Pics of your Favorite Cassette Tapes
- Thread starter Web Police
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 9,922
Jim: You need to cast a wider net. These popped up a few months ago: TDK SA-XG Ultra-fine Super Avilyn type II 90 minutes - TDK For Sale - Canuck Audio Mart
Nando.
Nando.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 9,922
Jim: So, if you are interested in the TDK MA-XG90, I've shown, forward me your mailing address and I will mail it to you. Only once you receive it and are happy with what I've sent, then you can decide which cassettes to send me. I will pay the postage for the MA-XG90 tape to be sent to you.
Unfortunately, I missed out on that TDK SA-XG tape sale, so I have none at the moment.
Nando.
Unfortunately, I missed out on that TDK SA-XG tape sale, so I have none at the moment.
Nando.
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,360
- Location
- Australia
- Tagline
- Those who enter the man cave will get WOPLed
I got an MA-XG which was gifted to me as a bonus for a repair job. It looked ok from the outside but once unwrapped it was evident that the tape pack had white powder all through it. I managed to clean it all off after 3-4 passes in a spare deck, also used a cotton tip with alcohol on it for 1 pass. I recorded onto it using a Nakamichi BX-300 and it sounds fantastic, not a single dropout, got lucky.
White powder does not concern me Admiral... I want that tape; not excuses.
The tape will not be played, so unless it is looking like a snow globe inside, it'll be fine. It is part of my 1986 TDK full-line display I'm nearly done with. The ones I thought might be the most difficult to obtain I have; just the two XG variants to finish it off. I AM very curious to try an SA-XG for actual recording, because that should be the pinnacle of the type-II offerings as far as I'm concerned. It is clear the SA-X is nicer than the SA, so add the "fancy" shell and... what happens? Anything? I need to know.
And Nando: I am perfectly fine paying your asking price for a sealed MA-XG for my display. I just have (believe it or not) a lot of tapes that I think you would appreciate more than I will. My narrow focus is a determent I guess. I know you have an affinity for the early (pre-'84) TDK stuff, so I thought I'd pass them along. They may be complete junk, but the cases and j-cards may prove useful, or not.
So, if there's anything in particular you are interested in, I'll do my best to help!
But, here's what I have in the "Nando pile" so far (I won't be offended if you say "Don't send the xxxxx":
(2) New TDK D60 (1986)
(3) New TDK MA90 (1988)
Used TDK D-C60
Used TDK D-C90
Used TDK SA-C90
(above are all 1984 or earlier)
New Supertape XR-90 (type I)
(2) Used Loran "The ultimate audio cassette" Type-II (These are really cool tapes with a MA-R/MA-XG inspired replaceable recording notch)
(5) Used Sony UX-Pro 90 (four gray card and one blue card)
Used Sony LNX60 Type I (this is an old one...)
(2) Used That's CD-MH 90 (Metal tape)
And if I find it, I have a Sony metal tape. Not the white ceramic shell, but the black shell. I can't find it (because I put it somewhere safe for you)
And I have a few new SA-X 100's (one 1991 and two newer I think; I haven't checked the date) if you like, to sweeten the deal.
The tape will not be played, so unless it is looking like a snow globe inside, it'll be fine. It is part of my 1986 TDK full-line display I'm nearly done with. The ones I thought might be the most difficult to obtain I have; just the two XG variants to finish it off. I AM very curious to try an SA-XG for actual recording, because that should be the pinnacle of the type-II offerings as far as I'm concerned. It is clear the SA-X is nicer than the SA, so add the "fancy" shell and... what happens? Anything? I need to know.
And Nando: I am perfectly fine paying your asking price for a sealed MA-XG for my display. I just have (believe it or not) a lot of tapes that I think you would appreciate more than I will. My narrow focus is a determent I guess. I know you have an affinity for the early (pre-'84) TDK stuff, so I thought I'd pass them along. They may be complete junk, but the cases and j-cards may prove useful, or not.
So, if there's anything in particular you are interested in, I'll do my best to help!
