PB response and how to fix it
- Thread starter Alex SE
- Start date
I have been working very hard trying to get the high frequencies up to where the low frequencies used to be 
View attachment 72704
View attachment 72704
why should you make it better than that?
and, yes, roll off at low end is both on source and tape, then it doesn't matter... the deck is doing its work just nicely...
excellent!
and, yes, roll off at low end is both on source and tape, then it doesn't matter... the deck is doing its work just nicely...
excellent!
Is that ‘82 tape chocolate or the darker chocolate, almost black color? I ask because that was right around when TDK changed their formulation. The darker color remained until the end and it is scary consistent from 1984 until the horrible blue wrappers in the 90’s- they all bias within a whisker of one another.
The early, lighter color tape is very different. I feel inferior to the “new” formula.
Just FYI.
The early, lighter color tape is very different. I feel inferior to the “new” formula.
Just FYI.
do you mean the SA with (c) 1982 written on the jcard (the same look and shell) does exist with both the older and newer kind of tape inside?
I own and checked TDK SA with (c) 1979 on the jcard (then the version sold between 1979 and 1981) and then a few later ones from late 80's and on and, indeed, the colour of the tape is a bit different (just as you describe it) and the bias point of the 1979 one is, indeed, noticeably lower.
It must be noted that, back in 1981 at Prague, there was that (critically important) international meeting where tape's and deck's producer did set the new IEC standards/references both for tapes and decks, then it's quite obvious to detect vastly different behaviours between the older and the post-1981 tapes.
Also, it seems some producers were quick to accomodate to the new standards while others did that during the next few years (maybe to also keep producing the older formulas compatible with all those older decks a lot of people just owned and kept using for a good while)...
Other producers seemed to make both older and newer formulas up to around mid 80's, to make everybody happy.
I do remember, back in late 80's to early 90's, a good friend of mine was still using his late 70's deck (it was still working fine, then he had no reasons to replace it) and then he was the only one I knew who used to buy those brands of blank tapes which needed some less bias (i.e. Scotch and memorex) and which I used to rate as lower quality tapes but, indeed, in his deck they recorded fine while the "modern" ones were usually a bit too bright.
Of course, between the pre-1981 and post-1981 standards, there isn't only a difference in terms of bias but also in terms of Rec EQ... then, to get the best compatibility between tapes and decks, both parameters needed to be nicely matched.
I own and checked TDK SA with (c) 1979 on the jcard (then the version sold between 1979 and 1981) and then a few later ones from late 80's and on and, indeed, the colour of the tape is a bit different (just as you describe it) and the bias point of the 1979 one is, indeed, noticeably lower.
It must be noted that, back in 1981 at Prague, there was that (critically important) international meeting where tape's and deck's producer did set the new IEC standards/references both for tapes and decks, then it's quite obvious to detect vastly different behaviours between the older and the post-1981 tapes.
Also, it seems some producers were quick to accomodate to the new standards while others did that during the next few years (maybe to also keep producing the older formulas compatible with all those older decks a lot of people just owned and kept using for a good while)...
Other producers seemed to make both older and newer formulas up to around mid 80's, to make everybody happy.
I do remember, back in late 80's to early 90's, a good friend of mine was still using his late 70's deck (it was still working fine, then he had no reasons to replace it) and then he was the only one I knew who used to buy those brands of blank tapes which needed some less bias (i.e. Scotch and memorex) and which I used to rate as lower quality tapes but, indeed, in his deck they recorded fine while the "modern" ones were usually a bit too bright.
Of course, between the pre-1981 and post-1981 standards, there isn't only a difference in terms of bias but also in terms of Rec EQ... then, to get the best compatibility between tapes and decks, both parameters needed to be nicely matched.
I think (know) TDK gets a bad wrap. I personally have tested a large group (at that site which shall not be named) and found the failure rate to be no higher than other brands. The root of it was that TDK’s sales volume eclipsed the others, so with more samples, there would be more “failures”, yet on percentage, it is no different.
@Alex SE : well, we just talked extensively about keeping tapes wrapped or using them.
I am not a collector then, sooner or later, I will unwrap and use all the NOS sealed ones I have here, regardless of their rarity or age.
