

    The tools can supplement this but can never serve as a substitute for deep fundamental/foundational knowledge .
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  19. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    I have worked in the engineering field (structural) for 40 years. Your observations are correct (imo).
     
    DRM likes this.
  20. Tonmeister

    Tonmeister Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I haven’t seen it mentioned in this thread, forgive me if I have overlooked: remember these Portastudios used high tape speeds - double, I think, of a regular tape deck playback speed, with fine adjustment possible as well. I had a Fostex cassette based 4-Track in the 90s that had this feature and they recommended Maxell XL-II or TDK SA tapes. I used the Maxells. You would have to effectively quarter the recording length of the blank tape to budget for what you would need for your recording: a 60 min blank tape, for example, would get you 15 minutes of four-track recording. I remember the quality as being excellent...
     
    DRM and Grissongs like this.
  21. Nostaljack

    Nostaljack Resident R&B enthusiast

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I had a Portastudio many years ago and while the quality wasn't abysmal (and the higher speed helped), I never would have called it "excellent". It got the job done and that's about it, honestly. It was what we could obtain on a budget prior to digital. When digital showed up, cassette recording of this type justifiably went away.

    Ed
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  22. 12" 45rpm

    12" 45rpm Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York City
    I owned a portastudio 4-track from 2002-2010 until one channel broke. So I gave it away on cragslist. I found the sound to be excellent. Maybe there was something wrong with your heads? I mostly recorded vocals and acoustic guitar . The sound was good to my ears. I replaced with a digital Tascam DR-40. The DR-40 sounds very good, but I miss the sound of the portastudio.
     
    DRM likes this.
  23. 12" 45rpm

    12" 45rpm Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York City
    Here's a tip. Record with the pitch set to the max. This way you get the benefit of highest tape speed recording..
     
    DRM and Tonmeister like this.
  24. POE_UK

    POE_UK Forum Resident

    Location:
    Somerset
    Literally ANY tape by Maxell UK, they are amazing.
     
    DRM likes this.
  25. Nostaljack

    Nostaljack Resident R&B enthusiast

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I started on mine back in 1996. I bought it brand new in box and doing things digitally was immediately better for many reasons. I was happy to abandon it for digital. 'Course, I'd still take a 2-inch tape machine over anything (and still use one often as well as my Otari 5050) but for small recorders, I went digital by 2004 and never looked back.

    Great analog murders digital but cassettes certainly don't represent the best of analog and never did...IMHO.

    Ed
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine