REVISITED - New Production Cassettes - ATR Magnetics Cobalt Gold, RTM C60, and Maxell MS-60 XL-II
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- Last week, we did a review of the new production ATR Cobalt Gold Series Type II cassette. After discussions with viewers, we all decided the test needed to be repeated on a different deck. In addition, a new type-1 tape from RTM (Recording the Masters), the RTM C60, was suggested as being superior. I've also thrown in a NOS Maxell MS-60 XL-II for comparison. We have a lot of testing to do, so let's get to it! Do you think the ATR tape will sound as bad as it did before? What about the others? Watch now to find out!
Supporters on Patreon get sneak peeks and extras! If you want the full recordings of each tape, check them out there!
Support us on Patreon: / vintageelectronicschannel
Smooth Sailing (with Guitar) by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Artist: audionautix.com/
#cassette #cassettetape #electronicscreators #vintageelectronics #electronics - Наука та технологія
Hi there from France. Like your setup! I have a Tascam 112B, a DBX 224, 3BX, 200 and X400. That said, as the 112 is lacking any user-adjustable pots for bias and level what you can hear are the differences in the required bias and sensitivity levels of these three tapes. The Maxell is slightly under-biased (a little too much treble) and more sensitive and the FOX over-biased ( a little lacking treble) and less sensitive. If you are thinking of using the FOX regularly I'd say that you should tweak the internal bias and record level adjustments of the 112 to get a neutral treble response. and equal record/playbaack levels.The 112 has separate internal adjustments for bias and level for each tape type, which is great. The RTM is clearly the best new tape available in my opinion. The ATR seems to have more audible distortion.
The Maxell has impressed a lot of people here, but it's typical that people prefer too much treble and more volume against a neutral more accurate recording. As I said you tweak your deck just a little and the fox will be just as good as the maxell in frequency response. The maxell will however have a better signal-noise ration, i.e. less hiss.
I recently ordered some RTM C60 tapes as well and recorded some tracks with it. Then i recorded the RCA output of that into a Denon DN-700R solid state recorder.
I repeated the test with a new-old-stock early 90's TDK D90, same levels and everything.
And i could not tell either one apart from each other.
RTM did a great job formulating a brand-new Type I.
I've got some small video/audio comparisons on my channel as well, i should really get on doing some for the RTM Type I's!
i totally agree, i did also test them with new old stock that i had from the 90s and the new RTM C60 tapes. The RTM C60 is unbeliveable good, brand new tapes in 2023 u can t imagine, im really impressed by this typ 1 tape and also very happy with it:-)
I have over 150 new old stock cassettes ranging from TDK Ds, Maxell XLII-S, BASF chrome super II, TDK MA's etc and I've always thought that you can never go wrong with the TDK D! Calibrated properly on a decent deck, they make excellent all round recordings!!
My go-to tapes back in the day were the D and MA along with the XL-II. All great tapes.
Yes, for anyone starting out today, buying TDK D is probably the best bang for the buck. And, for some of us oldtimers who only would use Chrome tape back in the day, it is fun to (re)discover the joys of type 1 normal tape. A TDK D or Maxell UR on a decent deck will give better results than a fancy metal tape on a low end deck.
Especially the 1990's TDK D's. I really like their rich sound. A bit of negative bias (11 o'clock position) and they sound even better.
@@andykrikkit I actually prefer super ferrics to chrome cassettes!
That tape deck and those dbx racks are incredible!!
Agree 100% with your assessment. Going to consider getting some RTM C60s. The Maxell tape was GORGEOUS, though.
If good NOS tapes aren't available, I'd definitely lean toward the RTM tapes.
Thanks for the video, I just subscribed and looking forward to more of your videos. I recently retired and getting back into my old records, cassettes, reel-to-reel, CD/DVD, and even VHS just for fun. Good luck and have fun, Mike
Thanks for watching and subscribing, Mike! I've been getting back into it for a few years now and it's been more fun than I could ever imagine. I recently picked up a professional SVHS deck and will be featuring it soon, as well as more cassette and reel-to-reel content. Stay tuned!
@@VintageElectronicsChannel I just pick up some new Maxell High Bias XLII-S Cassette tapes made in Japan, and they work great. The case and the tape mechanism seem to be very high quality. Take care, Mike
I must say that I enjoyed this video more. A lot of people are unaware of the fact that different decks are set to take advantage of certain tape brands and grades. The RTMs would be good for mix tapes and the Maxells for home series recordings. I am more determined now to check out the ATR Silver and I shall purchase an RTM 60 to see how it works. Keep up the good work and I appreciate your caveats.
