Cassette tape measurements: Sony Metal XR, ES, Hitachi ME, Maxell MX, Scotch Metafine, BASF TPIV, Fuji FR Metal, TDK MA, CDing Metal, That's MR, MR-X Pro, PDM 1100 Metal, Agfa Metal

The original version of this article, still accessible at the bottom of this page, used a Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1. In these old tests, the tapes' Maximum Output Level (400Hz) and Saturated Output Level (10kHz) were referred to the input signal, after compensation for the tapes' sensitivities. In later instalments I changed over to the more correct method of referring all tape parameters to the output levels. I also started using a Nakamichi BX-300, if only because the CD1 was sited permanently in the music system. Due to differences in bias and record equalisation approaches, however, this BX-300 showed a larger MOL for type I tapes than the CD1, which I liked, and a lower MOL for type IV metals, which is bad.

During 2018 I obtained a CR-3 and a CR-4. Both late production, i.e. with the increased playback time constants to compensate for the slightly inferior heads (compared to classic Naks). Both these decks showed low MOL on type II and type IV. Apparently Nakamichi had decided to under-bias their machines, in order to achieve the widest-possible frequency responses at all recording levels (for example, the CR-3 went out to 27kHz at -20dB!). I can only assume that this move was inspired by the arrival of DAT and the wide-spread use of Dolby C. Sadly, this move went at the cost of dynamic range, in case no noise reduction was used.

I refurbished and sold the CR-3, then I refurbished the CR-4, for my own use. As I don't use NR (I am expecting compatibility problems in the future, when less and less correctly-working decks will be around), I wanted to regain that missing dynamic range. So I modified the CR-4's recording equaliser to boost the treble by 1.5dB above 3kHz or so, forcing a concomitant raise in bias current to flatten out the response again. This turned the CR-4 more or less into an equivalent of my Cassette Deck 1, when it comes to output levels and frequency responses. I will now use this CR-4 for testing metal tapes, and the BX-300 for testing type I and II tapes.

One tape that I have and that is conspicuously missing is the grand TDK MA-XG (1990). I obtained a new, sealed sample end of 2020 and ran some preliminary tests in the CR-4. The first tens of cms on each side were curiously pitted. The tape was very prone to instant railroading and scratching. Then I noted a minor amount of the dreaded white dust syndrome on the B-side tape pack. In other words: not safe for use. What I did glean is this: bias had to be increased and level reduced a lot, for a metal tape. The resultant frequency response had a weird 2dB dip around 4kHz. MOL was staggering, at least +10dB, while bias noise was a low -58dB(A). That gives a dynamic range of over 68dB, the highest I have ever seen (to that date). So sad then that the mechanical and chemical properties of this tape are totally letting it down!

For a detailed overview of the test methods look here, substituting CR-4 for BX-300.


INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES

Sony Metal XR (1995) (alignment reference)

Relative bias: (reference)
Relative sensitivity: (reference)
THD @ Dolby level: 0.69%
MOL400(THD=1%) : +2.4dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +7.4dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +7.7dB
SOL10k: +0.5dB
Bias noise: -53.4dB, -57.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.8dB

Metal XR was launched as one of the first budget metals in 1990. Price-wise it could compete with the higher-end type IIs. I had quite a few of the original XRs  (not that my CR-2 really could exploit them: its MOL limits at +2dB). I still have some unused ones of the 1995 variety, so this is what I align my decks to today. The dynamic range is close to 65dB, which is good, but really not better than what the best type IIs (SA-X, XLII-S, TPII) manage, and it requires a deck that can drive the tape to high levels. Treble extension, of course, is superior to the type IIs.

Sony Metal XR (1989)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: 0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.73%
MOL400(1%) : +1.9dB
MOL400(3%): +7.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +7.4dB
SOL10k: +0.4dB
Bias noise: -52.8dB, -56.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.0dB

The original XR hardly differs from the 1995 version. Overall dynamic range is 1dB less.

Sony Metal XR (1992)

Relative bias: +1
Relative sensitivity: -0.4dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.75%
MOL400(1%) : +1.7dB
MOL400(3%): +7.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +7.3dB
SOL10k: 0dB
Bias noise: -53.1dB, -57.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.4dB

The second-generation XR showed slightly reduced noise, but was not fully compatible with the versions that came before and after. However, according to a contemporary HiFi Choice test it is very close to IEC type IV standard MJ507A.