But, here's what I have in the "Nando pile" so far (I won't be offended if you say "Don't send the xxxxx":
(2) New TDK D60 (1986)
(3) New TDK MA90 (1988)
Used TDK D-C60
Used TDK D-C90
Used TDK SA-C90
(above are all 1984 or earlier)
New Supertape XR-90 (type I)
(2) Used Loran "The ultimate audio cassette" Type-II (These are really cool tapes with a MA-R/MA-XG inspired replaceable recording notch)
(5) Used Sony UX-Pro 90 (four gray card and one blue card)
Used Sony LNX60 Type I (this is an old one...)
(2) Used That's CD-MH 90 (Metal tape)
And if I find it, I have a Sony metal tape. Not the white ceramic shell, but the black shell. I can't find it (because I put it somewhere safe for you)
And I have a few new SA-X 100's (one 1991 and two newer I think; I haven't checked the date) if you like, to sweeten the deal.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 9,922
You have more than $75 worth of blanks there, Jim.
The ones I would want for recording for mix tape exchanges are:
(2) New TDK D60 (1986)
(3) New TDK MA90 (1988)
New Supertape XR-90 (type I)
And these, for recording my own personal mix tapes for the car:
(2) Used Loran "The ultimate audio cassette" Type-II (These are really cool tapes with a MA-R/MA-XG inspired replaceable recording notch)
(5) Used Sony UX-Pro 90 (four gray card and one blue card)
(2) Used That's CD-MH 90 (Metal tape)
Nando.
The ones I would want for recording for mix tape exchanges are:
(2) New TDK D60 (1986)
(3) New TDK MA90 (1988)
New Supertape XR-90 (type I)
And these, for recording my own personal mix tapes for the car:
(2) Used Loran "The ultimate audio cassette" Type-II (These are really cool tapes with a MA-R/MA-XG inspired replaceable recording notch)
(5) Used Sony UX-Pro 90 (four gray card and one blue card)
(2) Used That's CD-MH 90 (Metal tape)
Nando.
![IMG_E2939[1].JPG](/data/attachments/49/49697-6f6dff1fe0ea17af278fd6f52459e663.jpg)
I suppose that's true.
But I can't think of a music type that would benefit from it. Machines: perhaps the Nakamichi, with it's well documented treble boost, would be a better machine than a flat(er) responding machine. But I don't have a Nakamichi to use for this test, and no intentions on getting one.
On the same (properly calibrated) 3-head machine, with fine bias adjusted for each subject tape, my testing has concluded there is a significant difference in noise floor as well as a difference in the distortion (which may be the abruptness it comes on with the MA, or the way it distorts in the MA as compared to the SA- that I have not really identified) that I have to record an MA about 5dB lower in level (with the same input source/day/machines) than the SA, to reduce the distortion to below audible limits. Double-coated SA tapes (SA-X) seem to allow hotter signals before distortion as compared to SA, and I suspect the MA-X would behave similarly, and allow more signal (to artificially depress the noise floor). However, I speculate the MA-X v. SA-X would show a similar result as the SA v. MA testing I have done myself. I don't have an available MA-X for this testing to prove it out, but it stands to reason.
Therefore, I conclude an MA-X should perform on par with an SA tape, if that all holds true. Comparing current market pricing, it doesn't make much sense, unless you have a bunch of them already on hand to use.
But I can't think of a music type that would benefit from it. Machines: perhaps the Nakamichi, with it's well documented treble boost, would be a better machine than a flat(er) responding machine. But I don't have a Nakamichi to use for this test, and no intentions on getting one.
On the same (properly calibrated) 3-head machine, with fine bias adjusted for each subject tape, my testing has concluded there is a significant difference in noise floor as well as a difference in the distortion (which may be the abruptness it comes on with the MA, or the way it distorts in the MA as compared to the SA- that I have not really identified) that I have to record an MA about 5dB lower in level (with the same input source/day/machines) than the SA, to reduce the distortion to below audible limits. Double-coated SA tapes (SA-X) seem to allow hotter signals before distortion as compared to SA, and I suspect the MA-X would behave similarly, and allow more signal (to artificially depress the noise floor). However, I speculate the MA-X v. SA-X would show a similar result as the SA v. MA testing I have done myself. I don't have an available MA-X for this testing to prove it out, but it stands to reason.