At max, I would understand keeping only one wrapped example of each model and using all the others so, about that SA-X from 1982 of yours, you have two of them, then you can use one and keep the other one sealed.
Btw, I just unsealed and tried a few very rare tapes which I had only one example of each... watching at them sealed and never knowing how they do sound is something I would surely regret... so I opened a few of the ones I own only one example by I tried to cut the shrinkwrap carefully and keep it stored between the pages of a book.
@J!m : I perfectly remember all the debates about the reliability issues regarding so many TDK cassettes there in the other place.
Of course, I cannot doubt about other people's good experiences but, at the same time, I cannot ignore the incredibly high failure rate I experienced myself.
So, it might be a matter of luck?
To me, the failure rate of TDK tapes made from, say, 1988 to the end (early 2000's ?) is extremely high and not comparable to any other brands.
And this is, sadly, a matter of fact here, not an impression or speculation.
For example, I've bought like 40 sealed TDK MA from 1990-91 vintage, all with made in Germany written on, and got them from two different sellers at two different zones of Italy and all of those tapes, none excluded, are affected by the white powder issue.... so, 100% failure rate here on those.
But I experienced also other kinds of problems with certain TDK tapes here, I believe I've experienced any possible kind of problems and, usually, the failure rate is at least 50% if not even more.
What can I say? Maybe I am the most unlucky guy on earth about TDK... but that's it.
Resuming, the TDK models/years I had problems with (and not one single tape but most of them) are:
TDK MA from 1990-91 (gold-black wrapper) = white powder issue
TDK SA from 1990-91 (gold-black wrapper) = greasy transparent lubrificant issue
TDK SA from 1992-94 (blue wrapper) = super fragile tape on thin tape (c80, c90, c100 lenghts) , then railroads as soon as you try to use them (*)
TDK CDing2 (later versions, from late 90's to early 00's ? ) = greasy lubrificant, to the point of getting a huge amount of modulation noise
TDK DJ2 (late 90's to early 00's ? ) = greasy lubrificant, same as the CDing2... some tapes literally cause W&F and the deck into stop mode
TDK D (mid 90's) = fragile tape, it railroads after first use even if the tape lenght is c46 and then the tape should be relatively thick (*)
I do also remember that, there in the other place, to let people realize I was not being a "TDK hater" as they maybe thought but I was simply describing my own experiences, I had freely donated/sent a bunch of such problem TDK tapes (still sealed ones) to a guy abroad to try them and see... and he's got the same bad experiences as here.
So, if anything, I'd say it's impossible to make a general rule that they tend to be all bad or all good... some were lucky and got a negligible failure rate, some others (i.e. myself) got an incredibly high failure rate, up to 100% on certain models.
Btw, I would be happy to know if there is a way to fix the white powder issue of the TDK MA i have here, so that I would not be forced to stop the deck and clean the heads/transport each 5 minutes of tape running... these tapes, if i do ignore the point that they release that white crap on the deck, would sound great and would measure awesome... in fact, they are some of those metal tapes which give me a nicely high measured MOL also on those decks which struggle to get a good MOL on other brand's metal tapes.
(*) : member "meabster" at the other place finally discovered that the railroading issues might be related to badly made guide rollers which don't show a plain/smooth surface (they have a sort of ridge) and, also, some of those rollers, on a random base, happen to be mounted the opposite way as they should, not being exactly symmetrical and then with a preferred way to be fit into the shell.
Anyways, on certain TDK shells like the clear ones used (i.e.) for the later versions CDing2, I've noticed the guide rollers are eccentric or not rounded, in fact, they turn wobbly... it's easy to see on those clear shells, you just need to give those guide rollers a watch while they are turning.
I am not a collector then, sooner or later, I will unwrap and use all the NOS sealed ones I have here, regardless of their rarity or age.
At max, I would understand keeping only one wrapped example of each model and using all the others so, about that SA-X from 1982 of yours, you have two of them, then you can use one and keep the other one sealed.
Btw, I just unsealed and tried a few very rare tapes which I had only one example of each... watching at them sealed and never knowing how they do sound is something I would surely regret... so I opened a few of the ones I own only one example by I tried to cut the shrinkwrap carefully and keep it stored between the pages of a book.
