Errata Corrige: In the video I claimed that only Sony, BASF, Scotch and Agfa made Type III cassettes but there are several other brands. Also I forgot to mention, as some of you correctly pointed out, that the dark color of the Type III tape is only on the outside (chrome) while the inside (ferric) is light brown. That is because of the employment of the two types of formulations in one.
The main reason why FeCr disappeared was because the quality of good IECII cassettes became equivalent. There was no longer a need for type III cassettes. At the time, metal tapes were twice as expensive (10 to 12 euros converted) and were no competitor for FeCr..
@@KR1275 Not true. The last type 3 cassettes that were made from around 79 - 80 were much better than type 2 cassettes from that same period. The mistake many people made in later years was comparing a late 70's type 3 to an early 90's Tdk SA-x or Maxell XLII-s which of course will sound at least as good. The reason type 3 went out was that they were much too expensive and inefficient to produce for manufacturers with their 2 layers, way more costly even than metal tapes. Why do you think they vanished from the catalogs almost overnight when metal came to market? Because manufacturers wanted that.because less profitable. Truth is quality wise they were fantastic and rivalled the first metal tapes in frequency response, only recordings were not as durable on metal were they lasted forever.
@@montana01971 Type III tapes were made till mid 80's (Sony FeCr and DUAD). At that moment the quality of the TDK SA-X, Maxell XLII-S and Sony UCX-S was on par with FeCr, but cheaper to make and easier interchangeable. In 1984 the FeCr90 costed 11 guilders and the UCX-S90 10 guilders in the Netherlands (1 euro = 2,20371 guilder). Metal-tapes were over 20 guilders for 90 minutes.
Here is proof that the rip off of remastering the 1973 RECORDED The dark side if the moon every 3 years is a terrible sounding album. Most of my records were recorded in 1971 & before. In 1972 I thought the sound on all records were was more harsh, that the sound wasnt as good. I was suspicious that something solid state transistor digital was added, but 2 sound engineers swore I was wrong. You here all this talk that digital didnt start till the very late seventies. Michael Fremer from Stereophile confirmed I was right all along. Fremer JUST said this, so I googled it up what he said. The Doors and The Elektra Records Sound Part 1. Also below when it is talking about DISCRETE recorders, it's talking about tiny tralnsistor Integrated integrated IC transistors that dont sound as good, for example early seventies Sony stereo amps with more expensive & complicated hand wired transistors sound better than today's IC amps, but still tubes recorders sound better. Guitarists today love guitar tube amps better. Analog Planet www.analogplanet.com › content › doors-and-e... Apr 30, 2010 - When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. The whole control room was all brick, and it had individual panels of acoustical tile to deaden it down. Basically it was a very live room. The console sat on a platform, which was about six or eight inches off the floor. The tape machine sat behind us; we had an old Ampex 200 three-track, which had separate record and playback electronics so that you could select separate record or playback curves. They had a thing back then called A.M.E., which was Ampex Master Equalization, and then they had N.A.B., so if you recorded A.M.E. and played it back N.A.B., it would come out brighter. It's like recording with Dolby and not decoding. We also had an Ampex 300, I believe, three-track, which I converted over to a four-track with sel-sync (the ability to perform overdubs). BB: No, the room stayed the same from the day I walked in the door, which was about 1963 to 1968. When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. But anyway, back to the console. Tutti used to go to England a lot, and he purchased a solid-state console over there. For the life of me, I can't remember the name of it. We all thought it was kind of cool. It had a lot of features that the tube console didn't have. It sounded different, you know? Tubes still sounded the best. Anyway, Jac Holzman purchased one as well, and we had it customized for our needs at Elektra Studios. So, that's how the console got there. BB: I still like mono to this day, because there aren't any distractions. It's like a black and white movie, where you can create incredible dimensions, depth-wise, and hide things. That's very hard to do in stereo. That's because we don't record in stereo: We record multi-track point-source discrete audio. The difference in the mix was when we would open it up to stereo, we would have to change things, because it didn't fall in the same place. Spatially, things would fall into other places. MG: It sounds to me as if the first Doors album had the best high-frequency extension, transient snap, and overall transparency, and that with each album sonically fine as they arethose qualities seemed to diminish. Would you agree or disagree? BB: I'd agree with that to an extent, because the first album was all tube. Strange Days was done on a tube console, but with a solid-state eight-track. From then on it became all solid-state consoles and solid-state tape machines. There was also this direction that Paul wanted to take it, a more intellectual kind of a sound, not as raw as the first album. The sound started to become more scientific as it went along, a little more clinical, because studios, by and large, are hospitals, they're not places to record music. Technology is the evil person here. MG: I guess that's not fighting technology, it's kind of going around it. BB: Sound since the 1960s has gone backwards instead of forwards, in my estimation. In the recordings that I do today for motion pictures, I use tube microphones, tube microphone pre-amps, and I try to bypass the solid-state consoles as much as possible. It's more open, it's rounder, it has more depth. I can give you an example. If you take a room that has some reverberation not a chamber, just good clear liveness and you put an earphone in the middle of the room with a click going through it, so you hear the “tick, tick, tick.” Plug up a good microphone, maybe a (Neumann) U-67 or something like that, split the signal so it goes into a tube microphone pre-amp, and then the solid-state pre-amp, bring them both up on the console, and switch back and forth, and listen. With the tube, you'll hear all the reverberation in the room; the solid-state will close down. Ten times out of 10. So that's somewhat what you're hearing. Even the equalizers back then were tube; we had Pultech EQ-P1A's. MG: What's your opinion of digital multi-track recorded sound, and your opinion of digital recording, period, compared to analog? Which do you prefer? BB: I would venture to say that 95% of the music that I've recorded in the last eight years has been all digital. Digital does not basically sound better than analog, but what it does do, is that the sound doesn't change from what you're recording. With analog, you record it, and when you play it back, you will get a fair representation of what you heard on line-in. Play it back a half an hour later, and it will have changed, there are less highs. Play it a day later, and it will really have changed. The high end just changes, it's a natural process of the magnetism of the particles, and when you magnetize, record them, they change. The magnetic particles have a memory and want to go back to their original inert state. It's just the way it is. In digital, you record it, and it doesn't change. The problem with digital is the quality of the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters. At this point in time, the A-to-D and D-to-A's are getting where you can record on it and it doesn't sound “digital” anymore. “Digital” meaning that it sounds cold. “Cold” meaning that digital doesn't show you all of the details, like the depth of the reverb and harmonic room tone. Because there's lack of detail, and especially lack of harmonics going way out, that sound would seem colder, and "digital." Right now, I'm recording 96 K, 24 bit, and whew! It's good! I mean, you're really, really hard pressed to tell it from the source.
I had a Nakamichi 600II and always used type II Maxell & TDK. Bought it in High School & it was the most expensive thing I had ever bought up to that time. I really enjoyed the whole process of biasing each tape every time I did a recording & the results were really great & when I listen to those tapes almost 40 years later they still sound very good. I had unfortunately gotten rid of the 600II but, recently bought a NOS Nakamichi 580 & have stated recording again again with Maxell & TDK type II from the last years those tapes were produced. I was finding them at good prices for a while & now have a nice stockpile. I was very happy to see this video going into the detail of the different tape formulas, I learned a lot!
This video inspired me to listen to Beethoven's 5th Symphony in its entirety; which l have on a Sony Metal SR tape with Dolby C. Absolutely magnificent!!!!!!
Wow. I knew I was getting better quality tapes throughout the decades, right up to metal IV, but had no idea there were only certain players for them. Or if I did, I've forgotten that stuff from non-use. But now I'm about to embark on a huge digitization of my inventory. Wish me luck. Thanks for the help.
The best tape I have got years ago was type IV "That's" tape. That's was a Japan manufacturer of broadcasting audio and video tapes. They were fantastic soundig. For type II Sony Ux Pro. Don't even need to make any bias correction on my Akai deck during recording. Great video.
You don't need different formulas for reel-to-reel tape... you just up the tape speed to 30 I.P.S. to lower hiss and increase fidelity. Compact Cassette started life as a dictation format for voice recording with a fixed speed and fixed physical size.... so the only way to increase fidelity was to mess with the tape formula. Increasing speed was not an option unless you wanted incredibly short recordings. i.e. an album would need to be recorded over 10 or 12 cassettes to achieve equivalent to 30 inches per second. Not a problem with open spool machines like reel to reel.... you just use bigger spools. Good podcast by the way... i enjoyed it very much
I don't agree. Quality formulations can only bring benefits, in fact there are small reels of Type II R2R. The truth is that cassettes were sold in millions while recording pro tape in hundreds of thousands. So the costs and all the R&D went where the big numbers were. Plus, the expense of a 15ips or worse 30ips reel of chrome or metal tape would be prohibitive!
@@anadialog I agree that Reel-to-real would greatly benefit from superior formulation... but like you say... it's all down to cost. With compact cassette being only 1/8".... developing better formulations was defiantly worth the investment considering it's popularity. Economy of scale makes such a difference.
Another great video as usual Guido! You guys would’ve been in heaven back in the old days to goto the local brick & mortar tape store that sold every type of tape known to man. They always had a weekly advertisement in the local newspaper listing the latest prices on audio & videotapes both consumer and professional.
Love the video Guido & Karim! I found a brilliant cheap German Dual cassette deck a year ago and it's amazing. I was also given a box of Deutsche Gramophon cassette from the 80's and they sound stunning. I so glad I didn't get rid of my cassette collection, getting so much joy out playing them again
The FeCr has 2 layers. Outside (visable part) is dark (CrO2), but the backside is brown (ferric). Brilliant tapes indeed, especially on older Sony ES-decks.
Truly nostalgic 😢 but of course they had their problems. Azimuth problem. Dolby problem. Demagnetizing the heads. Cleaning the heads. But I still like that epoch. And let’s not forget the Elcaset which I personally loved. dbx….😂
Wow, I'm going back to watch episode one now. I have one of those TDK metal cassettes. The body of the cassette was actually, for the most part, a metal alloy, and they really are quite heavy, amazing quality. Well done, guys very entertaining tripping down memory line.
Ah, used a ton of TDK SA90 and Maxell XL-II with a smattering of XL-IIS (all Type II), occasionally a few Type IV. Those were the brands easiest to find here in my corner of the U.S. for good prices. Wish I could have used more BASF. In retrospect, some quality Type I tapes might have been better for bass heavy tracks. Good times. I still record cassettes some and always will as long as my decks last. Recently had a 3-head Sony deck refurbished, so hoping it will last many more years. Tape was an amazing creation, first reel-to-reel, and then cassettes with all the improvements made to make them a high fidelity medium. We were very fortunate for it. Great video. These tapes in their best formulations, along with Dolby B and S were great. Seems Dolby C wasn't so hot and less forgiving of playing them on decks different from the one that recorded them. Dolby S allowed me to make recordings *nearly* indistinguishable from the source.
Type IV cassettes today have the issue that the lubricant applied to the tape at the original manufacture will in all likelihood have degraded and flakes offs. In used tapes this means the tape will potentially damage your heads (lack of lubricant) or in new tapes will accumulate a fine powder all over your transport eventually gumming up the works. Quality high end type II does not have this issue and retains its recording and playback capability. Ive also heard on boards, so may or may not be true, but starting in the late 80's metal tape was tweaked to be better at recording CD's and became worse at recording LP's. I have a Sony K333ESJ and I use Sony UX-Pro cassettes to record LP's I borrow from friends, with very very good results. Also playback of commercial tapes, especially from the 90's, is incredible.
Almost all the preowned tapes i own are either type 1 or 2, because when youre making copies of tapes that are likely copies of tapes, the quality is going to take a hit.
Taped over the airwaves radio tape recorders gave a full rich sound plus phonograph inputs from high diamond needle record players also produced quality sound. That are the recordings needed be in high quality because they weren't taped from another tape or tape recorder's output into tape recorder 2 (or tape 1 copied to tape 2 players).
you're describing print through (hearing a pre-echo of audio that's ahead/behind), probably because those metal tapes are recorded so hot that this is inevitable. hearing a previous recording during quiet passages is a sign of the erase head not being strong enough to properly erase the previous recording. reel to reel also has this issue (print through), but the more expensive reel to reel tapes like SM911 have a thicker back coating on the tape to help mitigate that issue (at the expense of less recording time on each reel) - i cant speak for regular cassettes though (whether they have much of a back coating to help with this).
Print-through is a different phenomenon, which takes place from the tape winded on top of each other and the magnetization passes from one part of the film to another. What I was describing is different. What I meant is that once recorded on a metal tape. It is very difficult to erase completely the signal and reallign the particles. Hence, in the worse case you hear both the new and the old recording or simply the previous recording in the silent passages.
I own dozens of Deutsche Grammophon tapes, but none of them has 70 EQ, so up to now I never have had the possibility to experience this on a pre recorded tape.
Good point about Type III. You do need a special cassette deck and thankfully I have at least two that handle that tape formulation: the entry level JVC KD-3A and the mighty JVC KD-A8. Good talk guys!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but type III just required recording in type I position and placed back in type II. Cassette machines that had a type III setting simply did the presto-change-o automatically. Position I during the recording and would switch to position II upon pushing play. I have two Sony cassette decks that have type III position and as I remember that what it did, the holes weren't distinctive for type III cassettes. For machines with auto tape type selection the user was to cover the type II two position until the recording was complete then remove the adhesive tape afterwards.
@@darinb.3273 I don't think you are correct in this. If your tape machine had Type III setting, you were required to record and playback using that setting (why would you do anything other?) Where did you read that you could record in Type I setting and playback as a Type II? Never heard of this!
@@LetThereBeSound1 Yes he is wrong. Maybe confused with the fact that if your deck did not have the 3 position, then best option was to use position 1.
@@LetThereBeSound1 I don't think you are correct in this. ME: Thank you for your response ☺️. I observed this when I selected type III on the machine itself. I wasn't even aware of type III cassettes and when I saw that setting, I investigated the type III cassettes. If your tape machine had Type III setting, you were required to record and playback using that setting (why would you do anything other?) ME: Sure of course, however I don't have any type III cassettes to even try it 😞. I do understand the concept though. In machines designed for type I only, said machines can record on type II it just doesn't do as well the recording is extremely strong in the higher frequency range and the bass is very low. As I understand the CrO2 position records with more power, yet the treble is attenuated, hence the 70 microsecond vs 120 microsecond of type I. There are mixed ideas about recording on type III. Tapeheads is one source it has been suggested to record in type I w/ 70 microsecond EQ. Only expensive decks like the Dragon have that capability that I'm aware of. The type III cassette itself has type I notches, which would not utilize CrO2 equalization. There are two options for reasonably restoring the higher frequencies back to normal levels 1. Engage the type II switch 2. Reduce the the higher frequencies via the tone/treble control. Perhaps both 1 and 2. Where did you read that you could record in Type I setting and playback as a Type II? Never heard of this! ME: Various sources have their own experiences in the various ways, however the best source was on the J card itself. It doesn't really matter anyway type III are extremely rare and are more difficult to record, especially if the cassette deck machine is modern base line. As mentioned before I don't have any type III to conduct my own experiments with. ruclips.net/video/-Vqyik8T0Bw/видео.html Tony (Cassette Comeback) did a video about these cassettes @ approximately 13:35, he opens a usage guide explaining best practices for excellent usage results.
Very good video. I used a lot os CrO2 tapes, but the top quality I find was FeCr, that is the top of the line for me. My old Panasonic CC recorder, with Dolby System (B only, that I used a lot, because the CC hiss was terrible), was not compatible with type 3 and type 4 tapes. When I wanna record a LP or a CD with extreme high quality audio, I used VHS video tapes to record in analog Hi-Fi stereo, not PCM, only Hi-Fi, and the quality was amazing, except for the "headdrum" noise, that let me crazy, but comparing with CC, VHS Hi-Fi, was very better. BASF used VHS Crome Cassettes too.. I loved CC and VHS BASF tapes. 8mm also record in Hi-Fi stereo too, plus the PCM option in some tape deck models.
As I remember (I was tempted to say Memorex, enough, that I just did), Tape players/recorders that sounded any good were expensive. That may be why people look back as them not being that good. When I first got CD, which was decades after they first came out, so long as I had a decent amplifier and speakers, it would sound pretty good. I bought a Kenwood (go on audiophiles, attack me) dual tape machine that hald dolby nr on it, and even my really old tapes sounded better than when I first heard them (80's). Talking about analogue and digital quickly goes from conversation to debate, and I'm too old and tired to go there. I totally get the physical connection with tape and vinyl.
I remember those "type 0" tapes which are just poorly made type 1. Brands (US): Certron, the main one, and various knock-offs that look like name brand but perform otherwise. But back in the early-mid 1980's those Certron LN 60 or 90 came in a pack of 3 with no shells. It was $1.99 for a pack of 3 of them. Marginally okay for voice but forget music!
hi very good way to go at last i never go by the look of them i all ways used dubbing cassette from tape line be cause it's alot easy to set up the recorders 1/8 faster than 3/4 ips sounds the same at 7 1/2 i have jazzed up my otari mtr 12 and only use spool tape mode i know set up tapes are made on pro reel to reel decks ex emi man told me
Just two tape decks in the world, that have sound like r2r...Nakamich 700 tritracer and Nakamichi 582 series... Double speed deck is WOW...i had Dual 844....it was WOW recording and sounds on 9.5 speed....on every tape type. It was my mistake to sell it....sounds like r2r.
Unfortunately out here we have available only very bad equipment to read tape cassettes so do not see point of buying or recording these until we have a really good equipment available.
metal would be TDK MA. ;) Did you ever have any SA-X? I used both SA and SA-X as my primary type II tapes "back in the day," but never recall any dropouts or quality issues with SA that SA-X were supposed to address.