Therefore, I conclude an MA-X should perform on par with an SA tape, if that all holds true. Comparing current market pricing, it doesn't make much sense, unless you have a bunch of them already on hand to use.
but the type4 MA tape needs a whole lot of bias current... covering the hole to detect it as type2 will result in heavy underbias. (which translates to lower output level, very high distortion, way too much treble).
while, the metal particle type2 tapes were just designed to work fine with the type2 bias range/setting.
I never tried/owned a TDK HX-S but I do have Denon HD8 , That's EX , That's EM-X and That's CD-MH as type2 metal particle tapes.
while, the metal particle type2 tapes were just designed to work fine with the type2 bias range/setting.
I never tried/owned a TDK HX-S but I do have Denon HD8 , That's EX , That's EM-X and That's CD-MH as type2 metal particle tapes.
Last edited:
of course, it does cost nothing to try... in fact, I had tried that myself as well. 
the worst thing which can happen is that you will then re-record the tape at type4 setting... nothing more than that.
but, hey, experimenting also the "wrong" settings can be an interesting experience... useful to see how a tape behaves at a bias setting which is quite far from the intended one... certain things need to be experimented in first person to get the most proper ideas of what happens in such conditions.
anyways, the easiest/fastest way to try tapes at "unintended" settings is to use a 3 heads deck with manual tape type selector... I have a couple which are just good for this, like my Technics RS-M260 and RS-M63... this way, i don't need to add adhesive tape to cover the tape detection holes and, moreover, i can also apply the "unintended" settings the other way around... like trying a ferric tape at chrome or metal settings without needing to drill new holes on the cassette shell or to transplant the tape into a different type of shell. (these two decks also have FeCr setting, though)
the worst thing which can happen is that you will then re-record the tape at type4 setting... nothing more than that.
but, hey, experimenting also the "wrong" settings can be an interesting experience... useful to see how a tape behaves at a bias setting which is quite far from the intended one... certain things need to be experimented in first person to get the most proper ideas of what happens in such conditions.
anyways, the easiest/fastest way to try tapes at "unintended" settings is to use a 3 heads deck with manual tape type selector... I have a couple which are just good for this, like my Technics RS-M260 and RS-M63... this way, i don't need to add adhesive tape to cover the tape detection holes and, moreover, i can also apply the "unintended" settings the other way around... like trying a ferric tape at chrome or metal settings without needing to drill new holes on the cassette shell or to transplant the tape into a different type of shell. (these two decks also have FeCr setting, though)
Last edited:
DDD sourced material, like a lot of Al Di Meola's albums (just one example) have great spectrum and huge dynamic range. It's that kind of material that exploits a Type IV on a properly calibrated machine. I've recorded on MA-XG vs. SA-XG (own a ton of them...) and the differences are notable to my ears. But that's rub isn't it? The ears, the brain that processes the signals... blah blah blah. People complain about the noise floor and the BIAS noise on high quality metals... but I don't see it. Recording vinyl on metal? I suppose it could be exploited with newer stuff like some intense Shpongle. But when it comes to top flight Type II and Type IV, it's high quality red-book sources that have good spectrum and BIG dynamic range that make the difference in the end.
The cost vs. purpose discussion about NOS ... I avoid. My Fort Knox was stocked years ago, so current pricing isn't really relevant in my mind. People that sell NOS high end tapes close to or north of a hundy a piece... all the power to em. Whatever the customer will pay, whatever the market will bear - as the old adage goes.
I still part with my reserves for way, way less than that because the not-fanatical types deserve a taste of the hobby without all the consternation. But that just me...
Déjà Vu just set in... man how time flies!
The cost vs. purpose discussion about NOS ... I avoid. My Fort Knox was stocked years ago, so current pricing isn't really relevant in my mind. People that sell NOS high end tapes close to or north of a hundy a piece... all the power to em. Whatever the customer will pay, whatever the market will bear - as the old adage goes.
I still part with my reserves for way, way less than that because the not-fanatical types deserve a taste of the hobby without all the consternation. But that just me...
Déjà Vu just set in... man how time flies!
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 74,877
- Location
- Gillette, Wyo.
- Tagline
- Halfbiass...Electron Herder and Backass Woof