@J!m : I perfectly remember all the debates about the reliability issues regarding so many TDK cassettes there in the other place.
Of course, I cannot doubt about other people's good experiences but, at the same time, I cannot ignore the incredibly high failure rate I experienced myself.
So, it might be a matter of luck?
To me, the failure rate of TDK tapes made from, say, 1988 to the end (early 2000's ?) is extremely high and not comparable to any other brands.
And this is, sadly, a matter of fact here, not an impression or speculation.
For example, I've bought like 40 sealed TDK MA from 1990-91 vintage, all with made in Germany written on, and got them from two different sellers at two different zones of Italy and all of those tapes, none excluded, are affected by the white powder issue.... so, 100% failure rate here on those.
But I experienced also other kinds of problems with certain TDK tapes here, I believe I've experienced any possible kind of problems and, usually, the failure rate is at least 50% if not even more.
What can I say? Maybe I am the most unlucky guy on earth about TDK... but that's it.
Resuming, the TDK models/years I had problems with (and not one single tape but most of them) are:
TDK MA from 1990-91 (gold-black wrapper) = white powder issue
TDK SA from 1990-91 (gold-black wrapper) = greasy transparent lubrificant issue
TDK SA from 1992-94 (blue wrapper) = super fragile tape on thin tape (c80, c90, c100 lenghts) , then railroads as soon as you try to use them (*)
TDK CDing2 (later versions, from late 90's to early 00's ? ) = greasy lubrificant, to the point of getting a huge amount of modulation noise
TDK DJ2 (late 90's to early 00's ? ) = greasy lubrificant, same as the CDing2... some tapes literally cause W&F and the deck into stop mode
TDK D (mid 90's) = fragile tape, it railroads after first use even if the tape lenght is c46 and then the tape should be relatively thick (*)
I do also remember that, there in the other place, to let people realize I was not being a "TDK hater" as they maybe thought but I was simply describing my own experiences, I had freely donated/sent a bunch of such problem TDK tapes (still sealed ones) to a guy abroad to try them and see... and he's got the same bad experiences as here.
So, if anything, I'd say it's impossible to make a general rule that they tend to be all bad or all good... some were lucky and got a negligible failure rate, some others (i.e. myself) got an incredibly high failure rate, up to 100% on certain models.
Btw, I would be happy to know if there is a way to fix the white powder issue of the TDK MA i have here, so that I would not be forced to stop the deck and clean the heads/transport each 5 minutes of tape running... these tapes, if i do ignore the point that they release that white crap on the deck, would sound great and would measure awesome... in fact, they are some of those metal tapes which give me a nicely high measured MOL also on those decks which struggle to get a good MOL on other brand's metal tapes.
(*) : member "meabster" at the other place finally discovered that the railroading issues might be related to badly made guide rollers which don't show a plain/smooth surface (they have a sort of ridge) and, also, some of those rollers, on a random base, happen to be mounted the opposite way as they should, not being exactly symmetrical and then with a preferred way to be fit into the shell.
Anyways, on certain TDK shells like the clear ones used (i.e.) for the later versions CDing2, I've noticed the guide rollers are eccentric or not rounded, in fact, they turn wobbly... it's easy to see on those clear shells, you just need to give those guide rollers a watch while they are turning.
Last edited:
must add that, on TDK tapes made until 1987, I never experienced any issues.
also, I own quite a few TDK SA from 1995-96 vintage in c50 and c60 lenghts and they also worked perfectly fine.
I also own a few TDK metals from mid 90's and on (MA , Optima IV) and they are just fine, with no white powder or any other issues.
another good thing... I personally LOVE the TDK D from 1982-83 era (with 1982 date on the Jcard) , they are seriously good and clearly the best basic ferric of that era and one of the best basic ferric tapes ever... in fact, on a couple older decks I own (Technics RS-M63 from 1979 and RS-M260 from 1981) they do show a MOL @315Hz which is quite in the superferric territory, like +9dB VU ( 0dB ref = 160 nWb/m ) ... which is quite impressive for a simple/basic ferric tape! And also an almost ruler flat frequency response up to 20Khz.
also, I own quite a few TDK SA from 1995-96 vintage in c50 and c60 lenghts and they also worked perfectly fine.