Thank you for this follow-up video! Well, based on what I can hear, 22 dollars for this type 2 tape is a no-no. I've just bought 5 sealed tapes (two axia jz2s, two Sony HFSes, and a good old fellow, a simple Fuji dr1) locally for a very simiar amount of money, which set, IMHO, has way more of consumer value, both in terms of quantity and quality. Yes, with NOS cassettes you can get unlucky sometimes, but from my own experience it happens really rarely unless you buy completely carelessly. Another point of concern about NOS tapes is how long they will last, produced two or three decades ago or even earlier - but for the new tapes being made now by these new brands we don't know that either, and their manufacturers don't have history that would allow us to make any predictions about that. Continuity of cassette tapes manufacturing was lost at some point. So my choice so far remains the same - NOS and even used cassettes from late 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
I think you are very smart in your choices. It's hard to go wrong with a good NOS cassette. We have the experiences from the past with those.
Back in the day, I used Maxell Type II cassettes like the UDS-II, XL II or the XL II-S. These tapes were a bit expensive but worth it. They were great for recoding CDs. These days, however, most of those tapes are NOS, so you’ll never know if they’re good unless you open them up and record onto them.
I used the Maxell XL-II and TDK SA-60 almost exclusively back in my younger days as they were the most common ones at our local supplier. I thought both sounded excellent, and still do.
I enjoyed your video alot and just subscribed. Well, the Maxell sounded the best to me. Then the new type II and after that the type I RTM fox tape. That being said, I will not be purchasing any of those new type II tapes. As they just aren't worth 22 bucks to my ears. Such a shame the new cobalt tapes don't sound better. I had such high hopes for them. Now, back in the day . I really used Maxell XL II alot. Followed by TDK SA 90's and Fuji DR II's. Yesterday I recorded Def Leppard's new album onto a used Sony UX 90 and it sounds great. Thank God I bought a truckload of new old stock vintage type 2 and 4 cassettes . Keep on rockin' !! 😎👍
Thanks for watching and subscribing! XL-Ii and SA were my go-to tapes back in the day. Love 'em!
Back in the 90s, Walmart had stacks and stacks of Maxell XL 2s, 90 minutes. I was always buying packs of 5, and sometimes they’d have a sale where you could get an extra 5 pack.
Thanks for the update, it was very interesting! Mmm my favorite tape from the past is probably TDK SA (type 2) series of tapes from the 1980s. Damn good tapes.
The SA was the tape I used most often in the late 80s and through the 90s.
One more thought might be to check out the ATR GOLD on a Type 3 setting just to see how it does.
I just bought a pack of 3 C90 RTM tapes. Made in France !
Oui! As I was doing my research on RTM, I was surprised to find out it was a French company. They're doing great work!
@@VintageElectronicsChannel previously it was Pyral from Rhone Poulenc, a French competitor to German BASF. I still own 3 NOS Rhone Poulenc C90 cassettes from the late 70s
@@VintageElectronicsChannel I agree, I think RTM are a serious business, but I also think ATR are equally serious and passionate about what they are doing.
@@CaptainDangeax From the RTM Website: "We own the original formulas created by AGFA, BASF, EMTEC which have proved their high quality in the audio professional recording field for several decades." As far as I know they bought the old assets off from BASF and founded RTM with it. No Pyral involved...
@@criscainemusic You talk about formulas, I talk about fab, sitting in Avranches, France. You obviously need to be right against someone to feel good
The MS -60 Definitely took the win. The highs were generally lacking on the other two but the RTM 60 Did not sound bad. However in general if you had a good equalizer in your setup at home then none of the tapes would sound "Bad", although the ATR magnetics has some work to do to match the quality of the New Old Stock type 2 tapes in my opinion.
Thanks for the update video. The ATT bass sounded distorted. Overall, it sounded like the response resembled a frown curve.
The RTM wasn't too bad. If your ears are hypersensitive to highs this would be a good selection.
The Maxell sounded so close to the source that I would have a difficult time distinguishing it from the original.
My thoughts exactly. The ATR tape just sounded substandard all the way around. I drove it the same level as I would a type-I when I did this test because I thought perhaps it just couldn't handle it. I think it's just not a very consistent tape. The RTM seemed pretty consistent for a type-I. And the Maxell definitely wasn't a surprise. That tape alone proves that new tapes just don't compare to the old ones.
@@VintageElectronicsChannel Looking forward to future videos.
Thanks!
The Maxell blew them all away! 😂 ATR : I could hear clearly some distortion and muffled highs.RTM: sounded decent but leaking high frequency. Maxell MS: almost no difference to the source. Great comparison, thank you!
One should not forget, the deck didn't provide any calibration for. the tapes. As soon as you can calibrate (or at least just adapt the BIAS a bit) the RTM is lacking no highs at all. An excellent tape. I am using my pile of NOS Type II tapes only for "important" stuff. For everything else I only using RTM tapes anymore. The difference is basically almost not hearable.
