ERRATA CORRIGE: I wrote that the NAC Type II cassette is $40.70 but that is the price of a 10 pack, so each cassette is actully $4.70. Sorry about that!
I could actually afford these. I recently picked up an Ariston double cassette deck, in immaculate condition fully working, from a cash converters for 17 quid. I had to query the price. Someone didn't know what Ariston was.
Well...we're making progress. One problem solved, and not an inconsequential one at that. But I hope NAC can come up with a solution to the poor MOL and SOL (I'm kind of extrapolating regarding SOL).
@@MrKLindholm I was wondering if the recordings were made with any Dolby or DBX encoding. I would like to hear what they would sound like in one of my Dolby S capable decks.
Not to resurrect this but now knowing that the nac tapes are 4.70 each which is comparable to the fox recording the masters type 1 tapes you recommended over these. Would you still recommend going with the type 1?
I’ve experimented with the TASCAM Studio 424 tape for a couple weeks now. With a clean, demagged 424 MKII, record/playback at 3-3/4 ips, I’ve found: 1) Recording direct, channel Off, DBX on, there are pops (static?) on playback of the dead track. 2) Recording a pure sine wave input, DBX on, the hiss noise floor is high, and there are pops. 3) Recording DBX Off, anything except a dead track is noisy with tape hiss. 4) Recording an acoustic electric guitar, DBX On, results in a perfect reproduction on playback. I can’t even detect the tape is running before the instrument starts playing. Startling how clear and noiseless it is. 5) Recording with a low-z microphone, DBX On, also results in exact reproduction on playback. No hiss or pops even in the quiet pauses. Use that for what it’s worth, but the TASCAM claim that the 424 Master was optimized for 424 portastudios is at least conditionally true.
oh my goodness i'm just seeing this video. I'm in the middle of editing a type ii cassette shootout with 7 NOS tapes and the the NAC thrown in there. I was so disappointed in the new cassette and am "happy" to see that I wasn't crazy. Thank you for this. Kind of a bummer. I also appreciate the modern companies trying to get new tapes out there, but they need to hear our voices and hopefully can change... wayyyy too expensive for an inferior product. If the product was great, the modern price may be justified.
I want to stay positive and give NAC props for their efforts to spearhead a manufacturing revival here in the ‘States of types 1 & 2 tapes. That said I *really* hope they are staying humble and paying attention to videos and reviews like these. I own multiple Portastudios and will add that without noise reduction, they were passible, but with DBX the pumping artifacts made the cobalt formula unusable. I have to say props to NAC for not price-gouging like Tascam and ATR - shame on you both. Great video. Here’s hoping RTM gets into the game and shows everyone how it’s done 🤞🏻.
Finally somebody's put one in a Portastudio! Honestly I don't see what the attraction for anybody else is with blank tapes, pre-recorded yes blanks no. Without DBX overdubbing is a non-starter so I guess NAC is a no go for production for me. Shame, I was really looking forward to having an easy supply of Type II. There's no way to adjust the calibration without opening up your Portastudio, is there? Not even sure that would help.
@@MostlyPennyCat You can calibrate most Porta's to a different standard for sure, but this formula is weird; it has all the high end of a standard Type II, but has the bass of a type 1, so the way most machines calibrate bias will be out of whack with this formula, especially Tascams. If you want to get ahead of the crowd, you could bias your machine to the RTM Fox Type 1 cassette, or even Maxell UR 1s which are a dime a dozen (not literally, of course). And agreed on the blanks, I don't quite get it unless you're into collecting. Although I do enjoy making cassettes of some of my best LPs for full analog effect on the go...
@@BogoEN After downloading the waves for this video they sound a bit hissy compared to the very best tape in the very best gear. It ran out of puff now and then when there was just too much going on. But the result was the odd weird hihat. At _four_ dollars a cassette (not 40) for NAC I think I can work with that. eBay is full of NOS Chrome tape but at £5 to £10 a tape so I have a good source of NOS and a cheap infinite supply at NAC which can only get better. What I need to do is invent a piece of extra hardware that allows you to 1) Work perfectly with NAC's new formulations (good bass and trebble? Sounds like a good thing to me) 2) Select your tape formulation via your phone. 3) And it gets soldered inside the Portastudio. 4) And it recalibrates the dbx for it too.
This video and your style and review were phenomenal. Im so glad I found your channel. Thanks for being honest on the cassette quality. I wonder if Tascam and ATR are appealing to the modern music producer who doesn't mind a bit of hiss - so perhaps they cut corners. For example, I use a Tascam 122 MK2 as part of my music production process. I send digital recordings from my computer to cassettes and then roll the signal right off the tape and send it back into the computer. It adds intentional warmth, wow and flutter depending on the settings, and I actually prefer there to be imperfections and pitch instability. This is how most people using the portastudio are thinking of using cassettes these days. The exact opposite of the Dragon experience. If there's hiss, I can use a filter to eliminate some of it (either using the dolby settings on the deck or using software plugins). Now, this does not excuse cheap production methods, and im frustrated they are cutting corners, but it might explain why they can get away with it...excellent product design and branding paired with USA craftsmanship. the noise sucks, but again most of us use filters to take care of that in post.
Thanks! Well, as you have seen and heard it's not just a matter of hiss. It's the overall quality of the sonics to be quite poor. Nevertheless, it is true that I did not test the Tascam with a Portastudio, but I am pretty sure that it wouldn't change much. A good tape formulation is good in any case and use.
Man, many years ago when I was recording cassettes for my car system, I *ABSOLUTELY* bought TDK-SAX cassettes WHENEVER I saw them! I remember just before they phased them out, I scored like 20 of the l'l buggers and I thought I was in Heaven 😁
In the final stage of the cassette era most tapes were high standard products,have some cheaper SKC chromes from 1993 and they sound good too. Most tapes i bought in the 90s were TDK's,Maxells and Sony's, most chromes and some metaltapes and they all sound great. Never used ferro tapes during those days but it wouldn't surprise me when they sound ok too. The differences between older tapes and tapes from the last era are remarkable, made some recordings on old tapes (late70S first half 80s) >> calibrated but they didn't sound as good as recordings on the named brands and types from the 90s.
I picked up a used 1986 TDK AD-X90 type 1 cassette for $1 from a Thrift shop and recorded on it. Sounded amazing. Cassettes were the best in the 1980's and 1990's. I record mainly on type 1's, esp 1980's TDK AD or later TDK D and Maxell UR's and they do a great job. I have recorded on some older type 2's like the TDK SA and Maxell UD-II and they were great indeed, certainly less hissy than the type 1's. But nearly all cassette albums released were released on type 1's which are compatible with everything.
Yes, but in the '90 most pre recorded cassettes were on chrome tape, but type I bias, to be compatible on every player, but still getting some advantages of the chrome tape.
The tape stock is all made by National audio company in United States. The tascam hubs are 3d printed by music box and also loaded into c-0 manufactured by music box. The only other companies that produce usable cassette tape are panguang and rtm and neither produce type II.
Sony type 4 metal was the best sounding tape available. However Sony sabotaged the line by manufacturing a dropout in the tapes. I purchased over a hundred cassettes, and every single Cassette had this one dropout spot. Sony never admitted to the dropout, but much later it came out it was done to prevent perfect bootleg copies.
Ferrycobalt cassette tape formulae were introduced in the 1970's as a royalty free alternative to DuPont's cromium formulae. The results were so good, that some of the best Type II from the 1980's were in fact ferricobalt - like all from TDK or the BASF "Chromium Extra" (the 'extra' was cobalt), probably even most of the Sony's (with the 'super' in 'superchrome' indicating the cobalt). Ferricobalt could be used for excellent Type I cassettes and some mixtures apperantly even reached the spec level of Type IV... There's one cassette in the 1990's that even had a ferricobalt tripple coating: TDK SA-XS. *That's* the level that can be reached with cobalt! *That's* what the companies should aim for. For *that* I probably would spend between 20-30 Dollar/Euros per blank cassette...
It's not not corect info. Basf Chromdioxid Extra and Chrome Extra were single-layer true chromes up to 1993-1994. Since ca. 1995 they were single-layer chrome/ferric cobalt mix (85%/15%). The last Emtec tapes (2000+) are materially uncertain, here it may have been a purely ferro-cobalt mixtures.
You can easily determine by the tape colour whether it's ferrocobalt or real chromedioxide tape formulation. Ferrocobalt = darkbrown, chromedioxide = greyblue.
10:20 SONY 13:34 TASCAM 16:54 STUDIO MASTER 20:09 ATR I agree. I bought the ATR and TASCAM and found them to be incredibly noisy. I will continue to find NOS and used type ii for quality recording. What I will do is switch out the tape from these R2R cassettes so I have a cool looking shell but with quality tape inside. Also, the TASCAM was catching on itself because the reel is too small for the tape itself. Bad design !!
Never the less great video.. And because of your video.. lol I listened to one of my old tapes last night.. And i forgot how beautiful the good old audio cassettes sounded like. Pure stereo joy!!! 😀
Very interesting video. I have to agree with you that even the cheapest Type 1 tapes, from old stock, but good brands (for instance TDK - D) would sound far superior to these new Type II tapes. The amount of hiss and distortion on these is totally terrible. (I found that Tascam had more hiss than the ATR, btw). The studio master had some less distortion, making it 'semi useable' but also had the highest self-noise. The Sony UX-S totally destroyed these tapes with low-hiss and clear distortion free audio. You're much better off buying old stock, I'm afraid. It's a shame!
I disagree it is a shame. I mean the fact we haven’t really had any new type ii for decades. It only goes up from here if we want it to. This is just the start. I have been a customer of ATR and RTM for years and their R2R tape is fantastic. Once they adjust the formulas I believe we will not have much to worry about.
Wow. Looks like your using a Nakamichi Dragon. They were and still are the best cassette deck tech. I had the earlier LX 3 which was great. But the Dragon is the best for recording and playback. It would be epic if they started making them again!
I bought 100 Evangelist spouting religious tapes, complete with a brief case, from a charity shop for the princely sum of 10 quid! They all had the recording tabs in place and were a mixture of TDK, Maxell and Agfa type 1 brands. Bloody brilliant!😄
I found some at a thrift store. I got 5 Type 2 for $1.50. It was a pleasure recording over the hate and intolerance that was being spouted on the tapes. I thought some Black Sabbath was appropriate...
I use old TDK SA90s and Maxell XL-IIs and they are just too hard to beat. The fact is these new makers have to relearn the art and it is going to take time. They are not massive corporations like Maxell, TDK or Sony who have the R&D to make it happen overnight.
I love the Denon HD8S metal (IEC type II position) tapes. Very good for treble rich music (high SOL10k), and they were very cheap here in Denmark. Slightly more noise than most other type II's, but with the high SOL, you can record at a high level, even with treble rich music. I got 300+ of them from the 80's/90's.
I found about 8-10 in great condition at a thrift store recently and had no idea what I bought. The recording I made sounded sooo good! It blew me away actually. Then read they are highly regarded. Just wish I had them in C-60 size/base thickness
It is true that companies have become crazy about prices to achieve great sales because the cassette is not available in the market. $40 for a blank cassette is insane, and on the other hand, I'd buy new vinyl for $40. Thanks for the clarification.
@def creator yep, if I remember well, it was usually 25% of the vinyl for a UX, maybe 20% for a UX-S and like 10-15% for a cheap type I. So at $40 a record, the tapes should be a $10. I'd accept $15 as there isn't yet the scale of production that they had back then. But anyway, nowadays, we would be hard pressed to find a brand new type 2 cassettes at less than $20
Craig Stark would be proud of you for calling these out for what they are: expensive novelties that those of us used to tapes like SA-X will not be impressed with.
I always used Maxell XLII. I just saw a brand new seven pack on eBay for $163 USD. That’s just insane. I used to get a box of ten for $25 USD. I hope Type II tapes. Come back into production and some high quality decks. Used prices are simply insane and garbage recorders from China are fetching over a hundred dollars.
Have you tried late-generation UDII? Last time I bought them (2021?) they were under $3 a piece, and they were good, especially when recorded and played at 120us. Not as good as TOTL type I's, but certainly not worse than the 1982 XLII.
Thank you for this honest review. I am sure you can still find NOS type2 cassettes at far lower prices, in fact I bought 20 new tapes of Sony UXS tapes from Italy at 7 euro per piece, shipping included….
Indeed. The fact that Tascam at a certain point doubled the peice because it saw sales moving and others were asking more than them was extremely disappointing. Not what I expect by Tascam.
I have a couple ATR cassettes including the 'gold series' but haven't gotten around to testing it yet but the ATR master tape for reel to reel is the best sounding tape I've ever used....and I've used a lot over the years.
Completely agree with you at least on the NAC Type II. i have a box of 10 and seriously can't win with recording on any of them in either a sony 3 head or nak. They just distort like crazy no matter what the record level is or bias adjustment or position in the tape. My used mid 1980s Maxwell Type 1 UR cassettes re-recorded on today are significantly cleaner and consistent and my late 80's TDK type IIs just destroy them. Even my crap new Maxell URs bought in 2022 while lacking a frequency response at least are consistent. Really too bad.
I just bought a Certon (High Density) HD60, Scotch Dynarange 60, and Radio Shack Type I Low Noise Standard Ferric Formulation C-60s. My unit is a Fisher Studio Standard CR-133. Does a pretty good job. Glad I have a car with a tape deck! It freaks people out.
Nice video again, good news. The only issue is that you loose certain level of sound signal after recording on cassette decks. On reel to reel decks this is not very noticeable…
Thanks for the tests, that was well done. I'm wondering how you were able to use the Patricia Barber track without getting dinged by UA-cam? I'd like to use some particular tracks for my own video tests but they flag me even when I have the musician's permission.
All the tape is made by NAC, it may have different quality assurance so the better may being sold as different product dependant on where it was cut from the roll but its the same stuff. Nac bought their equipment from a closed down manufacturer of the magnetic strips of credit cards, and it took them a couple of years to make somthing that was useable in home recorders their main market is making pre-recorded tapes and the first feric tape they made was geared and work for that from day 1 which it why it took some years before the home recordable stuff worked after they tweaked the formulation.
@@anadialog well he might not be able to legally tell you they are the manufactuer. I have signed non-disclosure agreements myself. Given how few cassette tape manufacturers there are, and as far as i can tell only one is making cobalt doped tape, all in the US that is the conclusion i have drawn, that is my personal opinion. Similar to how you think that x is the same as y..... Anyway i still have type 2 pancakes NOS so i'm not that interested in new stuff. i do recieve samples of stuff from time to time not had any current production type 2 yet. If when i do i will be better able to judge.
Very interesting topic- ( by the way that album seems worth purchasing ). Those tapes seem a lot of money for what they are - I have been fortunate to pick up lots decent tapes for little money in charity shops recently do dropping £30 - £40 on a Tascam tape for example is a no-no. * On the flip side though, it is good to know there is more interest in tapes these days. Will be interesting to see if decent decks will be made again ( in the meantime will hang onto the decks I have).
Please Can you compare the New Type I ? TDK D90 vs Maxwell UR 90 (cheapest) vs Sony HF vs Fox vs others? looks like the New Type II cobalt-based cassettes are not worth buying?
@@anadialog Thanks, I'm rebuilding some Pioneer CT-F900 and 950 so I have been looking for new tapes (I have not bought a TDK Type II tape for decades LOL ) So The new TDK D90 are not new? or just new old formula? their a lot out their?, Looks like the Maxwell UR 90 is the way to go for now! since the Fox is out of my prices range. The New Type II COBALT based are just not the same as the old type II and not worth it (I'm glad I saw your video and did not buy the NAC C756 or any of other ones ) Hopefully a New Type II formula will be made, Time will tell?
Thank you for this review of new cassette tapes. I also heard clearly the difference in hiss level, the old Sony tape was much quieter. I think I also heard sibilants on P. Barbers voice every now and then on these new cassettes. I bought a couple of new type 1 cassettes from Thomann, EQ Professional C 90. Produced in the UK, manufactured 2022. Also expensive and rather ugly apperence. The recordings on my Nak. Dragon came out very well though, crisp and clear and not far from the sound of the vinyl LPs I recorded from. But still, to expensive for now to be interesting. Let´s hope for nicer and cheaper ones in near future.
As a musician, I'm soooooo glad I bought a ton of extra Maxell MX, Sony Metal XR and TDK MA cassettes back in the day. Many of which are still unopened. I've even got a 10 brick pack of TDK SA Type II's still unopened. (Remember Tower Records?) Unfortunately my Tascam Portastudio 424 broke down, causing me to go all digital on PC in 2001 (which was not fun times on a Windows 98 not SE, Celeron 800 with Cakewalk Pro Audio) leaving me with so many blank tapes. I think the Type IV's at most were $4.50 and the Type II's were about $2.00 each. I can't image paying $40.00 for a 10 pack of Type II cassettes today. And why did the packaging art on the cassettes regress to something that looks out of the 60's-70's?
Es la primera vez que veo tu canal y me simpatizo mucho la cantidad de detalle, pues estaba viendo el video y descargue los archivos para escucharlos en paralelo a la presentación, a mis 52 años crecí con la música análoga y con las cintas de audio, pues ahora descargue los archivos y los abrí en Adobe Audition (tarjeta de sonido externa y audífonos Sanheissen) con gran sorpresa y satisfacción Sony y desconcierto escuche los siguientes archivos y analice su espectro con decepción, me hice mi opinión y placenteramente no estaba lejos de la tuya, concuerdo con la gran cantidad de ruido (siseo) y distorsión de los nuevos casetes.....en fin, habrán pasado unos 25 años desde los mejores Sony UX?.....pues no entiendo que ha pasado para que nos quieran vender algo así Mis Saludos.
Sad indeed... Imo they are just taking advantage of the growing "analog" interests... And rushing junk to the market for sales...!!! If this continues, look for high quality new old stock to go up in price again... Time to stock up... By the way, just picked up a nice Pioneer deck with dbx in excellent condition... And I'm getting great results with Sony hf and Maxell ur tapes... Recorded at +3db...!!! My first dive into dbx recording and it's amazing how close they sound to the original...
@@anadialog model # is pioneer ct2070r... Looks like a basic deck... But inside its built like a tank and makes excellent tape... I'll post a video soon... Cheers...
I’ve hit the NAC tape pretty hard in my Tascam 246 and Tascam 238 and was pretty happy with the results. I haven’t had the opportunity to compare some different vintage tape types recordings A/Bing in Pro Tools yet from my Tascam multi trackers, but the sound of the new tape was decent compared to the source recordings in Pro Tools. I will say the recordings I made without DBX noise reduction were noisy, but the Tascams were always a bit noisy without noise reduction.
That’s really interesting. I have a 246 and was debating trying my demo of the NAC in it. What I found with my Yamaha 4trk was that the DBX somehow wasn’t calibrated for this new formulation; I get a lot of pumping, to the point where ai thought there was something wrong with my unit. Then I realized these have way more bass than a typical typeii and that was likely causing the issue. Have you tried using DBX with these?
If they make them with this poor quality, I don't really see the point. And you can also imagine how ridiculous the prices would be for those if they are asking as much as they do for these poor quality Type II tapes.
Could a type 1 signal be recorded on these? Maybe they might operate better as superferric-equivlents or such? Also, nice demonstration of the tapes; really captured all of them at varying degrees of loudness.
I think your correction saying that the NAC's go for $4 each tape, and the results of that and the ATR tape are similar, if not identical, but ATR charges nearly 20 dollars for one tape, shows very clearly they are overcharging for a product that likely cost's them $2 to make.
Ciao Guido, I’m trying to dig into your tapes-related videos, but I think I’m missing the point (so maybe there are some I haven’t seen yet?). Back in the ‘80s when I was a kid, there were 3 main use cases that made cassettes great, at least in my opinion. First one was portability (Walkman, cars, …), which is not really an issue today, when all you need is your mobile phone. Second one was the possibility to create your own “compilations”, which again is what today we can do with custom playlists with no problem. Third, but most important for me at that time, was the possibility to “borrow” music from others and record it. I had no money back then to buy all the music I loved, so tapes were my “go to” solution and my tape deck was the most important piece on my dad’s hi-fi system. What is the use case for tapes nowadays? Besides nostalgia, does it make any sense to buy a tape (and even not good quality, as you just pointed out) that costs more than the record you could save on it? Yeah I understand, recording a live performance can be a different use case…but hi-fi and audiophile OCD is totally about reproduction, not recording… Happy to get your point of view here.
The three reasons you listed are exactly the ones when I was a kid in the 80's and 90's. NOW, actually a few years ago, that I have more resources I could finally afford a high quality tape deck like (several now) high quality type 2,3,4 cassettes. That is a combination that unless you try you just don't believe it it's so good. When done properly, better than vinyl and very close to reel to reel. With these high-quality streaming services like Qobuz I can record any record I want on them with max quality. A revolution! Here is the dedicated video on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/A1skO6rDgtA/v-deo.html
Ah, well, we just have to get along with vintage tapes until the time comes. And lets hope for that. On a separate note, Guido, may I ask you kindly, please, to provide the time in the video where the demo stops. I am not interested to listen three times to music that is not my thing on the speakers of my laptop. And I am quite happy to just take your word for the sonic differences.
Thank you for the review , you save a lot of bad experience with “promising” cassettes. What about those 30 year old TDK , Sony and others , do they worth the investment ? And are they still fresh and working ? Thanks for your great important channel 👏 (btw I could hear the superiority of the Tascam cassette in your review)
All these tapes sourced the cobalt tapes-particles from a British-Korean company that announced a long time ago, that it was not able "to stabilize" the cobalt pigment. I believe that the decision to purchase this material was a commercial decision of these end companies. There is no rational reason to produce these unstabilized materials. By the way, the problem with cobalt stabilization was already solved by technicians in the 70's, and it seems that the final solution, which we also see with the UX-S cassettes, will be taken to the grave. As for the design of cassette cases and reels/hubs, this is due to the fact that all companies buy plastic cases, boxes and other mechanical parts from the Italian company MusicBox.
Real evidence that I need to store my sealed XLII-S collection carefully to the future. 😅 I also have few SA, SA-XS, MA, UX-S (but Mexico made, not Italian which is the best), UX, CDing2 etc.
I heard dropouts on the Tascam tape. I have a question, what's the difference between the cobalt and chrome, does the cobalt break down easier? I agree with you, that it's good that they are listening to people in making new tapes, but they also need to pay attention to what we are saying about the quality. Thanks for the video.
I actually prefer the old Japanese cassettes that were mainly based on cobalt than the European Chrome based ones...but you got to know how to make them! In our three new cases, this is clearly not happening...a pale imitation where not even a sufficient performance was achieve and the price they are asking is more of a high quality Type IV metal cassette!
Hey, you don't have a Patreon account! I came here specifically because I wanted to be one of them 😊 The ONLY one where I give to a Patreon account is Thomas and Stereo. But, I really like yours too! 👍
Thank you so much. No, I decided not to activate the UA-cam Memberships nor a Patreon page because that would inevitably bring exclusive content and I want to leave full accessibility to everyone and leave everything free. The only thing I activated for some help for the channel is this: www.buymeacoffee.com/anadialog
Wow... Can a cassette sound this good, i don't remember that.. Time to rediscover Mc👍 but this cassetteplayer are is a high End one. I have a Technics from the 90's, do you think that will do the jobb?
I am so glad you did this review.. thank you so much for this.. I was wondering about these cassettes .. excellent review.. this saved me money not to buy these cassettes..
Dear Sir , my question is: What is the difference between tape drive heads that can play metal tapes and heads that cannot play metal tapes? Some machines need to manually select the tape type. When a metal tape is selected to play, what will happen to the magnetic head? Very much looking forward to and thank you for your reply.
Due to the high coercivity of metal tape particles the capability to erase, bias and record requires special heads and more precisely the electronics behind it that must be capable of doing so. It is a myth that heads need to be more hard
Home Recording on 4 track cassette(yuk) in my youth I found decent chrome tapes by TDK or my fave 'Thats' the best - I tried metal, but push the signal a tiny bit and it distorted in a digital sounding way with the sound breaking up completely. Level was everything, the 'game' being a constant battle with hiss. Anything bounced was ideally the sort of low level detail that should go on at the end, though high freq's were also massacred by bouncing. Taught me a thing or two.... Minidisc Multitrack would have been heaven, though that came a bit later.