I also own a few TDK metals from mid 90's and on (MA , Optima IV) and they are just fine, with no white powder or any other issues.
another good thing... I personally LOVE the TDK D from 1982-83 era (with 1982 date on the Jcard) , they are seriously good and clearly the best basic ferric of that era and one of the best basic ferric tapes ever... in fact, on a couple older decks I own (Technics RS-M63 from 1979 and RS-M260 from 1981) they do show a MOL @315Hz which is quite in the superferric territory, like +9dB VU ( 0dB ref = 160 nWb/m ) ... which is quite impressive for a simple/basic ferric tape! And also an almost ruler flat frequency response up to 20Khz.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 866
- Location
- Absurdy, new name of France
- Tagline
- You never have too much tapedecks ^^
The 82' SA-X is my go to tape for serious recordings, sometimes I prefer it's sound signature over type IV.
Also got white powder on CDing Metal and some 90's SA's & MA's.
CDing series shells are pretty bad, one of my CDing Metal (luckily without white powder) clicked horribly during play, ended by putting the tape in an 88' SF.
Also got white powder on CDing Metal and some 90's SA's & MA's.
CDing series shells are pretty bad, one of my CDing Metal (luckily without white powder) clicked horribly during play, ended by putting the tape in an 88' SF.
I don’t ever discount anyone’s personal experience. I just haven’t had these issues. And this includes that huge lot of used tapes I checked and tested myself.
There were problems, but nothing chronic. Things like railroading was not even isolated to one lot- some did and some didn’t from the same lot. That tells me it is an outside influence making that happen.
As far as metal goes: I would take an SA-X over an MA all day long. The few MA tapes I have were bought when the store didn’t have any SA tapes in stock. Even my recent tests and goofing around reinforces that opinion. (I am using better gear with greater knowledge now than back in the day).
The other thing to keep in mind: NOS or not, you have no way of knowing how these have been stored for the last 40 years…
There were problems, but nothing chronic. Things like railroading was not even isolated to one lot- some did and some didn’t from the same lot. That tells me it is an outside influence making that happen.
As far as metal goes: I would take an SA-X over an MA all day long. The few MA tapes I have were bought when the store didn’t have any SA tapes in stock. Even my recent tests and goofing around reinforces that opinion. (I am using better gear with greater knowledge now than back in the day).
The other thing to keep in mind: NOS or not, you have no way of knowing how these have been stored for the last 40 years…
Here are TDKs I have, mostly 2-3 of each except SA60, SA90, AD-C and SA-X90 which are some more. That SA-C90 with broken wrap is unfortunately only one I have. Besides those, I have a bunch of those newer which we all know are worthless (blue SA, one of latest D series and some FE)
Missing SA-XG, HX-S, AD-S, golden SA-X and some else. It would be nice to have all those TDK from 70s
Missing SA-XG, HX-S, AD-S, golden SA-X and some else. It would be nice to have all those TDK from 70s
believe it or not, I do agree with everything you say.
I also never discount anyone's personal experience, this whole matter of magnetic recording can be learnt just from other people's experiences and I doubt they ever existed any proper schools/universities where they teach such matters.
So, other people's experiences and knowledge are a primary source for my own knowledge as well, it's more like a mutual exchange of informations, actually.
About the railroading issue, which for years I went mad in trying to find the reason why it happened more easily on some tapes and less easily or at all on others, I must admit that when, a couple years ago or so, member "meabster" shared his findings about this problem, they were a sort of eye-opener, because I went and checked the guide rollers on some of my railroading TDK tapes and they were just like he was explaining... so, if it does depend on guide rollers without a properly smooth surface, then we found the actual origin of that issue.
Don't know if you know who "meabster" actually is... he is one of the most expert ones out there, then if he tells something I am inclined to take his suggestions very very seriously because, knowing who he really is, I know he also knows what he is talking about.
Regarding the metal tapes... I perfectly understand we might prefer top quality type2 tapes or also the top superferrics over metal tapes.