Ciao Guido, potrei fare tranquillamente il commento in inglese, ma voglio andare spedito! In primis grazie infinite per questi podcast sulle cassette, sui nastri! Io credo che sarebbe davvero bello ed interessante andare a spiegare correttamente l'utilizzo del tipo 3, anche solo per arricchimento culturale, perché mi affascina tanto, con un video apposito! Tantissimi gli argomenti! La cassetta di tipo 3, è interessantissima, ma come forse avrai la curiosità di vedere su un apposito video sul mio canale, la complicazione non sta nel riprodurla ma, nel registrarla! Per cercare di rendere il più compatibile possibile questa cassetta, e anche per un fatto di frequenze, si decise di stabilire l'eq a 120ms, come il tipo 1. Ma, il bias richiesto, era quello del tipo 2, cioè più alto del tipo 1. Praticamente, i registratori con la posizione ferrocromo, come uno che ho anche io, non fanno altro che predisporsi su un bias di tipo 2 e un eq di tipo 1. Per cui ad esempio, i Nakamichi, che hanno la selezione di bias ed eq, pur non avendo la posizione 3, possono registrare correttamente queste cassette, con selettore tipo 2 ed eq 1. Ovviamente il bias c'è solo in registrazione e voi spiegherete perché, per cui una cassetta come questa, registrata in posizione 3, oppure in posizione 2 a 120ms, può essere riprodotta correttamente in qualsiasi deck in posizione 1. Se io ho un deck con le sole posizioni 1, 2 e 4, non posso registrare correttamente questa cassetta. Devo ascoltare con le orecchie e scegliere in base alla taratura se registrarla in posizione 2, per il bias che richiede, o in posizione 1 per l'eq a 120. Ovviamente, se la registro in 2, devo riprodurla in 2, per via dell'eq! A sensazione, se ho un deck non nak o senza la posizione 3, sarebbe molto molto interessante, fare un video con delle prove, e se ne possono fare eccome. Insomma si può parlare e sperimentare a lungo sulla tipo 3. Inutile? Forse! Interessante? Sicuramente! Se ti va un confronto, sono a completa disposizione. E c'è anche la spiegazione sul perché sulla parte superiore, le cassette di tipo 3, hanno il notch del tipo 1. The Mystery of Type III E poi sarebbe interessante spiegare perché le cassette commerciali preregistrate si devono generalmente riprodurre in posizione 1 e perché!
Ti vedo super appassionato! Si sarebbe bello, e forse ci torneremo. Hai ragione c'è molto da dire sulle 3 e non solo ma come hai visto già così siamo a 43 minuti! Davvero tanto per un video su YT. Vediamo in futuro e cmq grazie del suggerimento, sono sempre utili e preziosi!
I don't know if you noticing or not that almost all newly producing cassette tape shells are welded shut only, and as a cassette fan and collector it's a bit concerning for me, yet what's your take on this.?🤔
Another part of this talk is the machines...some have AUTOMATIC TYPES and other's have a manuel [lever/button] types . You could have a seperate vid of this. And i have a cassette from 1993 that has been recorded in Cr0[Netherlands], but it doesn't have the special extra notch for the automatic type [Connie Francis-THE SINGLES COLLECTION/1993 UK]. Furthermore on R2R there is only Type 1 i think..would be interesting to make a vid follow-up for this and Digitape .
Yes, we will touch decks from different points of view in the following episodes. We discussed about R2R at the end of the video, which includes also Type II tape.
Hi guys. Thanks for video....beautiful.... I just started to buy factory pre-recorded tapes....some classic music recorded by Eterna German in late 70s and 80s. Yes, some of tapes are type 2 Crome....and i have 2 tape decks Akai gxc 570 D2 and Sone 222 Esa.... Akai have manual tape selector type 1 2 and 3 ( no type 4) Sony from 90s, have automatic tape seletor.... I have a question, during conversation you told, that in pre-recorded tapes you should have to use type 1 on selector, when you play type 2 tape? Can you explain please. Thanks
Hi there, maybe I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that. There is a bunch of quality pre-recorded cassettes recorded on Chromium dioxide (or ferricobalt) tape as the cassette of Gerry Mulligan I showed, but for the sake of an easy playback they have been recorded with a 120ms eq, hence you must set them on Type I and not on Type II.
My most prized cassette is an early 70s Elton John Greatest hits. It is a true chromium dioxide and you can smell the crayon smell of the tape. I put that on with no Dolby NR and it sounds great pushed loud.
Did you ever try? Yes, R2R has a better holographic representation. Cassettes always flattens the scene BUT a quality type IV recorded with quality deck comes very close and sometimes they are practically identical.
edit regarding high frequency, i've played with the dsd512 record of the last type i tape i did, first beyond 20Khz up to around 30-35khz, downscale it, increased volume and yes there is something clearly distinguishable , and was able to tell what sounds they are link too. In practice putting all together , does thoses extra high freuency add something??? (the most probable value is to get a closer reproduction of the original specially if contains above 20khz data) I've also tried to other side, with a descent wired head phone (40-18khz), used a filter low pass 24db/octave on the dsd 512, starting at 8khz, i was quite good a 10khz, using 12khz cut , i think i wouldn't have distinguished which is what (12khz or full spectrum) in a blind test! So yes definitively new type I can clearly do a great job. Of course that's only valid for analog sound, or max digital sampling rate, using a lower sampling rate of those 12khz is instantaneously distinguishable. This said again, yes 70ùs tape worth it, if in a correct price range.
It's probably noise or highly distorted frequencies because unfortunately we must always remember that past and modern microphones rarely reach 20hz-20khz what is below or above that is broadly left out (just those extra frequency in the descending curve)
@@anadialog well yes and not , microphone don't really cut with a 24db/slope like digital, so even if the cut at 16khz it's generally with a 6/db by octave slope with mean that if you have 40db at 16khz, you should be able to reach more than 128khz before having absolutely no signal (even with a 12db slope), And no wasn't noise but clearly music data, it has also hiss because i increased by 40db the signal, but i was impress by the s/n with dolby c, with maintained the noise well under the sound. This said on tape i was mixed with hysteresis normally, but that was so distinguishable, that yes this extra high frequency worth it, even if it's a slope starting around 20db and falling down to 0. I recommend people to try by them it's bluffing of course using very high sampling rate in order to not have only distortion by bad capture at lower rate, and justify extra high frequency range in true hifi reproduction on analog sound and true electronic synthesizers which can go up to 80khz! Not audible, usefull??? but data and theorical perfect hifi reproduction is 100% of the original signal whatever it's useful or not and this without any conversion that's make rtr a 15ips or direct cut vinyl still the most audiophile researched format and digital a old dream of which will never get to my ears the status of HIFI sound unless they get 25Mghz pcm sampling!
Hi Guido, thank you for another excellent video, in my collection I have a few Sony Metal Master(full ceramic case) and also Sony Meatal Select, what is your opinion on these tapes and how are they in comparison to the TDK metal tapes?
As we said in the video the Sony Metal Master tapes are the pinnacle along with TDK and the best of others. I am not a big fan of Metal Select and in fact they are cheaper.
how are cassette formulations related to professional reel-to-reel formulations? I have a 1/2" 8-track and with some of the higher bias formulations (like GP9) I can't crank the bias high enough at a higher reference level, but I've never had issues like that on my 90s sony cassette deck.
At the end of the video we discussed about that (if I understand correctly your question). If you have higher bias formulation you need a R2R recorder capable of dealing with that (a self-calibrating like the later Otaris would be best), otherwise bias will always be weak.
@@anadialog I was wondering if there were common tape formulations between cassette and R2R? I know RTM's cassettes are based on SM900 but I wonder if there are other examples. Were / are there any chrome or metal R2R stocks?
@@anadialog Poking around the interwebs, it appears that type II FeCo formulations were available for R2R as "Extra Efficiency (EE)" tapes in the 80s, but they needed different record and playback EQ than regular ferric oxide (just like cassette) and only a few manufacturers made decks for it. I think you had to go to the larger Otari MTR series to get the auto-biasing, I "only" have an 1/2" MX5050mkIII-8, and biasing is pretty easy compared to a full alignment. :)
Nope, I think you mixing up a different concept, that is when the bias is TOO high, then you start loosing stuff along the road. Type II onwards need a higher bias and are capable of delivering a broader frequency spectrum also because of that.
well good episode for learning history of cassette type, however not usefull/pratical today, Metal and chrome aren't going to come back, Metal sound is perhaps good, and was usefull for deck without bias correction, or whithout custom bias settings. Also well to have experienced today studio metal tape, those detoriorate as fast as they sound gound, rerecording impossible unless you have a strong demag, are much more expensive than new tapes, plus i'm quite shure they're is like chrome a bass/high ratio which require equalization, Last deck calibration test i did showed metal tape +5db deviation in upper range, (so need to increase the bias or eq), if you still can find them. in 2023, the tape to talk about are more type I and type II, no new decks does III or IV.Even i can agree that first type I tape should had issue in high frequency range, that's no more the case today. fox type I have +5% of high frequency responses over the latest best type I tape, allowing with a technics rs-b905, to reach 20hz to 18khz without dolby, and 30Khz (15db slope after 20khz) with dolbyc and kick the ass of my custom dsd512 sources. Can't say anything about cobalt tape as no need of them, now with a dolby c -15% bias and the fox i don't think i could spot better, perhaps would try with vinyl sources somedays (here the 70ùs should be used), the specs are better than chrome on paper, with a better bass/high ratio, unfortunately few are happy with them. (some are, does the tape decks aren't suited for???) Pushing anytape after 0db it's compression, as unwanted as loudness war is over, except if you want real tape compression, instead of digital tape compressor bu that's out of the scope of recording. So instead of wasting money on those old tape better use those new tape , set the optimal bias for type I fox/(atr?) on deck without bias correction (That's also the tape to use to calibrate bias on deck with bias correction, alowing a better high fq response at +/-o% bias and still stay in +-/5db range with metal in case of...). Buying old type I tape specially sealed cost more than new atr/rtm ones. Plus on dual capstan deck... (old chrome have also jumped in price, more than the cobalt silver, and as said metal cost a tape deck, and even if they have reduced/removed head wear problems, they still degrade fastly) As for cassette tape being as good as reel to reel deck, well even if you can reach 75ùs second after type I, that's only the same thing they share at 3/34 reel to reel speed. A reel to reel deck optimized bias with rtm/atr tape kick the ass, in all way than any cassette. To finish the high frequency range above 16khz is useless luxury, most people are at than range capabilities, not mentionning that on there is bluetooth that also limited to 16khz. The analog is better than digital, not because it can reach easily extreme high frequency specially on reel tape, or vinyl, but because it print way more details in the audible high frequency range, than any digital format. This said however we definitively need new 70ùs cobalt or why not dreaming chrome cassette (if we want to record analog sound on cassette), and i think that we can still dreaming, if rtm hasn't still released 70ùs bias one, that's because it can not do it! (i very hope that's because they still aren't happy with their cobalt formula)
hi there is type 4 on reel to reel 100% NOTE IT WAS FOR DUBBING CASSETTES 1/2 inch tapes i use it on my otari mtr 12 note it's only on pancake tapes 1/2 inch 1/8 inch tape BESF used to do them i have it on the 8 1/4 inch spools so it's a reel to reel tape wow they sound good man there are tape out there you got to know the right people beware when you open a sealed 1/2 tape you have to take it out side it will do your head in very like video tape have any of you tryed betacam sp tape on a reel to reel i have alot of betacam decks alot of them reel to reel is very poor against recording the the betacam sp i stop using 1/4 tape i got better recording on betacam sp tapes 40min of audio on a digi deck why have they got missed so long
Making tapes today and still going strong since 1987 are my Maxima II, UX-ES, SA-X, FR II Super, XL-IIS, HD8 and metals Sony Select, Maxell MX, Fuji FR, TDK MR. I may be older than most but I enjoy that analog sound from my Nakamichi. Too much good music not to have a listen.
The most important thing is the recording deck, and 2-Heads is not always worse then 3 Heads. Then its important to dial the tape in, if you cant because you dont have the controls, you can't judge. I suggest 90's decks because of superior electronics, HX Pro etc... Basic Type I usually has the flattest responce (RTM Fox makes those) but has problems with the really high highs, Type II is great - Maxell XL, TDK SA, Different BASF's but the EQ for Type II is trash (imo) and sounds like it was made for shit decks to get some highs out of. If you can trick the machine to rec Type II as Type I its crazy - Ive done this with BASF Chrome Super II and its great. Anyways you will never get the quality of a tape machine with a cassette deck no matter what!
hi there is big 1/2 inch tape analog stereo decks you know you have a eu studio decks i have a otari mtr 12 1/2 inch tape that is stereo it not a dubbing deck it's a 4 track recorder i only use the 2 channel on each heads i some one had a full and down stairs and it kill him he was getting on in age one thing he was very fit man just un lucky there are place's that deals in hard to find tape formats like the c carts for back ground audio players i was lucky to have as well the cassette dubbing they do use alot of video tape like loop tape beware AAA cassette from the past is very likely to be a loop bin and what tape is used in the bin i was told alot of the behide the background best for you not to know it's a real mind field the dubbing tape game is bob
hi when i have my channel working i will have small video's i have been asked in the past all the funny tapes came from a cassette dubbing and i had to wait till i got to ok the wife of the man who work ed for EMI i have to be care full what i say bob
Chrome Maxima II is Not a True chrome its a Cobolt doped ferric! BASF started off with proper chrome but swapped at some point not sure if with the cost of licensing, the enviromenat issues or because decks were all tweated for the japanes formulation. I remember seeing fecr in the mid-late 80's they were being sold off cheap as decks didn't have the correct switch ( I think i have one deck that has that switch) my experience with them is because they were a layer of ferric and a layer of chrome is the 2 layers would determinate so not good.I still put them to one side if i buy a batch of used tapes that contains one and i may have a few Philips nos ones somewhere* not on your list but the other ones i have seen are BASF or the Sony one you showed. if i find my Philips ones i will take a photo!
That is incorrect. Starting around 1993 we have a mixed formulation with 85% chrome and 15% ferric-cobalt mix. The example I showed is from 1988-1991 and it's still true chrome, like the other Chrome Maxima II before that. Here you can find all the info: vintagecassettes.com/_info/basf_formulations_2.htm
Hi Guido. Funny to see all the familiar cassette types and brands I remember from back then. But don't you think claiming that some cassettes and machines was almost better than R2R is having a bit too much fun? I know you like the format and all due respect for that, but can't we agree on cassettes was created by aliens, and in that way keep things within reason? Otherwise the next claim might be that cassettes was used as mastertapes for record production due to the exquisite quality of the format. Stay cool Mate.
As I said maybe better or as r2r. I have already said this in one of my first episodes about 6 years ago so it's not having too much fun. It's a solid observation and listening of what a high quality metal tape can do with a quality deck. Remember that R2R is 99% Type I, with all it's limitations and cassettes with double speed and metal formulation along with calibration can really claim the hi-fi mountain. What I can say is that the width and the speed of R2R delivers a more open sound, less compressed and full of breath. THAT is where it wins. In other segments, no so clear of a winner. This is experience, not prejudice.
@@anadialog Hi Mate. I hope you caught it mainly was meant as a joke. Can't help teasing friends once in a while. As you know I went all the way back in the 90's and I know what the pinnacle of cassettes could deliver. It was good, no debate about that, but still the A-B comparison between the original material and the recording couldn't quite deliver what I was chasing. I achieved that with R2R, which goes that tad higher above 20 k, have less loss of dynamics, and where the coloration of Dolby can be avoided. The money one had to put on the table for still not quite getting there made me give up the cassette format. At the top the format was good, and I understand why you like it. I also understand that one can get carried away by enthusiasm. We don't agree that cassettes (at it's pinnacle) though being good ever really could compete with the wider tape and higher speeds of R2R, but we don't have to agree about everything. And the best part is; We can still have a bit of fun about it. Stay awesome Mate.
@@TheSoundrookie you are right. Reel 2 reel is always going to be better simply because of the higher speed, no tape formulation can make up for that. In the early 80s high quality metal microcassetes came on the market along with good decks but they were still not quite as good as normal cassettes due to lower speed.
Not, lav are never really good, only decent. I have a high quality Sennheiser lavalier and it sounds ok. Plus I love microphones and in any respectful podcast the mic is part of the show. In fact, on my normal videos it is hidden.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Errata Corrige: In the video I claimed that only Sony, BASF, Scotch and Agfa made Type III cassettes but there are several other brands. Also I forgot to mention, as some of you correctly pointed out, that the dark color of the Type III tape is only on the outside (chrome) while the inside (ferric) is light brown. That is because of the employment of the two types of formulations in one.
The main reason why FeCr disappeared was because the quality of good IECII cassettes became equivalent. There was no longer a need for type III cassettes. At the time, metal tapes were twice as expensive (10 to 12 euros converted) and were no competitor for FeCr..
@@KR1275 Not true. The last type 3 cassettes that were made from around 79 - 80 were much better than type 2 cassettes from that same period. The mistake many people made in later years was comparing a late 70's type 3 to an early 90's Tdk SA-x or Maxell XLII-s which of course will sound at least as good.
The reason type 3 went out was that they were much too expensive and inefficient to produce for manufacturers with their 2 layers, way more costly even than metal tapes.
Why do you think they vanished from the catalogs almost overnight when metal came to market? Because manufacturers wanted that.because less profitable.
Truth is quality wise they were fantastic and rivalled the first metal tapes in frequency response, only recordings were not as durable on metal were they lasted forever.
@@montana01971 Type III tapes were made till mid 80's (Sony FeCr and DUAD). At that moment the quality of the TDK SA-X, Maxell XLII-S and Sony UCX-S was on par with FeCr, but cheaper to make and easier interchangeable. In 1984 the FeCr90 costed 11 guilders and the UCX-S90 10 guilders in the Netherlands (1 euro = 2,20371 guilder). Metal-tapes were over 20 guilders for 90 minutes.
Here is proof that the rip off of remastering the 1973 RECORDED The dark side if the moon every 3 years is a terrible sounding album. Most of my records were recorded in 1971 & before. In 1972 I thought the sound on all records were was more harsh, that the sound wasnt as good. I was suspicious that something solid state transistor digital was added, but 2 sound engineers swore I was wrong. You here all this talk that digital didnt start till the very late seventies. Michael Fremer from Stereophile confirmed I was right all along. Fremer JUST said this, so I googled it up what he said.
The Doors and The Elektra Records Sound Part 1. Also below when it is talking about DISCRETE recorders, it's talking about tiny tralnsistor Integrated integrated IC transistors that dont sound as good, for example early seventies Sony stereo amps with more expensive & complicated hand wired transistors sound better than today's IC amps, but still tubes recorders sound better. Guitarists today love guitar tube amps better.
Analog Planet
www.analogplanet.com › content › doors-and-e...
Apr 30, 2010 - When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. The whole control room was all brick, and it had individual panels of acoustical tile to deaden it down. Basically it was a very live room. The console sat on a platform, which was about six or eight inches off the floor. The tape machine sat behind us; we had an old Ampex 200 three-track, which had separate record and playback electronics so that you could select separate record or playback curves. They had a thing back then called A.M.E., which was Ampex Master Equalization, and then they had N.A.B., so if you recorded A.M.E. and played it back N.A.B., it would come out brighter. It's like recording with Dolby and not decoding. We also had an Ampex 300, I believe, three-track, which I converted over to a four-track with sel-sync (the ability to perform overdubs).
BB: No, the room stayed the same from the day I walked in the door, which was about 1963 to 1968. When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. But anyway, back to the console. Tutti used to go to England a lot, and he purchased a solid-state console over there. For the life of me, I can't remember the name of it. We all thought it was kind of cool. It had a lot of features that the tube console didn't have. It sounded different, you know? Tubes still sounded the best. Anyway, Jac Holzman purchased one as well, and we had it customized for our needs at Elektra Studios. So, that's how the console got there. BB: I still like mono to this day, because there aren't any distractions. It's like a black and white movie, where you can create incredible dimensions, depth-wise, and hide things. That's very hard to do in stereo. That's because we don't record in stereo: We record multi-track point-source discrete audio. The difference in the mix was when we would open it up to stereo, we would have to change things, because it didn't fall in the same place. Spatially, things would fall into other places. MG: It sounds to me as if the first Doors album had the best high-frequency extension, transient snap, and overall transparency, and that with each album sonically fine as they arethose qualities seemed to diminish. Would you agree or disagree?
BB: I'd agree with that to an extent, because the first album was all tube. Strange Days was done on a tube console, but with a solid-state eight-track. From then on it became all solid-state consoles and solid-state tape machines. There was also this direction that Paul wanted to take it, a more intellectual kind of a sound, not as raw as the first album. The sound started to become more scientific as it went along, a little more clinical, because studios, by and large, are hospitals, they're not places to record music. Technology is the evil person here.
MG: I guess that's not fighting technology, it's kind of going around it.
BB: Sound since the 1960s has gone backwards instead of forwards, in my estimation. In the recordings that I do today for motion pictures, I use tube microphones, tube microphone pre-amps, and I try to bypass the solid-state consoles as much as possible. It's more open, it's rounder, it has more depth. I can give you an example. If you take a room that has some reverberation not a chamber, just good clear liveness and you put an earphone in the middle of the room with a click going through it, so you hear the “tick, tick, tick.” Plug up a good microphone, maybe a (Neumann) U-67 or something like that, split the signal so it goes into a tube microphone pre-amp, and then the solid-state pre-amp, bring them both up on the console, and switch back and forth, and listen. With the tube, you'll hear all the reverberation in the room; the solid-state will close down. Ten times out of 10. So that's somewhat what you're hearing. Even the equalizers back then were tube; we had Pultech EQ-P1A's.
MG: What's your opinion of digital multi-track recorded sound, and your opinion of digital recording, period, compared to analog? Which do you prefer?
BB: I would venture to say that 95% of the music that I've recorded in the last eight years has been all digital. Digital does not basically sound better than analog, but what it does do, is that the sound doesn't change from what you're recording. With analog, you record it, and when you play it back, you will get a fair representation of what you heard on line-in. Play it back a half an hour later, and it will have changed, there are less highs. Play it a day later, and it will really have changed. The high end just changes, it's a natural process of the magnetism of the particles, and when you magnetize, record them, they change. The magnetic particles have a memory and want to go back to their original inert state. It's just the way it is. In digital, you record it, and it doesn't change. The problem with digital is the quality of the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters. At this point in time, the A-to-D and D-to-A's are getting where you can record on it and it doesn't sound “digital” anymore. “Digital” meaning that it sounds cold. “Cold” meaning that digital doesn't show you all of the details, like the depth of the reverb and harmonic room tone. Because there's lack of detail, and especially lack of harmonics going way out, that sound would seem colder, and "digital." Right now, I'm recording 96 K, 24 bit, and whew! It's good! I mean, you're really, really hard pressed to tell it from the source.
I had a Nakamichi 600II and always used type II Maxell & TDK. Bought it in High School & it was the most expensive thing I had ever bought up to that time. I really enjoyed the whole process of biasing each tape every time I did a recording & the results were really great & when I listen to those tapes almost 40 years later they still sound very good. I had unfortunately gotten rid of the 600II but, recently bought a NOS Nakamichi 580 & have stated recording again again with Maxell & TDK type II from the last years those tapes were produced. I was finding them at good prices for a while & now have a nice stockpile. I was very happy to see this video going into the detail of the different tape formulas, I learned a lot!
Back in the 90's, I always used the Type II cassettes by Maxell, Sony and TDK. The sound was very rich and didn't degrade over time.
Well done!
This video inspired me to listen to Beethoven's 5th Symphony in its entirety; which l have on a Sony Metal SR tape with Dolby C. Absolutely magnificent!!!!!!
Cool!!!
Wow. I knew I was getting better quality tapes throughout the decades, right up to metal IV, but had no idea there were only certain players for them. Or if I did, I've forgotten that stuff from non-use. But now I'm about to embark on a huge digitization of my inventory. Wish me luck. Thanks for the help.
Good luck!👍🏻
Very good episode. Thank you guys.
The best tape I have got years ago was type IV "That's" tape. That's was a Japan manufacturer of broadcasting audio and video tapes. They were fantastic soundig. For type II Sony Ux Pro. Don't even need to make any bias correction on my Akai deck during recording. Great video.
I have to say, this is a great video on audio recording technology! One of the best actually! 😊
Thank you so much!
This video brings me great memories of my youth! I started my music collection with casettes and portable Radio/Tape recorders aka boom boxes. :)
You don't need different formulas for reel-to-reel tape... you just up the tape speed to 30 I.P.S. to lower hiss and increase fidelity.
Compact Cassette started life as a dictation format for voice recording with a fixed speed and fixed physical size.... so the only way to increase fidelity was to mess with the tape formula.
Increasing speed was not an option unless you wanted incredibly short recordings. i.e. an album would need to be recorded over 10 or 12 cassettes to achieve equivalent to 30 inches per second.
Not a problem with open spool machines like reel to reel.... you just use bigger spools.
Good podcast by the way... i enjoyed it very much
I don't agree. Quality formulations can only bring benefits, in fact there are small reels of Type II R2R. The truth is that cassettes were sold in millions while recording pro tape in hundreds of thousands. So the costs and all the R&D went where the big numbers were. Plus, the expense of a 15ips or worse 30ips reel of chrome or metal tape would be prohibitive!
@@anadialog I agree that Reel-to-real would greatly benefit from superior formulation... but like you say... it's all down to cost. With compact cassette being only 1/8".... developing better formulations was defiantly worth the investment considering it's popularity. Economy of scale makes such a difference.
Another great video as usual Guido! You guys would’ve been in heaven back in the old days to goto the local brick & mortar tape store that sold every type of tape known to man. They always had a weekly advertisement in the local newspaper listing the latest prices on audio & videotapes both consumer and professional.
Love the video Guido & Karim!
I found a brilliant cheap German Dual cassette deck a year ago and it's amazing. I was also given a box of Deutsche Gramophon cassette from the 80's and they sound stunning. I so glad I didn't get rid of my cassette collection, getting so much joy out playing them again
Lucky dog!!
The FeCr has 2 layers. Outside (visable part) is dark (CrO2), but the backside is brown (ferric). Brilliant tapes indeed, especially on older Sony ES-decks.
True! I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Sony TC-D5M is a great deck to use them on.
Truly nostalgic 😢 but of course they had their problems. Azimuth problem. Dolby problem. Demagnetizing the heads. Cleaning the heads. But I still like that epoch. And let’s not forget the Elcaset which I personally loved. dbx….😂
Wow, I'm going back to watch episode one now.
I have one of those TDK metal cassettes. The body of the cassette was actually, for the most part, a metal alloy, and they really are quite heavy, amazing quality. Well done, guys very entertaining tripping down memory line.
Great Video! In my opinion, the TDK AR-X is the best sounding cassette tape, followed by the Denon MG-X. Thanks
Ah, used a ton of TDK SA90 and Maxell XL-II with a smattering of XL-IIS (all Type II), occasionally a few Type IV. Those were the brands easiest to find here in my corner of the U.S. for good prices. Wish I could have used more BASF. In retrospect, some quality Type I tapes might have been better for bass heavy tracks. Good times. I still record cassettes some and always will as long as my decks last. Recently had a 3-head Sony deck refurbished, so hoping it will last many more years. Tape was an amazing creation, first reel-to-reel, and then cassettes with all the improvements made to make them a high fidelity medium. We were very fortunate for it. Great video. These tapes in their best formulations, along with Dolby B and S were great. Seems Dolby C wasn't so hot and less forgiving of playing them on decks different from the one that recorded them. Dolby S allowed me to make recordings *nearly* indistinguishable from the source.