A few things: Glad you pointed out you did not test with a TASCAM 424. Is it fair to bash a product advertised to be matched with a unit you did not test? With your dragon, did you record at normal tape speed? TASCAM 424 records at 2X speed in normal 4-track recording. Perhaps the tape formula is designed to perform best in a 424 at its recording speed. Thanks for the time making and sharing the video!
I am sure the results would be better if tested on portastudio, I agree, BUT the tape shouldn't sound THAT bad. Speed and machine can't influence that much the final sound.
@@anadialog Fair enough. I can tell this crowd hears things that I’m not through earbuds and a phone. I can only go by what the comments are telling me, also.
yeah i Guess they are doing these tapes type II like a test but for that price ? that's crazy so i hope these brands bring better and cheaper for the masses because no way they are gonna be sucessful with these but good to see they at least created something
I saw the NAC company in Ytube before. I didn't see the specific designer team in their show. Cassettes seems to be produced in routine of machines. I think no one is for designing better J cards, shape of cassette and also managing for preparing formula of tapes.
Gianluca! Confesso che mi piacerebbe molto ma è una passione come ben sai e ormai il tempo tra famiglia e lavoro è centellinato, non riuscirei a fare un secondo canale...
Interesting - coming back to this video a couple of years later, I'm noticing for the first time that the Tascam had better/more hyped high end than the Sony when quickly switching between audio samples, especially evident in the voice: TASCAM 13:52 , SONY 10:38 . Still not wowed and DEFINITELY not worth their asking price of $13 USD. I may grab one to try in one of my Portastudios when I have a chance, but worth mentioning. Thanks again for doing this; hopefully someone is working hard in R&D to either improve these or make a better one.
Well, I don’t necessarily regret buying a couple Type II Tascam tapes because I was primarily supporting the “cause”. In any case, I’ll try to salvage my “investment” and record something on it with Dolby S.
For some reason they had to replace it, but a few years ago NAC had a really good type 1 tape called the Audio Pro 90. I'm disappointed because I didn't buy more of them while I could. Then they released an inferior tape that they called a super ferric. It was a mediocre tape at best. It's sad to see these type 2s doing so poorly. But I'm glad they're trying. I may give Nacs tapes another try since I hear they're changing the formula a little bit. The audio pro reminds me of classic 80s Memorex or Radio shack supertape.
YEOW - yeah those sounded pretty bad - lots of hiss and distortion. The Sony tape did a great job but that's a given. My recent tape release was on Fox RTM911 tape, duplicated in real time from 24bit masters, mastered specifically for cassette reproduction. The Fox stuff sounds pretty good. It would not be economical to do a run on these high-priced tapes (and also have mediocre results). PS: I absolutely loved the Patricia Barber track you used and will go and check out the whole album!
hi man you are right the new tape is alot better new Type 1 is better i had some of that new new Type 1 from tapeline i run at 3 3/4 ips wow it's very good
Hei, tape man expert, could you explain (maybe in a video) how different tapes get their names? I see all 3 in this video are C-60, but the C is not for Chrome. Type 1 tapes are also labelled as C-number. Others are SF, SA(X), D, U, etc, metal almost always starts with M, but this convention appears to be the rule for metal type IV only, and then there's Axia PS-Metal, so .... not always! Do the letters mean anything? Is it something we can decode? Or is it just completely random, decided by the company that distributed the tape. What is a SA or SA-X? Why is it only TDK that use that, but every company used C and D prefixes? Google failed me in finding the answers to these questions.
Thanks for making this Video on the type 2. I have a question though and maybe someone can guide me. I have recently started recording on cassette type 1's mainly the Maxel UR's and using Dolby C as this is the best that My Denon tape deck can do, however when playing back the tapes I seem to prefer playback without using the Dolby C compression as it takes away some of the ambiance and Flow of the recordings even though the tape hiss is much less. Thus my question is if i am using Dolby C on playback as i should since i used it on recording, how do I add back that ambiance? is it just a question of Turning up the trebble frequencies? I have a 5 band ADC Equalizer but i still find that it is not the same or do i need to use a better adjustable EQ such as a 13 or 24 band?
Has your deck been recently serviced? Whe you use Dolby or any other NR during recording you must use it on playback, especially if it's the same deck. If you have the impression that things are wrong, the Dolby chip is probably faulty or uncalibrated and you need a pro to solved that.
Dolby C is very sensitive for tape quality and calibration of the deck. It only sounds good when both are in perfect condition. I would recommend not using it and either use no Dolby at all or use Dolby B. You can make the recording slightly brighter by using more negative bias during recording.
Dolby C is more of a full band compander (or at least goes well into the midrange) rather than a treble compander like Dolby B, and even that does more than just turning up/down the treble. I suggest not to use Dolby C on a high hour deck with a potentially worn head and out-of-spec components. There's not much you can do except recording and playing back on a flawless machine with Dolby C. UR90s don't have such a high noise floor and can take a bit of overdrive, so they can sound very good with Dolby B, which works much better on a tired and unrestored deck. Try to record @ +3db with B, and should you have it, HX pro activated, should be absolutely fine.
I’ve used the Tascam tapes in a portastudio (424 mkIII). They sound like garbage. Quality control seems to be a problem too, because they vary from pretty bad to “is my recorder broken” outright unusable.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
ERRATA CORRIGE: I wrote that the NAC Type II cassette is $40.70 but that is the price of a 10 pack, so each cassette is actully $4.70. Sorry about that!
I could actually afford these. I recently picked up an Ariston double cassette deck, in immaculate condition fully working, from a cash converters for 17 quid. I had to query the price. Someone didn't know what Ariston was.
Well...we're making progress. One problem solved, and not an inconsequential one at that. But I hope NAC can come up with a solution to the poor MOL and SOL (I'm kind of extrapolating regarding SOL).
These are hissy cassettes? IS this something to do with magnetic particle size?
@@MrKLindholm I was wondering if the recordings were made with any Dolby or DBX encoding. I would like to hear what they would sound like in one of my Dolby S capable decks.
Not to resurrect this but now knowing that the nac tapes are 4.70 each which is comparable to the fox recording the masters type 1 tapes you recommended over these. Would you still recommend going with the type 1?
I’ve experimented with the TASCAM Studio 424 tape for a couple weeks now. With a clean, demagged 424 MKII, record/playback at 3-3/4 ips, I’ve found:
1) Recording direct, channel Off, DBX on, there are pops (static?) on playback of the dead track.
2) Recording a pure sine wave input, DBX on, the hiss noise floor is high, and there are pops.
3) Recording DBX Off, anything except a dead track is noisy with tape hiss.
4) Recording an acoustic electric guitar, DBX On, results in a perfect reproduction on playback. I can’t even detect the tape is running before the instrument starts playing. Startling how clear and noiseless it is.
5) Recording with a low-z microphone, DBX On, also results in exact reproduction on playback. No hiss or pops even in the quiet pauses.
Use that for what it’s worth, but the TASCAM claim that the 424 Master was optimized for 424 portastudios is at least conditionally true.
Interesting, thanks for sharing that.
oh my goodness i'm just seeing this video. I'm in the middle of editing a type ii cassette shootout with 7 NOS tapes and the the NAC thrown in there. I was so disappointed in the new cassette and am "happy" to see that I wasn't crazy. Thank you for this. Kind of a bummer. I also appreciate the modern companies trying to get new tapes out there, but they need to hear our voices and hopefully can change... wayyyy too expensive for an inferior product. If the product was great, the modern price may be justified.
So embarrassing...
I want to stay positive and give NAC props for their efforts to spearhead a manufacturing revival here in the ‘States of types 1 & 2 tapes. That said I *really* hope they are staying humble and paying attention to videos and reviews like these. I own multiple Portastudios and will add that without noise reduction, they were passible, but with DBX the pumping artifacts made the cobalt formula unusable.
I have to say props to NAC for not price-gouging like Tascam and ATR - shame on you both.
Great video. Here’s hoping RTM gets into the game and shows everyone how it’s done 🤞🏻.
Finally somebody's put one in a Portastudio!
Honestly I don't see what the attraction for anybody else is with blank tapes, pre-recorded yes blanks no.
Without DBX overdubbing is a non-starter so I guess NAC is a no go for production for me. Shame, I was really looking forward to having an easy supply of Type II.
There's no way to adjust the calibration without opening up your Portastudio, is there? Not even sure that would help.
@@MostlyPennyCat
You can calibrate most Porta's to a different standard for sure, but this formula is weird; it has all the high end of a standard Type II, but has the bass of a type 1, so the way most machines calibrate bias will be out of whack with this formula, especially Tascams. If you want to get ahead of the crowd, you could bias your machine to the RTM Fox Type 1 cassette, or even Maxell UR 1s which are a dime a dozen (not literally, of course).
And agreed on the blanks, I don't quite get it unless you're into collecting. Although I do enjoy making cassettes of some of my best LPs for full analog effect on the go...
@@BogoEN
After downloading the waves for this video they sound a bit hissy compared to the very best tape in the very best gear. It ran out of puff now and then when there was just too much going on. But the result was the odd weird hihat.
At _four_ dollars a cassette (not 40) for NAC I think I can work with that.
eBay is full of NOS Chrome tape but at £5 to £10 a tape so I have a good source of NOS and a cheap infinite supply at NAC which can only get better.
What I need to do is invent a piece of extra hardware that allows you to
1) Work perfectly with NAC's new formulations (good bass and trebble? Sounds like a good thing to me)
2) Select your tape formulation via your phone.
3) And it gets soldered inside the Portastudio.
4) And it recalibrates the dbx for it too.
This video and your style and review were phenomenal. Im so glad I found your channel. Thanks for being honest on the cassette quality. I wonder if Tascam and ATR are appealing to the modern music producer who doesn't mind a bit of hiss - so perhaps they cut corners. For example, I use a Tascam 122 MK2 as part of my music production process. I send digital recordings from my computer to cassettes and then roll the signal right off the tape and send it back into the computer. It adds intentional warmth, wow and flutter depending on the settings, and I actually prefer there to be imperfections and pitch instability. This is how most people using the portastudio are thinking of using cassettes these days. The exact opposite of the Dragon experience. If there's hiss, I can use a filter to eliminate some of it (either using the dolby settings on the deck or using software plugins). Now, this does not excuse cheap production methods, and im frustrated they are cutting corners, but it might explain why they can get away with it...excellent product design and branding paired with USA craftsmanship. the noise sucks, but again most of us use filters to take care of that in post.
Thanks! Well, as you have seen and heard it's not just a matter of hiss. It's the overall quality of the sonics to be quite poor. Nevertheless, it is true that I did not test the Tascam with a Portastudio, but I am pretty sure that it wouldn't change much. A good tape formulation is good in any case and use.
Man, many years ago when I was recording cassettes for my car system, I *ABSOLUTELY* bought TDK-SAX cassettes WHENEVER I saw them! I remember just before they phased them out, I scored like 20 of the l'l buggers and I thought I was in Heaven 😁
I bet! Among the best out there!
Try the tdk maxgs . Another huge step up.
In the final stage of the cassette era most tapes were high standard products,have some cheaper SKC chromes from 1993 and they sound good too. Most tapes i bought in the 90s were TDK's,Maxells and Sony's, most chromes and some metaltapes and they all sound great. Never used ferro tapes during those days but it wouldn't surprise me when they sound ok too. The differences between older tapes and tapes from the last era are remarkable, made some recordings on old tapes (late70S first half 80s) >> calibrated but they didn't sound as good as recordings on the named brands and types from the 90s.
I picked up a used 1986 TDK AD-X90 type 1 cassette for $1 from a Thrift shop and recorded on it. Sounded amazing. Cassettes were the best in the 1980's and 1990's. I record mainly on type 1's, esp 1980's TDK AD or later TDK D and Maxell UR's and they do a great job. I have recorded on some older type 2's like the TDK SA and Maxell UD-II and they were great indeed, certainly less hissy than the type 1's. But nearly all cassette albums released were released on type 1's which are compatible with everything.
Yes, but in the '90 most pre recorded cassettes were on chrome tape, but type I bias, to be compatible on every player, but still getting some advantages of the chrome tape.
The tape stock is all made by National audio company in United States. The tascam hubs are 3d printed by music box and also loaded into c-0 manufactured by music box. The only other companies that produce usable cassette tape are panguang and rtm and neither produce type II.
This is true
Sony type 4 metal was the best sounding tape available. However Sony sabotaged the line by manufacturing a dropout in the tapes. I purchased over a hundred cassettes, and every single Cassette had this one dropout spot. Sony never admitted to the dropout, but much later it came out it was done to prevent perfect bootleg copies.
I didn't know this (sad) story. What model and year(s) was it?
Ferrycobalt cassette tape formulae were introduced in the 1970's as a royalty free alternative to DuPont's cromium formulae. The results were so good, that some of the best Type II from the 1980's were in fact ferricobalt - like all from TDK or the BASF "Chromium Extra" (the 'extra' was cobalt), probably even most of the Sony's (with the 'super' in 'superchrome' indicating the cobalt). Ferricobalt could be used for excellent Type I cassettes and some mixtures apperantly even reached the spec level of Type IV... There's one cassette in the 1990's that even had a ferricobalt tripple coating: TDK SA-XS.
*That's* the level that can be reached with cobalt! *That's* what the companies should aim for. For *that* I probably would spend between 20-30 Dollar/Euros per blank cassette...
Indeed! Almost all Japanese formulations had that and brought the quality to its limit.
It's not not corect info. Basf Chromdioxid Extra and Chrome Extra were single-layer true chromes up to 1993-1994. Since ca. 1995 they were single-layer chrome/ferric cobalt mix (85%/15%). The last Emtec tapes (2000+) are materially uncertain, here it may have been a purely ferro-cobalt mixtures.
@@sevcaczech5961 I stand corrected.
@@anadialog Yes, BASF used chomiumdioxide on their mid range models until the mid 1990’s.
You can easily determine by the tape colour whether it's ferrocobalt or real chromedioxide tape formulation. Ferrocobalt = darkbrown, chromedioxide = greyblue.
10:20 SONY
13:34 TASCAM
16:54 STUDIO MASTER
20:09 ATR
I agree. I bought the ATR and TASCAM and found them to be incredibly noisy. I will continue to find NOS and used type ii for quality recording.
What I will do is switch out the tape from these R2R cassettes so I have a cool looking shell but with quality tape inside.
Also, the TASCAM was catching on itself because the reel is too small for the tape itself. Bad design !!
Never the less great video.. And because of your video.. lol I listened to one of my old tapes last night.. And i forgot how beautiful the good old audio cassettes sounded like. Pure stereo joy!!! 😀
Very interesting video. I have to agree with you that even the cheapest Type 1 tapes, from old stock, but good brands (for instance TDK - D) would sound far superior to these new Type II tapes. The amount of hiss and distortion on these is totally terrible. (I found that Tascam had more hiss than the ATR, btw). The studio master had some less distortion, making it 'semi useable' but also had the highest self-noise. The Sony UX-S totally destroyed these tapes with low-hiss and clear distortion free audio. You're much better off buying old stock, I'm afraid. It's a shame!
I disagree it is a shame. I mean the fact we haven’t really had any new type ii for decades. It only goes up from here if we want it to. This is just the start. I have been a customer of ATR and RTM for years and their R2R tape is fantastic. Once they adjust the formulas I believe we will not have much to worry about.
Can't wait for type 5 ❤
🤞😂
Why not 🤔🙃
Don't ever be sorry. We follow you for your sincerity. Unlike other HI-FI 'enthusiasts' who only want us to click their affiliate links.
Wow. Looks like your using a Nakamichi Dragon. They were and still are the best cassette deck tech. I had the earlier LX 3 which was great. But the Dragon is the best for recording and playback. It would be epic if they started making them again!
I bought 100 Evangelist spouting religious tapes, complete with a brief case, from a charity shop for the princely sum of 10 quid!
They all had the recording tabs in place and were a mixture of TDK, Maxell and Agfa type 1 brands.
Bloody brilliant!😄
Way to go!
I found some at a thrift store. I got 5 Type 2 for $1.50. It was a pleasure recording over the hate and intolerance that was being spouted on the tapes. I thought some Black Sabbath was appropriate...