That's why, even if metal tapes might be able of some impressive performance, most decks out there (including so many 3 heads decks) simply struggle to exploit those formulations or aren't just able to exploit them, I mean especially about reaching a good MOL at low and mid-low frequencies. (on treble, they are always quite impressive on any decks)
To my experience, the ability to give metals all the bias they need to get a good MOL at lows/mid-lows without seeing the treble response falling down too early, is related partially to the electronics but even more to the actual kind of heads (which automatically influence the way you have to design the electronics) and, for example, permalloy heads aren't able to push metals without giving too much distortion on the lowend, sendust heads can exploit them better (but several sendust heads aren't nice on playback) , ferrite heads it depends but in theory they should not be able but some of such heads actually are very able and amorphous heads are the ones which usually can exploit just everything to the max... nakamichi crystalloy heads are also able to exploit such tapes just nicely.
While, for example, type2 tapes and type1 tapes are usually a lot easier to exploit in recording by all heads.
Pure chromes and also those type2 tapes based on metal particles are more difficult to exploit by some heads/decks , quite like it happens for type IV ones.
Then, the actual situation is quite variable and it depends of a lot of factors... then, it's not exact to say that a tape is better than another one but it's more correct to always think about a certain tape and a certain deck, calibrated in a certain way as one single bigger thing... and this makes the whole magnetic recording matter more complex and with infinite possible situations.
Of course, it's true you can never know where and how an old tape, being it NOS or used, was actually kept into storage.
You can know it only for those tapes you bought yourself in the old days since new and then you know where you kept it.
I also never discount anyone's personal experience, this whole matter of magnetic recording can be learnt just from other people's experiences and I doubt they ever existed any proper schools/universities where they teach such matters.
So, other people's experiences and knowledge are a primary source for my own knowledge as well, it's more like a mutual exchange of informations, actually.
About the railroading issue, which for years I went mad in trying to find the reason why it happened more easily on some tapes and less easily or at all on others, I must admit that when, a couple years ago or so, member "meabster" shared his findings about this problem, they were a sort of eye-opener, because I went and checked the guide rollers on some of my railroading TDK tapes and they were just like he was explaining... so, if it does depend on guide rollers without a properly smooth surface, then we found the actual origin of that issue.
Don't know if you know who "meabster" actually is... he is one of the most expert ones out there, then if he tells something I am inclined to take his suggestions very very seriously because, knowing who he really is, I know he also knows what he is talking about.
Regarding the metal tapes... I perfectly understand we might prefer top quality type2 tapes or also the top superferrics over metal tapes.
That's why, even if metal tapes might be able of some impressive performance, most decks out there (including so many 3 heads decks) simply struggle to exploit those formulations or aren't just able to exploit them, I mean especially about reaching a good MOL at low and mid-low frequencies. (on treble, they are always quite impressive on any decks)
To my experience, the ability to give metals all the bias they need to get a good MOL at lows/mid-lows without seeing the treble response falling down too early, is related partially to the electronics but even more to the actual kind of heads (which automatically influence the way you have to design the electronics) and, for example, permalloy heads aren't able to push metals without giving too much distortion on the lowend, sendust heads can exploit them better (but several sendust heads aren't nice on playback) , ferrite heads it depends but in theory they should not be able but some of such heads actually are very able and amorphous heads are the ones which usually can exploit just everything to the max... nakamichi crystalloy heads are also able to exploit such tapes just nicely.
While, for example, type2 tapes and type1 tapes are usually a lot easier to exploit in recording by all heads.
Pure chromes and also those type2 tapes based on metal particles are more difficult to exploit by some heads/decks , quite like it happens for type IV ones.
Then, the actual situation is quite variable and it depends of a lot of factors... then, it's not exact to say that a tape is better than another one but it's more correct to always think about a certain tape and a certain deck, calibrated in a certain way as one single bigger thing... and this makes the whole magnetic recording matter more complex and with infinite possible situations.
Of course, it's true you can never know where and how an old tape, being it NOS or used, was actually kept into storage.
You can know it only for those tapes you bought yourself in the old days since new and then you know where you kept it.
Last edited: