From the old days as I remember, metal tapes were the top of each company's line. But, your player/recorder must be capable of playing such tapes or you would loose much ofthe advantage. I had a good entry level Pioneer component casette recorder/player, I think it was the CT F500. It could use chrome tapes. There was a large audio difference in the quality of tapes I used. At its best, it came close to vinyl especially if I used very good tapes and had a good source; such as a new, well engineered vinyl.
I believe the problem with longer cassette tapes was the thickness. A longer recording time, such as 90 or 120 minutes, the thinner tape. That was due to the size of the tape case and the mechanism which accepted the tape. I stayed away from any tape longer than 90 minutes. A thinner tape had more of a tendency to twist or unravel in the player. There was also debate on a lose of SQ with a thinner tape.
Late last night I was messing around with the dragon. I became curious of listening thru it on several tapes. It sounds really good on Type I, Better in Type II for I can push the db much higher that +4. The miracle sound is on the metal tape. I can dial the recording just on 0 db but the modulation is way over 100%. Now I understand why that machine is highly recognized. This morning I was just listening to my old recordings in a TDK sa90. This goes all the way back in the early 80's and it sounds just like the day I recorded it from a brand new LP. I just kept those tapes really stored nice and neat. I didn't even realize till today those tapes sounds really nice.
I did come across an early '80s Maxell Type II about a week or two ago, so I might use that. I do appreciate the offer though.
There are times when I wish I had my old system, including that CT F500. It's was cool to make a type, to record an album, or to tape an FM broadcast. And, being of a slightly improved financial state I would purchase the best tapes available. Also, with better experience in using stereo equipment, I believe I'd do a much better job in recording music. However, with nostalgia it's difficult to clearly see the real picture....lol
Anyone know if Maxell MS-60 is good tape? Some time ago I bought a partial 10 piece box at an antique store (7 sealed) just because it said..."studio quality". I've never seen that type/grade before. I forgot all about til I started reading this thread.
And what's more, the TDK "D" series was inferior even back in the day. Maybe not inferior to bottom-of-the-line Maxells, but to any other TDK.
Maxell XL II-S always sounded the best to me back when I was recording on cassette 4-tracks in the early 90’s
Personally, I would never pay that much for a used cassette, even if it sealed. No one can possibly know where it was stored all this time, could've been stored in a hot or for example some humid place which will result in dropouts and other problems.
I was referring to the new production Rtm Fox type 1, not Tdk. Tdk type 1s test very similar in performance to Maxell type 1 from what I remember. There are some differences. S/n ratio isn't much better or worse, IIRC.
No, JUNK! Any Recording The Masters Fox K7 Type 1 embarrasses these Tascam (inmusic) tapes and can handle more input signal.
Fuji is still making new cassette tapes. They make a high bias DR-II 90 that they sell in a 3 pack from Amazon for around $38. This should do the job. Amazon.com
The real magic is the tape biasing. If the unit is a match made in heaven to the tape, it will sound like gold. I was listening to a personal recorded tape that I recoded on a mid 90's TDK high position. It sounds Very Good to the Nakamichi BX-2. But when play the same tape to a the Pioneer CT-M6R cassette multi changer it sounds like a dream. 10 to 1 the BX-2 will blow away that pioneer when it comes to sound. Its just a fact the tape is a mid 90's and so as the player on a stock configuration.
Here’s an interesting article. It seems whatever brand of cassette you buy they’re likely all manufactured by the National Audio Company. As they’re the only USA manufacturer of magnetic tape they sell millions annually. This Missouri Company Still Makes Cassette Tapes, and They Are Flying Off the Factory Floor | Travel| Smithsonian Magazine
Fuji and The Library of Congress collaborated on magnetic tape preservation https://asset.fujifilm.com/www/us/f...-Based-Legacy-Audio-Magnetic-Tape-Stock-1.pdf
Always preferred TDK AD 90 cassettes myself, just like Prince (judging by photos from his vault). I tried many other brands and TDK types (SA, SA-X, MA etc) and always tested them by recording the same track after removing the cellophane. TDK AD 90 proved to have a better succes rate at reproducing especially treble correctly in both channels than any other type or brand. Sure they were Type I, but not the cheap rusty coloured ferro tape (like TDK D) that sooner or later deposited residue on the heads. Brands that were prone to breaking in my experience were BASF and Scotch. By avoiding those I hardly ever experienced any mechanical problems with any recorder/deck, problems which others keep mentioning.
Maxell XLIIS has been a favourite of mine for years. Other lower priced Maxell tapes are good too, but XLIIS is premium.
I used XLIIS in my 4-track recorders, usually the 45 minute ones. Not a lot of time at triple speed, but super stable and they sound like the day I recorded them 35 years ago. Excellent tape. There's also something to be said of cassette mechanisms...the good, heavy ones are anti-resonant and it does make a difference.
I see the "all analog theme" here. Forget it, forget what Master Gurus and others are telling and what you're interpreting. Tape, Mastertape is and was used because it added sound and was the then only method available for highest quality analog recording, mixing, mastering, ... and storage for half a century, occasionally picking a copy to run productions based on that. NOBODY ever considered cassettes to be in that camp, not even with a well maintained Nakamichi Dragon. If you want to backup or flexibly listen to your records, make a digital copy of it, 24bit 96Khz or better to FLAC. But it's a waste of time, too, as you'd likely want to cut it into tracks, add names, etc. to quickly go from one song to another... Better you buy a decent only file for that Tapes available: used, mostly. New only Ferrit types of bad audio quality, compared to Metal type, which is in today's world the only acceptable quality without compromise. Super expensive. Think about all the aged cassette recorders and players which need expensive maintenance, more so cleaning and even more so with FE-type bands, demagnetization tools, etc. Really? Listen to your record. And if you can't otherwise and have to, listen to a digital copy/original (many "masters" were just available as MP3 during a period). But hey, who am I, there are many folks out there that buy crappy old unmaintained film cameras on ebay, select one that somehow works, insert super-expensive film, don't match aperture, time, iso correctly, though make more grainier fotos than necessary, then get a digital camera or scanner to scan the developed film in hours over hours spend in a dark room to get a digital image they'll post on instagram, so another person can swipe across it in 0.25ms. Yeah, that's valid, too, in our world, so why not cassettes, which were great, absolutely inspiring - then. But a waste of life-time now, that other methods and capabilities are available. Records last forever - almost. nothing comes close. the best Backup is another Record. mobility is digital
15 IPS is Quality, IEC, 1/2 track, 1/4" or 1/2" analog. 30 IPS if the job is right. No Fostex toys, MCI by Mara Machines. Or use a flash memory recorder.
Be that as it may, still, at least for me dealing with vintage formats and vintage electronics from the better days of various famous electronic brands (as hard as it can be sometimes) is actually a big part of the fun in this hobby. That's what make it interesting. Digital, again personally for me, usually equals as CHEAP and COMMON – pretty boring in other worlds.