I use old TDK SA90s and Maxell XL-IIs and they are just too hard to beat.
The fact is these new makers have to relearn the art and it is going to take time. They are not massive corporations like Maxell, TDK or Sony who have the R&D to make it happen overnight.
Indeed!
Exactly
Love your honesty brother. I'm disappointed just because you were let down as I was so excited to see when you first heard about the Tascam.
I know, it's very disappointing...:-(
I love the Denon HD8S metal (IEC type II position) tapes. Very good for treble rich music (high SOL10k), and they were very cheap here in Denmark. Slightly more noise than most other type II's, but with the high SOL, you can record at a high level, even with treble rich music. I got 300+ of them from the 80's/90's.
I found about 8-10 in great condition at a thrift store recently and had no idea what I bought. The recording I made sounded sooo good! It blew me away actually. Then read they are highly regarded. Just wish I had them in C-60 size/base thickness
Tx for this video. It is even more valuable to hear if products are not worth their money.
Thank YOU
Just bought an Akai GXC 709D, fully rebuilt, looks and sounds the nuts 😎
It is true that companies have become crazy about prices to achieve great sales because the cassette is not available in the market. $40 for a blank cassette is insane, and on the other hand, I'd buy new vinyl for $40. Thanks for the clarification.
@def creator yep, if I remember well, it was usually 25% of the vinyl for a UX, maybe 20% for a UX-S and like 10-15% for a cheap type I. So at $40 a record, the tapes should be a $10. I'd accept $15 as there isn't yet the scale of production that they had back then. But anyway, nowadays, we would be hard pressed to find a brand new type 2 cassettes at less than $20
According to the website, the $40 is for a 10 pack.
Nice Philips in the back!!
Craig Stark would be proud of you for calling these out for what they are: expensive novelties that those of us used to tapes like SA-X will not be impressed with.
Anybody used to a TDK D wouldn't be impressed with these.
I always used Maxell XLII. I just saw a brand new seven pack on eBay for $163 USD. That’s just insane. I used to get a box of ten for $25 USD. I hope Type II tapes. Come back into production and some high quality decks. Used prices are simply insane and garbage recorders from China are fetching over a hundred dollars.
Have you tried late-generation UDII? Last time I bought them (2021?) they were under $3 a piece, and they were good, especially when recorded and played at 120us. Not as good as TOTL type I's, but certainly not worse than the 1982 XLII.
160 for a box of old type II MAXELS Is worth it when it comes to sound. Absolutely superb
Amazon has Maxell XLII's for a better price, that's where i get mine from, as well as most cassettes. I even got the last remaining 80's UDS-II
That pricing is ridiculous. Thank goodness I still have some TDK CrO2 tapes from the golden age of cassette tape.
Imm glad you explained how you lowered the db on later attempts. I was confused why you were only touching 0db on each one haha
Thank you for this honest review. I am sure you can still find NOS type2 cassettes at far lower prices, in fact I bought 20 new tapes of Sony UXS tapes from Italy at 7 euro per piece, shipping included….
Indeed. The fact that Tascam at a certain point doubled the peice because it saw sales moving and others were asking more than them was extremely disappointing. Not what I expect by Tascam.
I have a couple ATR cassettes including the 'gold series' but haven't gotten around to testing it yet but the ATR master tape for reel to reel is the best sounding tape I've ever used....and I've used a lot over the years.
Completely agree with you at least on the NAC Type II. i have a box of 10 and seriously can't win with recording on any of them in either a sony 3 head or nak. They just distort like crazy no matter what the record level is or bias adjustment or position in the tape. My used mid 1980s Maxwell Type 1 UR cassettes re-recorded on today are significantly cleaner and consistent and my late 80's TDK type IIs just destroy them. Even my crap new Maxell URs bought in 2022 while lacking a frequency response at least are consistent. Really too bad.
Awesome thanks for the video, I just bought a nice BX 300 , 3 head, Awesome sound, very happy with it,
Nice!
I just bought a Certon (High Density) HD60, Scotch Dynarange 60, and Radio Shack Type I Low Noise Standard Ferric Formulation C-60s. My unit is a Fisher Studio Standard CR-133. Does a pretty good job. Glad I have a car with a tape deck! It freaks people out.
I've used TDK MA-60 in a Nakamichi CR4-A. I pounded that tape, up to +3 or higher. Incredible formulation.
Nice reel to reel in the back ,I have one since 2 days, its the best according to a German test of 1980
Nice video again, good news. The only issue is that you loose certain level of sound signal after recording on cassette decks. On reel to reel decks this is not very noticeable…
Thx for the honest opinion.
thanks Guido for the useful info!
Gracias amigo por el video, un saludo desde Uruguay .
Ola!!
Thanks for the tests, that was well done. I'm wondering how you were able to use the Patricia Barber track without getting dinged by UA-cam? I'd like to use some particular tracks for my own video tests but they flag me even when I have the musician's permission.
I am amazed ad well. I always get a copyright claim but it's ok for me. In this case I was lucky....won't last long. They will catch up.
Yep. It’s so silly because they don’t realize “sample” videos like this contribute to people actually buying legit copies the original recording.
All the tape is made by NAC, it may have different quality assurance so the better may being sold as different product dependant on where it was cut from the roll but its the same stuff. Nac bought their equipment from a closed down manufacturer of the magnetic strips of credit cards, and it took them a couple of years to make somthing that was useable in home recorders their main market is making pre-recorded tapes and the first feric tape they made was geared and work for that from day 1 which it why it took some years before the home recordable stuff worked after they tweaked the formulation.
It isn't. I asked the president of NAC and he told me the Tascam tape was not made by him.
@@anadialog well he might not be able to legally tell you they are the manufactuer. I have signed non-disclosure agreements myself. Given how few cassette tape manufacturers there are, and as far as i can tell only one is making cobalt doped tape, all in the US that is the conclusion i have drawn, that is my personal opinion. Similar to how you think that x is the same as y..... Anyway i still have type 2 pancakes NOS so i'm not that interested in new stuff. i do recieve samples of stuff from time to time not had any current production type 2 yet. If when i do i will be better able to judge.
Very interesting topic- ( by the way that album seems worth purchasing ). Those tapes seem a lot of money for what they are - I have been fortunate to pick up lots decent tapes for little money in charity shops recently do dropping £30 - £40 on a Tascam tape for example is a no-no. * On the flip side though, it is good to know there is more interest in tapes these days. Will be interesting to see if decent decks will be made again ( in the meantime will hang onto the decks I have).
Please Can you compare the New Type I ? TDK D90 vs Maxwell UR 90 (cheapest) vs Sony HF vs Fox vs others?
looks like the New Type II cobalt-based cassettes are not worth buying?
I wish TDK had a new tape! The Fox is outstanding, peobably the best type I currently produced. The UR are right behind. Other types I tried, so so...
@@anadialog Thanks, I'm rebuilding some Pioneer CT-F900 and 950 so I have been looking for new tapes (I have not bought a TDK Type II tape for decades LOL ) So The new TDK D90 are not new? or just new old formula?
their a lot out their?, Looks like the Maxwell UR 90 is the way to go for now! since the Fox is out of my prices range.
The New Type II COBALT based are just not the same as the old type II and not worth it (I'm glad I saw your video and did not buy the NAC C756 or any of other ones )
Hopefully a New Type II formula will be made, Time will tell?
You do excellent work.
Thank you for this review of new cassette tapes. I also heard clearly the difference in hiss level, the old Sony tape was much quieter. I think I also heard sibilants on P. Barbers voice every now and then on these new cassettes.
I bought a couple of new type 1 cassettes from Thomann, EQ Professional C 90. Produced in the UK, manufactured 2022.
Also expensive and rather ugly apperence. The recordings on my Nak. Dragon came out very well though, crisp and clear and not far from the sound of the vinyl LPs I recorded from. But still, to expensive for now to be interesting. Let´s hope for nicer and cheaper ones in near future.
Yes, indeed sibilance is an issue!
As a musician, I'm soooooo glad I bought a ton of extra Maxell MX, Sony Metal XR and TDK MA cassettes back in the day. Many of which are still unopened. I've even got a 10 brick pack of TDK SA Type II's still unopened. (Remember Tower Records?) Unfortunately my Tascam Portastudio 424 broke down, causing me to go all digital on PC in 2001 (which was not fun times on a Windows 98 not SE, Celeron 800 with Cakewalk Pro Audio) leaving me with so many blank tapes. I think the Type IV's at most were $4.50 and the Type II's were about $2.00 each. I can't image paying $40.00 for a 10 pack of Type II cassettes today. And why did the packaging art on the cassettes regress to something that looks out of the 60's-70's?
The Dragon is the ultimate beast. Thanks for testing the ....!
Does it have dbx?
Es la primera vez que veo tu canal y me simpatizo mucho la cantidad de detalle, pues estaba viendo el video y descargue los archivos para escucharlos en paralelo a la presentación, a mis 52 años crecí con la música análoga y con las cintas de audio, pues ahora descargue los archivos y los abrí en Adobe Audition (tarjeta de sonido externa y audífonos Sanheissen) con gran sorpresa y satisfacción Sony y desconcierto escuche los siguientes archivos y analice su espectro con decepción, me hice mi opinión y placenteramente no estaba lejos de la tuya, concuerdo con la gran cantidad de ruido (siseo) y distorsión de los nuevos casetes.....en fin, habrán pasado unos 25 años desde los mejores Sony UX?.....pues no entiendo que ha pasado para que nos quieran vender algo así Mis Saludos.
Thanks a bunch!
Boost the treble when recording and cut it when mastering; the hiss disappears when you cut treble- bringing it back to where it should've been.
Sad indeed... Imo they are just taking advantage of the growing "analog" interests... And rushing junk to the market for sales...!!! If this continues, look for high quality new old stock to go up in price again... Time to stock up... By the way, just picked up a nice Pioneer deck with dbx in excellent condition... And I'm getting great results with Sony hf and Maxell ur tapes... Recorded at +3db...!!! My first dive into dbx recording and it's amazing how close they sound to the original...
Good job!
@@anadialog model # is pioneer ct2070r... Looks like a basic deck... But inside its built like a tank and makes excellent tape... I'll post a video soon... Cheers...
Thank you so much for your outstanding videos!
I’ve hit the NAC tape pretty hard in my Tascam 246 and Tascam 238 and was pretty happy with the results. I haven’t had the opportunity to compare some different vintage tape types recordings A/Bing in Pro Tools yet from my Tascam multi trackers, but the sound of the new tape was decent compared to the source recordings in Pro Tools. I will say the recordings I made without DBX noise reduction were noisy, but the Tascams were always a bit noisy without noise reduction.
That’s really interesting. I have a 246 and was debating trying my demo of the NAC in it. What I found with my Yamaha 4trk was that the DBX somehow wasn’t calibrated for this new formulation; I get a lot of pumping, to the point where ai thought there was something wrong with my unit. Then I realized these have way more bass than a typical typeii and that was likely causing the issue. Have you tried using DBX with these?
I worked as a slitter from 1968 to 1970 at a company called Certron . I wonder if their still around
If the these sell well, hopefully they will resume type 4 tape too
If they make them with this poor quality, I don't really see the point. And you can also imagine how ridiculous the prices would be for those if they are asking as much as they do for these poor quality Type II tapes.
Great video as always
Could a type 1 signal be recorded on these? Maybe they might operate better as superferric-equivlents or such? Also, nice demonstration of the tapes; really captured all of them at varying degrees of loudness.
“Type 1 signal” is just a few db less. I tried and nothing changed. It’s a matter of low quality formulation I am afraid
I think your correction saying that the NAC's go for $4 each tape, and the results of that and the ATR tape are similar, if not identical, but ATR charges nearly 20 dollars for one tape, shows very clearly they are overcharging for a product that likely cost's them $2 to make.
Indeed!
Ciao Guido, I’m trying to dig into your tapes-related videos, but I think I’m missing the point (so maybe there are some I haven’t seen yet?).
Back in the ‘80s when I was a kid, there were 3 main use cases that made cassettes great, at least in my opinion. First one was portability (Walkman, cars, …), which is not really an issue today, when all you need is your mobile phone. Second one was the possibility to create your own “compilations”, which again is what today we can do with custom playlists with no problem. Third, but most important for me at that time, was the possibility to “borrow” music from others and record it. I had no money back then to buy all the music I loved, so tapes were my “go to” solution and my tape deck was the most important piece on my dad’s hi-fi system.
What is the use case for tapes nowadays? Besides nostalgia, does it make any sense to buy a tape (and even not good quality, as you just pointed out) that costs more than the record you could save on it?
Yeah I understand, recording a live performance can be a different use case…but hi-fi and audiophile OCD is totally about reproduction, not recording…
Happy to get your point of view here.
The three reasons you listed are exactly the ones when I was a kid in the 80's and 90's. NOW, actually a few years ago, that I have more resources I could finally afford a high quality tape deck like (several now) high quality type 2,3,4 cassettes. That is a combination that unless you try you just don't believe it it's so good. When done properly, better than vinyl and very close to reel to reel. With these high-quality streaming services like Qobuz I can record any record I want on them with max quality. A revolution! Here is the dedicated video on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/A1skO6rDgtA/v-deo.html
And I just got the nac tapes 10 pack I guess I will go back to the Recording of the masters fox c 90 tapes
why did'nt you use your technics deck with dbx noise reduction?
No discounts! 😉
Ah, well, we just have to get along with vintage tapes until the time comes. And lets hope for that.
On a separate note, Guido, may I ask you kindly, please, to provide the time in the video where the demo stops. I am not interested to listen three times to music that is not my thing on the speakers of my laptop. And I am quite happy to just take your word for the sonic differences.
Yes, I actually wanted to do that...but forgot! Done!
Look at the bottom of the video, there are chapters
Has anybody noticed that the tape in the C799 isn't wrapped around the guide posts in the shell like the Tascam and the ATR?
Thank you for the review , you save a lot of bad experience with “promising” cassettes. What about those 30 year old TDK , Sony and others , do they worth the investment ? And are they still fresh and working ? Thanks for your great important channel 👏 (btw I could hear the superiority of the Tascam cassette in your review)
Yes, NOS is still the best way to go and if you are patient you can also make some deals
As far as I've quickly researched, NRS makes Chrome tapes. Do you know about them by any chance?
Can you do a Type 1 shoot out? That may be interesting considering the price point.
Could be…taking notes!
It's been a year since your video, have you done follow up to see if the tape has been up graded for better performance.
I haven't but I doubt they would do that.. they invested a lot for this formulation and I sure they have a lot of reels of it...
All these tapes sourced the cobalt tapes-particles from a British-Korean company that announced a long time ago, that it was not able "to stabilize" the cobalt pigment. I believe that the decision to purchase this material was a commercial decision of these end companies. There is no rational reason to produce these unstabilized materials. By the way, the problem with cobalt stabilization was already solved by technicians in the 70's, and it seems that the final solution, which we also see with the UX-S cassettes, will be taken to the grave.
As for the design of cassette cases and reels/hubs, this is due to the fact that all companies buy plastic cases, boxes and other mechanical parts from the Italian company MusicBox.
Real evidence that I need to store my sealed XLII-S collection carefully to the future. 😅 I also have few SA, SA-XS, MA, UX-S (but Mexico made, not Italian which is the best), UX, CDing2 etc.
I heard dropouts on the Tascam tape. I have a question, what's the difference between the cobalt and chrome, does the cobalt break down easier? I agree with you, that it's good that they are listening to people in making new tapes, but they also need to pay attention to what we are saying about the quality. Thanks for the video.
I actually prefer the old Japanese cassettes that were mainly based on cobalt than the European Chrome based ones...but you got to know how to make them! In our three new cases, this is clearly not happening...a pale imitation where not even a sufficient performance was achieve and the price they are asking is more of a high quality Type IV metal cassette!
Shame the tapes gone were master pieces
Hey, you don't have a Patreon account! I came here specifically because I wanted to be one of them 😊 The ONLY one where I give to a Patreon account is Thomas and Stereo. But, I really like yours too! 👍
Thank you so much. No, I decided not to activate the UA-cam Memberships nor a Patreon page because that would inevitably bring exclusive content and I want to leave full accessibility to everyone and leave everything free. The only thing I activated for some help for the channel is this: www.buymeacoffee.com/anadialog
Thanks. I’ll take your words on the cassettes. UA-cam and my iPad are not the means for me to judge.
Wow... Can a cassette sound this good, i don't remember that.. Time to rediscover Mc👍 but this cassetteplayer are is a high End one. I have a Technics from the 90's, do you think that will do the jobb?
Which model? One of my favorite decks is the Technics Rs-B100, I also made a video on it: ua-cam.com/video/dFyFnKF33vo/v-deo.html
I am so glad you did this review.. thank you so much for this.. I was wondering about these cassettes .. excellent review.. this saved me money not to buy these cassettes..
Dear Sir , my question is: What is the difference between tape drive heads that can play metal tapes and heads that cannot play metal tapes? Some machines need to manually select the tape type. When a metal tape is selected to play, what will happen to the magnetic head? Very much looking forward to and thank you for your reply.
Due to the high coercivity of metal tape particles the capability to erase, bias and record requires special heads and more precisely the electronics behind it that must be capable of doing so. It is a myth that heads need to be more hard
The UXS was definitely the least noisy. The most noisy was the third cassette. Heard in my mobile. Go figure!
Well, I think I can safely say that these are three Type II cassettes that I will be avoiding.
Tascam on down was god awful.
Home Recording on 4 track cassette(yuk) in my youth I found decent chrome tapes by TDK or my fave 'Thats' the best - I tried metal, but push the signal a tiny bit and it distorted in a digital sounding way with the sound breaking up completely. Level was everything, the 'game' being a constant battle with hiss. Anything bounced was ideally the sort of low level detail that should go on at the end, though high freq's were also massacred by bouncing. Taught me a thing or two.... Minidisc Multitrack would have been heaven, though that came a bit later.
And on top of it all C60s!
A few things:
Glad you pointed out you did not test with a TASCAM 424. Is it fair to bash a product advertised to be matched with a unit you did not test?
With your dragon, did you record at normal tape speed? TASCAM 424 records at 2X speed in normal 4-track recording. Perhaps the tape formula is designed to perform best in a 424 at its recording speed.
Thanks for the time making and sharing the video!
I am sure the results would be better if tested on portastudio, I agree, BUT the tape shouldn't sound THAT bad. Speed and machine can't influence that much the final sound.
@@anadialog Fair enough. I can tell this crowd hears things that I’m not through earbuds and a phone. I can only go by what the comments are telling me, also.
yeah i Guess they are doing these tapes type II like a test but for that price ? that's crazy so i hope these brands bring better and cheaper for the masses because no way they are gonna be sucessful with these but good to see they at least created something
🤗 GUIDO…WE HOPE YOUR DOING WELL 😍😍😍
I saw the NAC company in Ytube before. I didn't see the specific designer team in their show. Cassettes seems to be produced in routine of machines. I think no one is for designing better J cards, shape of cassette and also managing for preparing formula of tapes.
Fantastico il Nakamichi Dragon! Ma quando apri un canale nella nostra meravigliosa lingua madre?
Gianluca! Confesso che mi piacerebbe molto ma è una passione come ben sai e ormai il tempo tra famiglia e lavoro è centellinato, non riuscirei a fare un secondo canale...
Interesting - coming back to this video a couple of years later, I'm noticing for the first time that the Tascam had better/more hyped high end than the Sony when quickly switching between audio samples, especially evident in the voice: TASCAM 13:52 , SONY 10:38 . Still not wowed and DEFINITELY not worth their asking price of $13 USD. I may grab one to try in one of my Portastudios when I have a chance, but worth mentioning. Thanks again for doing this; hopefully someone is working hard in R&D to either improve these or make a better one.
Thank you! If you get one, tell us how it sounds in your Portastudio compared to a normal cassette.
@@anadialog I think I will do just that! I have a number of Portastudios, so I'll test it in each one and report back 👍🏻
I think that Maxell XL-S II is the best, but I liked Tascam.
Well, I don’t necessarily regret buying a couple Type II Tascam tapes because I was primarily supporting the “cause”. In any case, I’ll try to salvage my “investment” and record something on it with Dolby S.
Great music!
The more dark the tape the better the quality..it was in the 80's and 90's like that and i suppose it still is..
Thank God I have a dollar store and I get maxwell ur60 tapes type 1 for 1.50 a tape. Not type ll I miss those but the maxells perform well as you know
Hi Love the video, Thanks
Nice video. A German test had the same result. A real shame: why such a product? Hope the makers improve the tape! Regards from Berlin!
For some reason they had to replace it, but a few years ago NAC had a really good type 1 tape called the Audio Pro 90. I'm disappointed because I didn't buy more of them while I could. Then they released an inferior tape that they called a super ferric. It was a mediocre tape at best. It's sad to see these type 2s doing so poorly. But I'm glad they're trying. I may give Nacs tapes another try since I hear they're changing the formula a little bit. The audio pro reminds me of classic 80s Memorex or Radio shack supertape.
NAC in the past was using high quality NOS AGFA-BASF reels of tape now gone
YEOW - yeah those sounded pretty bad - lots of hiss and distortion. The Sony tape did a great job but that's a given. My recent tape release was on Fox RTM911 tape, duplicated in real time from 24bit masters, mastered specifically for cassette reproduction. The Fox stuff sounds pretty good. It would not be economical to do a run on these high-priced tapes (and also have mediocre results).
PS: I absolutely loved the Patricia Barber track you used and will go and check out the whole album!
hi man you are right the new tape is alot better new Type 1 is better i had some of that new new Type 1 from tapeline i run at 3 3/4 ips wow it's very good
When I record on old Type-1 TDK ..,Sony or Maxell..on my Nakamichi ZX-7..the sound-quality is almost like on a Type-2 .
Hei, tape man expert, could you explain (maybe in a video) how different tapes get their names? I see all 3 in this video are C-60, but the C is not for Chrome. Type 1 tapes are also labelled as C-number.
Others are SF, SA(X), D, U, etc, metal almost always starts with M, but this convention appears to be the rule for metal type IV only, and then there's Axia PS-Metal, so .... not always!
Do the letters mean anything? Is it something we can decode? Or is it just completely random, decided by the company that distributed the tape.
What is a SA or SA-X? Why is it only TDK that use that, but every company used C and D prefixes?
Google failed me in finding the answers to these questions.
They are company names. For example TDK's SA stands for Super Avilyn, their type II formularion. The C is just for cassette .
Great video👍
Thanks for making this Video on the type 2. I have a question though and maybe someone can guide me. I have recently started recording on cassette type 1's mainly the Maxel UR's and using Dolby C as this is the best that My Denon tape deck can do, however when playing back the tapes I seem to prefer playback without using the Dolby C compression as it takes away some of the ambiance and Flow of the recordings even though the tape hiss is much less. Thus my question is if i am using Dolby C on playback as i should since i used it on recording, how do I add back that ambiance? is it just a question of Turning up the trebble frequencies? I have a 5 band ADC Equalizer but i still find that it is not the same or do i need to use a better adjustable EQ such as a 13 or 24 band?
Has your deck been recently serviced? Whe you use Dolby or any other NR during recording you must use it on playback, especially if it's the same deck. If you have the impression that things are wrong, the Dolby chip is probably faulty or uncalibrated and you need a pro to solved that.
Dolby C is very sensitive for tape quality and calibration of the deck. It only sounds good when both are in perfect condition. I would recommend not using it and either use no Dolby at all or use Dolby B. You can make the recording slightly brighter by using more negative bias during recording.
Have you tried turning up the treble frequencies BEFORE recording?
Dolby C is more of a full band compander (or at least goes well into the midrange) rather than a treble compander like Dolby B, and even that does more than just turning up/down the treble.
I suggest not to use Dolby C on a high hour deck with a potentially worn head and out-of-spec components. There's not much you can do except recording and playing back on a flawless machine with Dolby C.
UR90s don't have such a high noise floor and can take a bit of overdrive, so they can sound very good with Dolby B, which works much better on a tired and unrestored deck.
Try to record @ +3db with B, and should you have it, HX pro activated, should be absolutely fine.
I’ve used the Tascam tapes in a portastudio (424 mkIII). They sound like garbage. Quality control seems to be a problem too, because they vary from pretty bad to “is my recorder broken” outright unusable.