Listening to this again, I can see the RTM tape needs to have the volume level adjusted. The VU meters show it a lot quieter on the playback. But if the volume was raised perhaps it would sound closer to source.
The maxell record sound it's better than the source!
I agree. It's brighter.
The level on the RTM was definitely down from the other two, but the sound was faithful. I just don't think we will ever see tapes the quality of TDK, Maxell, etc. ever again. At least not at an affordable price. Partly due to environmental concerns, and economies of scale. Sad, since I have quite a few audiophile cassette decks, and I will hang on to my tapes for dear life.
Those were my thoughts too. Level was definitely down, but the sound overall from the RTM tape was really good. I'll probably stick with NOS tapes and possibly some of those RTM ferric tapes if I need a new one.
@@VintageElectronicsChannel Given i was one of the peeps that suggested trying the RTM/Fox tape it definitely is lacking in the top area. But its so much cheaper than the ATR! That being said in the UK we cant still get NOS ferrics for about $2 for a c90 granted they are either generic duplicators or they were originally sold to the police to record interviews. I still have hundreds of them myself.Having bought all the Norfolk police NOS tapes a couple of years back and the stock of a duplicator the year before.
The Maxell was the clear winner in this experiment, and I was not surprised. By the way..........by 2020, I had begun to suspect that I was the last user of Samplitude ! Iv'e been using samplitude since version 7 in about 2002. It's nice to know that I'm not alone out here. I also use Motu Interfaces. The M series are fantastic.
I believe it was around 2002 or 2003 that I first bought Samplitude. I've tried others, but I've gotten so used to their interface.
kudos for re-testing, but it would be nice to have more objective comparison in the form of distortion, frequency response, noise floor, and I/O curves... maybe not the greatest youtube video material, and while the differences between the tapes are easily audible, it would be nice to have some objective numbers associated with what we can hear.
a cursory comment search only shows one other mentioning bias, and from experience on larger reel-to-reel decks, that can have a pretty great effect on high-end response. the ATR may simply be bad, but knowing how far it needed bias adjustment (especially vs the XL-II) might give some clues to what decks it might sound good on if it is capable of extended frequency response at all, of course.
how do the NAC type I "ferromaster" tapes compare? reviews of what is currently still available (even "type 0") is useful even if older tapes (like your XL-II) are still available NOS. (they aren't getting any cheaper...)
The sample music, with heavy distortion instruments, makes it really hard to tell what’s going on with the different tests. Is it the tape, the source, the equipment? Can’t tell. But all sound close to the original, which doesn’t sound pleasing. No way in heck would I pay $22 for that ATR tape. Even $9 for the RTM is silly considering the abundance of quality NOS tapes we can still buy.
the maxell blows them all away ,period
Like the man in the chair? 😎
The Maxell has a lot of distortion, it being much louder is atomically going to give the impression of sounding better. the atr was slightly less distorted. The rtm had a cool vibe about it. Would be curious to hear how the rtm distorts compared to the others. Overall the rtm sounds classy.
Having a deck with build in calibration capability is always helpful, but I understand that the most casual cassette user probably wouldn't have such a deck. Having said that, I believe Maxell would have still come out on top. It's just a better tape.Great video.
Thanks for watching! I try to keep my videos relevant for the casual user most of the time.
@@VintageElectronicsChannel Just a question... was the deck calibrated on the maxell? If so, it would have an unfair advantage over the two other tapes. A true comparison can only be made, when the deck is calibrated correctly on each tape. Or if it is calibrated on the original IEC I and IEC II reference tapes (if there are still some exiting in a usable condition). Just wondering.
@criscainemusic, it was the stock calibration for the deck, since it doesn't have fine or manual adjustments on the fly. I did this test more for the average guy who is just plug-and-play. I recently did another video testing the RTM stock using a Sony deck with manual adjustment.
Well the Maxell sounds best by a very wide margin. The ATR sounded much better here. I like the ATR's bass. That was the only thing it did well last time. I think overall I'd put the ATR second, closely followed by the RTM. I know you've put a lot of work forth already in this follow up, but did you happen to get a look at the waveforms of each of the tapes? Sounded to my ears like the RTM was a little less responsive. But it did sound nice, very balanced. Accounting for price though, the ATR is horrible value at is a close call between it and a type I
I didn't scope the tapes, but I'd agree that the RTM is less responsive, but I feel like it's more balanced than the ATR, especially when you temper expectations based on the type of tape and the price.
I agree: see my comment. Also, all the tapes, but especially the ATR might benefit from custom bias calibration. The Maxell works well because it is a Japanese tape on deck that is calibrated for Japanese pseudo-chrome tapes.
Some observations.. The 112 appears to have some decent motor flutter. The Maxell is the best by far, the RTM is reasonable for a Type I and the ATR Type II is pretty disappointing tbh. Would be interesting to see how they go in a deck with bias adjustment, something just doesn't seem right with the ATR.
The ATR is NAC's horrible type II tape. There's no error in his testing, it's just a really bad type II.
New old stock it is then. Quite the difference in clarity. I suppose the tascam is calibrated to the Maxell though? Although I don't believe a calibration would fix the difference here.
I used the built-in bias settings on the deck. Type I for the type I and type II for the type II. I'm sure a higher end deck with bias calibration would have done a better job, but my goal was plug-and-play recording like most folks would be doing. Not everyone has a deck that will calibrate individual tapes.
@@VintageElectronicsChannel Yes, definitely most people don't mess around with calibration and bias. I only recently discovered the fine art of calibration myself. I recently bought a Sony deck with calibration, and it was a bit of a revelation. 🙂
haha ah man. throwing the maxell in there almost wasn't fair.
Thankfully new old stock tapes are quite plentiful here in canada at the moment, so i have no interest in the new stuff. possibly those type 1's if anything. im a ferric fan :)
also great deck! looks amazing
It was a bit of a losing battle for the other two tapes with that Maxell in there!
The Maxell tape is NOT a chrome it is a cobalt doped ferric tape designed to work at the 70 microsecond type 2 setting.
Sound like ATR needs to take cobalt-doping lessons from Maxell then.
@@VintageElectronicsChannel No, I think sexytasmin is implying that the ATR tape needs its own custom calibration for its particular formulation.
👍🏻
Bummer - I just found out that RTM changed their cassetes.
I had stocked up on the 2020 model when it came out as RTM "fox" C60/C90 - now I ran out of C90s and wanted to buy some more but the old "fox" version with the cheap looking clear musicbox shells & white hubs is no longer sold anywhere and has been replaced by the "2023 version" seen in the video here - they dropped "fox" from the name and just call it RTM C60/C90 now
... apparently thomann sells a thomann branded C70 as well ... I wonder if the 2023 version sounds any different than the 2020 version or if it's just the same tape in a fancier shell ... can't really find anything about it on the web
I've seen those Thomann cassettes as well. They're made in France, as the RTM ones are. The shell, reels, and interior construction look the same as well. I wonder if RTM is making them for Thomann.
TDK Maxell Fuji and Denon still exist as companies, it beats me why thay can't just bring back their old well loved tapes. Shame RTR couldn't just have bought the Superchrome technology too. C'est la vie.
I’m thinking your ears were fried by the time to listened to all these. GP-9 still blows ATR 1/4” stock away. The ATR type II cassette was the winner due to just adding slight clarity to the high end and low end sounds. The RTM, though only a type I, sounded as if it lost about -2db across the board and something was placed in front of the speakers. The Maxell did not beat out the ATR, though it seemed to add 3X the brightness and clarity to the high end, it was too much, almost like the tape selector was put back to Normal and 120us for playback. Also, you could actually hear the distortion of the guitar breaking up and not in a good way either, something that wasn’t noticed in the ATR playback. If I remember correctly, the ATR tapes w/o the fancy reels were $9/ea as the RTM’s, the clear winner here is the ATR cassettes, imo. Let me know where you want me to send the money for the ATR tapes you said you won’t use, I’d love to take them off your hands.
Your ears heard it differently than mine. I found the ATR not as clean as the original, but acceptable. The RTM was too muffled. The Maxell was clean, but a bit too harsh and lacking in low end.
That's one of the things I enjoy about analog audio reproduction: it's very subjective. What one person finds pleasing, another finds irritating. And that's okay! It's all about the enjoyment anyway.
One of the three tapes is Type I. The other two are Type II. So I don't think it's a fair comparison. The Type II will clearly sound better. And I think that the Maxell over hyped the high end when compared to the source.
Maxell has nice top end sissle.
Other tapes sound muffled
My assessment (bearing in mind that the audio has been UA-cam'ed and I don't like the music):
0. source = 100%
1. Maxell = 98%
2. ATR = 92%
3. RTM = 85%
This is entirely my own opinion without yet seeing the other comments.
The Maxell seems to enhance the recording. I can hear a bit distortion in the ATR otherwise ok and the RTM just sounds lifeless!
The Maxell is definitely brighter.
It's under biased, recording is too bright.
As beautiful as that Tascam and DXB rack looks, this test is kinda pointless. I get that most people didn't have fancy cassette decks, but you could at least have a deck with a bias fine knob, to properly adjust the bias for each tape. If you would test a pure chrome tape from BASF in this deck it would sound muddy as heck. Tape calibration is super important.
The ATR is a ripoff.
I've not been overwhelmed with the results from their cassettes.
Looks cool AF tho! I could make them sound great on my TEAC