Nice choices there!
🤗😎THANKS GUIDO ,FOR THE HISTORY LESSON 👍💚💚💚
Type IV cassettes today have the issue that the lubricant applied to the tape at the original manufacture will in all likelihood have degraded and flakes offs. In used tapes this means the tape will potentially damage your heads (lack of lubricant) or in new tapes will accumulate a fine powder all over your transport eventually gumming up the works. Quality high end type II does not have this issue and retains its recording and playback capability. Ive also heard on boards, so may or may not be true, but starting in the late 80's metal tape was tweaked to be better at recording CD's and became worse at recording LP's. I have a Sony K333ESJ and I use Sony UX-Pro cassettes to record LP's I borrow from friends, with very very good results. Also playback of commercial tapes, especially from the 90's, is incredible.
I made a dedicated video on how to relube tape: ruclips.net/video/ov9frNzqrhU/видео.html&feature=share9
Hi, tanks for this real great video. I love my Tascam 122MK3, record on a type4 tape sounds close to cd. Keep on rocking folks🖐
Great video - thanks for sharing this history! (And great Leonard Cohen reference, too!)
Almost all the preowned tapes i own are either type 1 or 2, because when youre making copies of tapes that are likely copies of tapes, the quality is going to take a hit.
Taped over the airwaves radio tape recorders gave a full rich sound plus phonograph inputs from high diamond needle record players also produced quality sound. That are the recordings needed be in high quality because they weren't taped from another tape or tape recorder's output into tape recorder 2 (or tape 1 copied to tape 2 players).
you're describing print through (hearing a pre-echo of audio that's ahead/behind), probably because those metal tapes are recorded so hot that this is inevitable. hearing a previous recording during quiet passages is a sign of the erase head not being strong enough to properly erase the previous recording. reel to reel also has this issue (print through), but the more expensive reel to reel tapes like SM911 have a thicker back coating on the tape to help mitigate that issue (at the expense of less recording time on each reel) - i cant speak for regular cassettes though (whether they have much of a back coating to help with this).
Print-through is a different phenomenon, which takes place from the tape winded on top of each other and the magnetization passes from one part of the film to another. What I was describing is different. What I meant is that once recorded on a metal tape. It is very difficult to erase completely the signal and reallign the particles. Hence, in the worse case you hear both the new and the old recording or simply the previous recording in the silent passages.
I own dozens of Deutsche Grammophon tapes, but none of them has 70 EQ, so up to now I never have had the possibility to experience this on a pre recorded tape.
If it’s tan, toss it in the can
If it’s brown, enough to get down
If it’s black, expect great playback.
😂 I didn't know that one!
Good point about Type III. You do need a special cassette deck and thankfully I have at least two that handle that tape formulation: the entry level JVC KD-3A and the mighty JVC KD-A8. Good talk guys!
Sweet! Thank YOU!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but type III just required recording in type I position and placed back in type II. Cassette machines that had a type III setting simply did the presto-change-o automatically. Position I during the recording and would switch to position II upon pushing play. I have two Sony cassette decks that have type III position and as I remember that what it did, the holes weren't distinctive for type III cassettes. For machines with auto tape type selection the user was to cover the type II two position until the recording was complete then remove the adhesive tape afterwards.
@@darinb.3273 I don't think you are correct in this. If your tape machine had Type III setting, you were required to record and playback using that setting (why would you do anything other?)
Where did you read that you could record in Type I setting and playback as a Type II? Never heard of this!
@@LetThereBeSound1 Yes he is wrong. Maybe confused with the fact that if your deck did not have the 3 position, then best option was to use position 1.
@@LetThereBeSound1 I don't think you are correct in this.
ME: Thank you for your response ☺️. I observed this when I selected type III on the machine itself. I wasn't even aware of type III cassettes and when I saw that setting, I investigated the type III cassettes.
If your tape machine had Type III setting, you were required to record and playback using that setting (why would you do anything other?)
ME: Sure of course, however I don't have any type III cassettes to even try it 😞. I do understand the concept though. In machines designed for type I only, said machines can record on type II it just doesn't do as well the recording is extremely strong in the higher frequency range and the bass is very low. As I understand the CrO2 position records with more power, yet the treble is attenuated, hence the 70 microsecond vs 120 microsecond of type I. There are mixed ideas about recording on type III. Tapeheads is one source it has been suggested to record in type I w/ 70 microsecond EQ. Only expensive decks like the Dragon have that capability that I'm aware of. The type III cassette itself has type I notches, which would not utilize CrO2 equalization. There are two options for reasonably restoring the higher frequencies back to normal levels 1. Engage the type II switch 2. Reduce the the higher frequencies via the tone/treble control. Perhaps both 1 and 2.
Where did you read that you could record in Type I setting and playback as a Type II? Never heard of this!
ME: Various sources have their own experiences in the various ways, however the best source was on the J card itself. It doesn't really matter anyway type III are extremely rare and are more difficult to record, especially if the cassette deck machine is modern base line. As mentioned before I don't have any type III to conduct my own experiments with.
ruclips.net/video/-Vqyik8T0Bw/видео.html
Tony (Cassette Comeback) did a video about these cassettes @ approximately 13:35, he opens a usage guide explaining best practices for excellent usage results.
Very good video. I used a lot os CrO2 tapes, but the top quality I find was FeCr, that is the top of the line for me. My old Panasonic CC recorder, with Dolby System (B only, that I used a lot, because the CC hiss was terrible), was not compatible with type 3 and type 4 tapes.
When I wanna record a LP or a CD with extreme high quality audio, I used VHS video tapes to record in analog Hi-Fi stereo, not PCM, only Hi-Fi, and the quality was amazing, except for the "headdrum" noise, that let me crazy, but comparing with CC, VHS Hi-Fi, was very better. BASF used VHS Crome Cassettes too.. I loved CC and VHS BASF tapes. 8mm also record in Hi-Fi stereo too, plus the PCM option in some tape deck models.
I hear ya! I made two videos on VHS for hifi audio. Here is the first one: ruclips.net/video/cnD_h5BVLec/видео.html&feature=share9
As I remember (I was tempted to say Memorex, enough, that I just did), Tape players/recorders that sounded any good were expensive. That may be why people look back as them not being that good. When I first got CD, which was decades after they first came out, so long as I had a decent amplifier and speakers, it would sound pretty good. I bought a Kenwood (go on audiophiles, attack me) dual tape machine that hald dolby nr on it, and even my really old tapes sounded better than when I first heard them (80's). Talking about analogue and digital quickly goes from conversation to debate, and I'm too old and tired to go there. I totally get the physical connection with tape and vinyl.
😎👍
I remember those "type 0" tapes which are just poorly made type 1. Brands (US): Certron, the main one, and various knock-offs that look like name brand but perform otherwise. But back in the early-mid 1980's those Certron LN 60 or 90 came in a pack of 3 with no shells. It was $1.99 for a pack of 3 of them. Marginally okay for voice but forget music!
Thank you guys !
Thank YOU!
hi very good way to go at last i never go by the look of them i all ways used dubbing cassette from tape line be cause it's alot easy to set up the recorders
1/8 faster than 3/4 ips sounds the same at 7 1/2 i have jazzed up my otari mtr 12 and only use spool tape mode i know
set up tapes are made on pro reel to reel decks ex emi man told me
Just two tape decks in the world, that have sound like r2r...Nakamich 700 tritracer and Nakamichi 582 series...
Double speed deck is WOW...i had Dual 844....it was WOW recording and sounds on 9.5 speed....on every tape type.
It was my mistake to sell it....sounds like r2r.
Sony made Type 3 reel to reel tape, Sony FeCr tape. My reel to reel (sony tc378) supports FeCr tape but its really rare.
Elcaset also had fecr
Correct me if I am wrong TDK AR can give a great treble response I think this tape was in TDK SA that works in type 1 slot😊
😊
Unfortunately out here we have available only very bad equipment to read tape cassettes so do not see point of buying or recording these until we have a really good equipment available.
I understand but we do have it in reality, millions of vintage decks await. Just need a little patience to bring them to spec.
TDK SA were my favourite and I’ve never recorded on a type 4. Maybe one day
metal would be TDK MA. ;) Did you ever have any SA-X? I used both SA and SA-X as my primary type II tapes "back in the day," but never recall any dropouts or quality issues with SA that SA-X were supposed to address.
@@poofygoof no I never used an SA-X either and never had any dropouts with mine👍
Ciao Guido, potrei fare tranquillamente il commento in inglese, ma voglio andare spedito! In primis grazie infinite per questi podcast sulle cassette, sui nastri! Io credo che sarebbe davvero bello ed interessante andare a spiegare correttamente l'utilizzo del tipo 3, anche solo per arricchimento culturale, perché mi affascina tanto, con un video apposito! Tantissimi gli argomenti! La cassetta di tipo 3, è interessantissima, ma come forse avrai la curiosità di vedere su un apposito video sul mio canale, la complicazione non sta nel riprodurla ma, nel registrarla! Per cercare di rendere il più compatibile possibile questa cassetta, e anche per un fatto di frequenze, si decise di stabilire l'eq a 120ms, come il tipo 1. Ma, il bias richiesto, era quello del tipo 2, cioè più alto del tipo 1. Praticamente, i registratori con la posizione ferrocromo, come uno che ho anche io, non fanno altro che predisporsi su un bias di tipo 2 e un eq di tipo 1. Per cui ad esempio, i Nakamichi, che hanno la selezione di bias ed eq, pur non avendo la posizione 3, possono registrare correttamente queste cassette, con selettore tipo 2 ed eq 1. Ovviamente il bias c'è solo in registrazione e voi spiegherete perché, per cui una cassetta come questa, registrata in posizione 3, oppure in posizione 2 a 120ms, può essere riprodotta correttamente in qualsiasi deck in posizione 1. Se io ho un deck con le sole posizioni 1, 2 e 4, non posso registrare correttamente questa cassetta. Devo ascoltare con le orecchie e scegliere in base alla taratura se registrarla in posizione 2, per il bias che richiede, o in posizione 1 per l'eq a 120. Ovviamente, se la registro in 2, devo riprodurla in 2, per via dell'eq! A sensazione, se ho un deck non nak o senza la posizione 3, sarebbe molto molto interessante, fare un video con delle prove, e se ne possono fare eccome. Insomma si può parlare e sperimentare a lungo sulla tipo 3. Inutile? Forse! Interessante? Sicuramente! Se ti va un confronto, sono a completa disposizione. E c'è anche la spiegazione sul perché sulla parte superiore, le cassette di tipo 3, hanno il notch del tipo 1.
The Mystery of Type III
E poi sarebbe interessante spiegare perché le cassette commerciali preregistrate si devono generalmente riprodurre in posizione 1 e perché!
Ti vedo super appassionato! Si sarebbe bello, e forse ci torneremo. Hai ragione c'è molto da dire sulle 3 e non solo ma come hai visto già così siamo a 43 minuti! Davvero tanto per un video su YT. Vediamo in futuro e cmq grazie del suggerimento, sono sempre utili e preziosi!
Grazie per l'ottima spiegazione, hai ragione su tutto. Tutti i deck che hanno bias ed eq separati possono registrare tipo 3
If you can find the late 70s AMPEX GM 1 cassette black label with eagle , they have very unique sound ..
Thanks for the reccomendation!
@@anadialog compactcassettes.jp/foreign/ampex_grandmaster_top.jpg
The dark gray color of type III tape is just on the outside. If you pull out the tape a little bit and look at the inside it is brown like a type I.
True! I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Can you please make a video about (recording with) HX-PRO and why high-end decks no have?
I don't know if you noticing or not that almost all newly producing cassette tape shells are welded shut only, and as a cassette fan and collector it's a bit concerning for me, yet what's your take on this.?🤔
We will discuss in detail about new tapes and cassettes. Yes, I hate that. Cheaper to do clearly. I love screws and the possibility to open them!
Exactly... Hard to repair. Glad you noticed and thanks for generous reply.👍
ferri chrome either type 3 or type 1 and bias or eq 70.
Another part of this talk is the machines...some have AUTOMATIC TYPES and other's have a manuel [lever/button] types . You could have a seperate vid of this. And i have a cassette from 1993 that has been recorded in Cr0[Netherlands], but it doesn't have the special extra notch for the automatic type [Connie Francis-THE SINGLES COLLECTION/1993 UK]. Furthermore on R2R there is only Type 1 i think..would be interesting to make a vid follow-up for this and Digitape .
Yes, we will touch decks from different points of view in the following episodes. We discussed about R2R at the end of the video, which includes also Type II tape.
The maxell metal vortex was the best metal tape.
Hi guys.
Thanks for video....beautiful....
I just started to buy factory pre-recorded tapes....some classic music recorded by Eterna German in late 70s and 80s.
Yes, some of tapes are type 2 Crome....and i have 2 tape decks Akai gxc 570 D2 and Sone 222 Esa....
Akai have manual tape selector type 1 2 and 3 ( no type 4)
Sony from 90s, have automatic tape seletor....
I have a question, during conversation you told, that in pre-recorded tapes you should have to use type 1 on selector, when you play type 2 tape? Can you explain please.
Thanks
Hi there, maybe I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that. There is a bunch of quality pre-recorded cassettes recorded on Chromium dioxide (or ferricobalt) tape as the cassette of Gerry Mulligan I showed, but for the sake of an easy playback they have been recorded with a 120ms eq, hence you must set them on Type I and not on Type II.
My most prized cassette is an early 70s Elton John Greatest hits. It is a true chromium dioxide and you can smell the crayon smell of the tape. I put that on with no Dolby NR and it sounds great pushed loud.
Cool!!
better quality from a type 4 compact cassette than a good reel to reel deck and tape at 15 or 30 IPS? thats a little hard to swallow for me :P
Did you ever try? Yes, R2R has a better holographic representation. Cassettes always flattens the scene BUT a quality type IV recorded with quality deck comes very close and sometimes they are practically identical.
edit regarding high frequency, i've played with the dsd512 record of the last type i tape i did, first beyond 20Khz up to around 30-35khz, downscale it, increased volume and yes there is something clearly distinguishable , and was able to tell what sounds they are link too. In practice putting all together , does thoses extra high freuency add something??? (the most probable value is to get a closer reproduction of the original specially if contains above 20khz data)
I've also tried to other side, with a descent wired head phone (40-18khz), used a filter low pass 24db/octave on the dsd 512, starting at 8khz, i was quite good a 10khz, using 12khz cut , i think i wouldn't have distinguished which is what (12khz or full spectrum) in a blind test!
So yes definitively new type I can clearly do a great job.
Of course that's only valid for analog sound, or max digital sampling rate, using a lower sampling rate of those 12khz is instantaneously distinguishable.
This said again, yes 70ùs tape worth it, if in a correct price range.
It's probably noise or highly distorted frequencies because unfortunately we must always remember that past and modern microphones rarely reach 20hz-20khz what is below or above that is broadly left out (just those extra frequency in the descending curve)
@@anadialog well yes and not , microphone don't really cut with a 24db/slope like digital, so even if the cut at 16khz it's generally with a 6/db by octave slope with mean that if you have 40db at 16khz, you should be able to reach more than 128khz before having absolutely no signal (even with a 12db slope), And no wasn't noise but clearly music data, it has also hiss because i increased by 40db the signal, but i was impress by the s/n with dolby c, with maintained the noise well under the sound. This said on tape i was mixed with hysteresis normally, but that was so distinguishable, that yes this extra high frequency worth it, even if it's a slope starting around 20db and falling down to 0.
I recommend people to try by them it's bluffing of course using very high sampling rate in order to not have only distortion by bad capture at lower rate, and justify extra high frequency range in true hifi reproduction on analog sound and true electronic synthesizers which can go up to 80khz! Not audible, usefull??? but data and theorical perfect hifi reproduction is 100% of the original signal whatever it's useful or not and this without any conversion that's make rtr a 15ips or direct cut vinyl still the most audiophile researched format and digital a old dream of which will never get to my ears the status of HIFI sound unless they get 25Mghz pcm sampling!
Some people say that TDK Krome was better then TDK SA
Hi Guido, thank you for another excellent video, in my collection I have a few Sony Metal Master(full ceramic case) and also Sony Meatal Select, what is your opinion on these tapes and how are they in comparison to the TDK metal tapes?
As we said in the video the Sony Metal Master tapes are the pinnacle along with TDK and the best of others. I am not a big fan of Metal Select and in fact they are cheaper.
@@anadialog I agree about the Select. It was my least favorite of the metal tapes I used for symphonic music.
I'm,
blind and could detect that the different types of tape had their own individual smell.
Interesting!
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Never put a Maxell type 1 with head demagnetizer in a DCC machine, for playback of analog, it ruined my record instantly for DCC record and playback..
how are cassette formulations related to professional reel-to-reel formulations? I have a 1/2" 8-track and with some of the higher bias formulations (like GP9) I can't crank the bias high enough at a higher reference level, but I've never had issues like that on my 90s sony cassette deck.
At the end of the video we discussed about that (if I understand correctly your question). If you have higher bias formulation you need a R2R recorder capable of dealing with that (a self-calibrating like the later Otaris would be best), otherwise bias will always be weak.
@@anadialog I was wondering if there were common tape formulations between cassette and R2R? I know RTM's cassettes are based on SM900 but I wonder if there are other examples. Were / are there any chrome or metal R2R stocks?
@@anadialog Poking around the interwebs, it appears that type II FeCo formulations were available for R2R as "Extra Efficiency (EE)" tapes in the 80s, but they needed different record and playback EQ than regular ferric oxide (just like cassette) and only a few manufacturers made decks for it.
I think you had to go to the larger Otari MTR series to get the auto-biasing, I "only" have an 1/2" MX5050mkIII-8, and biasing is pretty easy compared to a full alignment. :)
When I was young and poor I spent all my money on metal tapes😂
Bravo!
I think I spotted a mistake. Stronger BIAS actually decreases the highs. Is it right?
Nope, I think you mixing up a different concept, that is when the bias is TOO high, then you start loosing stuff along the road. Type II onwards need a higher bias and are capable of delivering a broader frequency spectrum also because of that.
well good episode for learning history of cassette type, however not usefull/pratical today, Metal and chrome aren't going to come back, Metal sound is perhaps good, and was usefull for deck without bias correction, or whithout custom bias settings. Also well to have experienced today studio metal tape, those detoriorate as fast as they sound gound, rerecording impossible unless you have a strong demag, are much more expensive than new tapes, plus i'm quite shure they're is like chrome a bass/high ratio which require equalization, Last deck calibration test i did showed metal tape +5db deviation in upper range, (so need to increase the bias or eq), if you still can find them. in 2023, the tape to talk about are more type I and type II, no new decks does III or IV.Even i can agree that first type I tape should had issue in high frequency range, that's no more the case today. fox type I have +5% of high frequency responses over the latest best type I tape, allowing with a technics rs-b905, to reach 20hz to 18khz without dolby, and 30Khz (15db slope after 20khz) with dolbyc and kick the ass of my custom dsd512 sources. Can't say anything about cobalt tape as no need of them, now with a dolby c -15% bias and the fox i don't think i could spot better, perhaps would try with vinyl sources somedays (here the 70ùs should be used), the specs are better than chrome on paper, with a better bass/high ratio, unfortunately few are happy with them. (some are, does the tape decks aren't suited for???) Pushing anytape after 0db it's compression, as unwanted as loudness war is over, except if you want real tape compression, instead of digital tape compressor bu that's out of the scope of recording. So instead of wasting money on those old tape better use those new tape , set the optimal bias for type I fox/(atr?) on deck without bias correction (That's also the tape to use to calibrate bias on deck with bias correction, alowing a better high fq response at +/-o% bias and still stay in +-/5db range with metal in case of...). Buying old type I tape specially sealed cost more than new atr/rtm ones. Plus on dual capstan deck... (old chrome have also jumped in price, more than the cobalt silver, and as said metal cost a tape deck, and even if they have reduced/removed head wear problems, they still degrade fastly)
As for cassette tape being as good as reel to reel deck, well even if you can reach 75ùs second after type I, that's only the same thing they share at 3/34 reel to reel speed. A reel to reel deck optimized bias with rtm/atr tape kick the ass, in all way than any cassette. To finish the high frequency range above 16khz is useless luxury, most people are at than range capabilities, not mentionning that on there is bluetooth that also limited to 16khz.
The analog is better than digital, not because it can reach easily extreme high frequency specially on reel tape, or vinyl, but because it print way more details in the audible high frequency range, than any digital format.
This said however we definitively need new 70ùs cobalt or why not dreaming chrome cassette (if we want to record analog sound on cassette), and i think that we can still dreaming, if rtm hasn't still released 70ùs bias one, that's because it can not do it! (i very hope that's because they still aren't happy with their cobalt formula)
MAXELL Metal Vertex is the best metal tape ever made.
Meet another one suffering from this virus among subscribers.
Sony TC-K81
Denon DRM-700A
hi there is type 4 on reel to reel 100% NOTE IT WAS FOR DUBBING CASSETTES 1/2 inch tapes i use it on my otari mtr 12 note it's only on pancake tapes 1/2 inch
1/8 inch tape BESF used to do them i have it on the 8 1/4 inch spools so it's a reel to reel tape wow they sound good man there are tape out there
you got to know the right people beware when you open a sealed 1/2 tape you have to take it out side it will do your head in very like video tape
have any of you tryed betacam sp tape on a reel to reel i have alot of betacam decks alot of them reel to reel is very poor against recording the the betacam sp
i stop using 1/4 tape i got better recording on betacam sp tapes 40min of audio on a digi deck why have they got missed so long
Cool! Can you link us some info?
sounds like high speed bin duplicators... did the R2R digital formats (mitsubishi and sony / studer DASH) use something similar?
Making tapes today and still going strong since 1987 are my Maxima II, UX-ES, SA-X, FR II Super, XL-IIS, HD8 and metals Sony Select, Maxell MX, Fuji FR, TDK MR. I may be older than most but I enjoy that analog sound from my Nakamichi. Too much good music not to have a listen.
Nice!!
The most important thing is the recording deck, and 2-Heads is not always worse then 3 Heads. Then its important to dial the tape in, if you cant because you dont have the controls, you can't judge. I suggest 90's decks because of superior electronics, HX Pro etc...
Basic Type I usually has the flattest responce (RTM Fox makes those) but has problems with the really high highs, Type II is great - Maxell XL, TDK SA, Different BASF's but the EQ for Type II is trash (imo) and sounds like it was made for shit decks to get some highs out of. If you can trick the machine to rec Type II as Type I its crazy - Ive done this with BASF Chrome Super II and its great.
Anyways you will never get the quality of a tape machine with a cassette deck no matter what!
hi there is big 1/2 inch tape analog stereo decks you know you have a eu studio decks
i have a otari mtr 12 1/2 inch tape that is stereo it not a dubbing deck it's a 4 track recorder i only use the 2 channel on each heads
i
some one had a full and down stairs and it kill him he was getting on in age one thing he was very fit man just un lucky
there are place's that deals in hard to find tape formats like the c carts for back ground audio players
i was lucky to have as well the cassette dubbing they do use alot of video tape like loop tape
beware AAA cassette from the past is very likely to be a loop bin and what tape is used in the bin i was told alot of the behide the background
best for you not to know it's a real mind field the dubbing tape game is bob
Is Karim talking into the backside of his mic?
He is! He got the mic the day before and I failed to notice it until after recording
That painting in the back though?
Karim's camera being backwards was very distracting through the entire video.
Sorry about that. I noticed it only after.
hi when i have my channel working i will have small video's i have been asked in the past
all the funny tapes came from a cassette dubbing and i had to wait till i got to ok the wife of the man who work ed for EMI i have to be care
full what i say bob
Chrome Maxima II is Not a True chrome its a Cobolt doped ferric! BASF started off with proper chrome but swapped at some point not sure if with the cost of licensing, the enviromenat issues or because decks were all tweated for the japanes formulation.
I remember seeing fecr in the mid-late 80's they were being sold off cheap as decks didn't have the correct switch ( I think i have one deck that has that switch) my experience with them is because they were a layer of ferric and a layer of chrome is the 2 layers would determinate so not good.I still put them to one side if i buy a batch of used tapes that contains one and i may have a few Philips nos ones somewhere* not on your list but the other ones i have seen are BASF or the Sony one you showed. if i find my Philips ones i will take a photo!
That is incorrect. Starting around 1993 we have a mixed formulation with 85% chrome and 15% ferric-cobalt mix. The example I showed is from 1988-1991 and it's still true chrome, like the other Chrome Maxima II before that. Here you can find all the info: vintagecassettes.com/_info/basf_formulations_2.htm
@@anadialog yes chrome maxima is true chrome
Hi Guido.
Funny to see all the familiar cassette types and brands I remember from back then. But don't you think claiming that some cassettes and machines was almost better than R2R is having a bit too much fun? I know you like the format and all due respect for that, but can't we agree on cassettes was created by aliens, and in that way keep things within reason? Otherwise the next claim might be that cassettes was used as mastertapes for record production due to the exquisite quality of the format.
Stay cool Mate.
Have you ever recorded a Sony Metal Master type IV on a Nak Dragon?
@@professorvoluck9311 Yep, back in the 90's as mentioned before in here. Have you made recordings on a good R2R?
As I said maybe better or as r2r. I have already said this in one of my first episodes about 6 years ago so it's not having too much fun. It's a solid observation and listening of what a high quality metal tape can do with a quality deck. Remember that R2R is 99% Type I, with all it's limitations and cassettes with double speed and metal formulation along with calibration can really claim the hi-fi mountain. What I can say is that the width and the speed of R2R delivers a more open sound, less compressed and full of breath. THAT is where it wins. In other segments, no so clear of a winner. This is experience, not prejudice.
@@anadialog Hi Mate.
I hope you caught it mainly was meant as a joke. Can't help teasing friends once in a while.
As you know I went all the way back in the 90's and I know what the pinnacle of cassettes could deliver. It was good, no debate about that, but still the A-B comparison between the original material and the recording couldn't quite deliver what I was chasing. I achieved that with R2R, which goes that tad higher above 20 k, have less loss of dynamics, and where the coloration of Dolby can be avoided.
The money one had to put on the table for still not quite getting there made me give up the cassette format.
At the top the format was good, and I understand why you like it. I also understand that one can get carried away by enthusiasm. We don't agree that cassettes (at it's pinnacle) though being good ever really could compete with the wider tape and higher speeds of R2R, but we don't have to agree about everything. And the best part is; We can still have a bit of fun about it.
Stay awesome Mate.
@@TheSoundrookie you are right. Reel 2 reel is always going to be better simply because of the higher speed, no tape formulation can make up for that.
In the early 80s high quality metal microcassetes came on the market along with good decks but they were still not quite as good as normal cassettes due to lower speed.
why is your microphone so ludicrously big? A simple lapel mic would've sufficed
Not, lav are never really good, only decent. I have a high quality Sennheiser lavalier and it sounds ok. Plus I love microphones and in any respectful podcast the mic is part of the show. In fact, on my normal videos it is hidden.