Sony Metal ES (1986)

Relative bias: +2
Relative sensitivity: +1.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.29%
MOL400(1%) : +6.2dB
MOL400(3%): +10.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +9.2dB
SOL10k: -0.2dB
Bias noise: -53.7dB, -58.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 68.4dB

I got this cassette from a Tapeheads member, in summer 2021. He said that, while worn, it would be 'interesting'. And it is: a record performance in terms of distortion, MOLs, and dynamic range. Sadly the frequency response is dished, much like the TDK MA-XG, almost begging for a recorder with adjustable equalisation. Imagine this tape, combined with a Nakamichi 1000ZXL ...

Hitachi ME (1979)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: +0.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.50%
MOL400(1%) : +3.4dB
MOL400(3%): +8.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.2dB
SOL10k: +0.5dB
Bias noise: -50.3dB, -53.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.4dB

Hitachi ME (1981)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.72%
MOL400(1%) : +1.8dB
MOL400(3%): +6.7dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.1dB
SOL10k: +0.4dB
Bias noise: -50.7dB, -53.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.4dB

Curiously it does not match its older sibling, or 1980 MX, in distortion, and thus in dynamic range. The 1982 Fono Forum test also found ME to be inferior to MX, while a lot more expensive!

Maxell MX (1979)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.65%
MOL400(1%) : +2.2dB
MOL400(3%): +6.9dB
MOL1k(3%): +7.7dB
SOL10k: 0dB
Bias noise: -50.4dB, -53.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.5dB

Maxell MX (1980)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: +0.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.47%
MOL400(1%) : +4.1dB
MOL400(3%): +8.6dB
MOL1k(3%): +9.3dB
SOL10k: +1.1dB
Bias noise: -49.3dB, -52.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.1dB

Maxell's second generation of metal tape. Output levels are very high, but noise is high too. In fact, noise is at the level of a late good budget ferric, like UR, and that's then with 4dB of help from metal's 70 microsecond playback equalisation!

Maxell MX (1982)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: 0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.65%
MOL400(1%) : +2.4dB
MOL400(3%): +7.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.3dB
SOL10k: +0.9dB
Bias noise: -51.3dB, -54.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.2dB

Noise improved, but maximum output levels dropped.

Maxell MX (1985)

Relative bias:0
Relative sensitivity: +0.4dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.50%
MOL400(1%) : +3.6dB
MOL400(3%): +8.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +9.2dB
SOL10k: +1.1dB
Bias noise: -50.5dB, -54.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.5dB

Maxell MX (1986)

Relative bias: +1
Relative sensitivity: -0.8dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.81%
MOL400(1%) : +1.0dB
MOL400(3%): +6.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.8dB
SOL10k: 0.3dB
Bias noise: -52.5dB, -56.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.5dB

A significant reduction in noise is accompanied with a just as significant reduction in MOL. But of course this made the tape more useful in decks that could not record very high levels.

Maxell MX (1990)

Relative bias: +1
Relative sensitivity: -0.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.68%
MOL400(1%) : +1.4dB
MOL400(3%): +6.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.9dB
SOL10k: -0.1dB
Bias noise: -53.1dB, -57.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 63.5dB

The story goes that at this time the 'MX' type designation was renamed 'MX-S', and a new, budget metal tape was introduced under the 'MX' name. This particular tape was a passer-by, coming with a deck I had to align for someone. Sadly it was worn, with the right channel tracking badly most of the time. Looking at the left channel, however, shows that it inherited the settings of the 1986 MX, while offering slightly better MOL and noise. This MX certainly was not a step back, and is overall comparable to Sony XR in quality.

Maxell MX-S (1992)

Relative bias: +4
Relative sensitivity: -1.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.81%
MOL400(1%) : +1.2dB
MOL400(3%): +6.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +7.2dB
SOL10k: -0.4dB
Bias noise: -52.1dB, -56.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.4dB

This somewhat worn sample actually had a December 1991 date code. Bias had to be increased to flatten a huge treble peak, while sensitivity remained low. Disappointingly, its performance does not even reach that of 1990's MX. Allowing for wide lot variation (also disappointingly) the tape may be the same as 1990, or maybe even 1986?

Scotch Metafine (1979)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: 0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.95%
MOL400(1%) : +0.5dB
MOL400(3%): +5.5dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.6dB
SOL10k: -1.1dB
Bias noise: -53.1dB, -56.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.3dB

Early 1979 Philips launched the first metal tape, after a couple of years of heated anticipation, only to withdraw it right away when critical voices opined that it did not quite deliver on its promises. Months after that Scotch came with Metafine and thus got to be the first really available metal.
I purchased mine late in 1985, it must have been a long time on the shop's shelf. I used it for mastering the one music production I've ever made myself (hired hands - I am not a musician - TEAC 144 Portastudio with XLII, Technics RS-M250 for mixdown, Korg Polysix, Yamaha DX-7, ARP Odyssey, Roland Space Echo). Compared to the somewhat more recent Maxell MX it requires a much lower bias, returns lower maximum output levels, but also boasts an impressively lower noise! This ties in with a Hi-Fi Choice review of 1981, which by the way criticised Metafine for consistently having poor stability and drop-outs.

BASF Metal Maxima TPIV (1995)

Relative bias: +1
Relative sensitivity: +0.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.44%
MOL400(1%) : +4.5dB
MOL400(3%): +9.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +9.5dB
SOL10k: +0.8dB
Bias noise: -53.0dB, -56.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 65.9dB

This one is a bit puzzling. I found it in a batch of used tapes, without its proper inlay (the inlay in the picture is a DIY copy of the 1995 version). The shell has an imprint very similar to the first TPII of 1993, but the cassette's spine code gives 1995. This is in line with internet sources putting the first TPIV in that year, but with 'Fantastic Sound for CD' written all over it. Let's assume that it simply is a very early sample. The tape itself is, allegedly, Maxell MX or MX-S. Staggering MOL, decent-enough noise, and then that fantastic shell. I wish I had more of these!

Fuji FR Metal (1982)

Relative bias: +1
Relative sensitivity: -0.15dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.53%
MOL400(1%) : +3.6dB
MOL400(3%): +8.2dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.7dB
SOL10k: +0.1dB
Bias noise: -51.3dB, -55.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 63.2dB

This Fuji was apparently in good shape, with not a trace of mechanical wear of damage. And yet it was almost impossible to obtain stable frequency traces, plagued by varying degrees of treble loss and channel imbalance. It made me re-check the CR-4E from the ground up (it was perfectly fine). After a lot of effort I obtained the above result on a short stretch of tape right at the beginning. Sad, because this must have been a very fine metal tape in its day!

TDK MA (1989)

Relative bias: +2.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.8dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.73%
MOL400(1%) : +1.6dB
MOL400(3%): +7.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.9dB
SOL10k: +0.4dB
Bias noise: -52.9dB, -56.8dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.2dB

TDK CDing Metal (1994)

Relative bias: +2
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.60%
MOL400(1%) : +2.9dB
MOL400(3%): +7.6dB
MOL1k(3%): +9.0dB
SOL10k: +0.4dB
Bias noise: -52.8dB, -56.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.3dB

PDM 1100 Metal (1981)

Relative bias: -0.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.67%
MOL400(1%) : +2.5dB
MOL400(3%): +7.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +7.8dB
SOL10k: +1.0dB
Bias noise: -50.2dB, -53.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.6dB

Agfa Metal (1979)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: +0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.8%
MOL400(1%) : +1.3dB
MOL400(3%): +5.8dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.8dB
SOL10k: -0.1dB
Bias noise: -51.3dB, -54.8dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.6dB

Not in the best shape. After the measurements run the tape guide and erase head were clogged with a white residue, presumably binder. It took a lot of cotton swabs, IPA, and even acetone (on the head) to get things clean again.

That's MR (1983)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: +0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.45%
MOL400(1%) : +3.7dB
MOL400(3%): +8.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.8dB
SOL10k: +0.6dB
Bias noise: -52.1dB, -55.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 63.5dB

That's MR-X Pro (1986)

Relative bias: -0.5
Relative sensitivity: +0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.51%
MOL400(1%) : +3.4dB
MOL400(3%): +7.8dB
MOL1k(3%): +8.3dB
SOL10k: +0.1dB
Bias noise: -52.0dB, -55.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 63.1dB

Various websites put this variant in 1985 or in 1987. Yet, it features in magazine reviews from the period 1986-1989. The tape itself is probably the same as the older MR. 

(Much later than the above test I ran a tape from the same group through the CR-4, in order to check the latter after the strange results I got from Maxell MX-S. That different tape required a slightly higher bias, and achieved a MOL400 around +9dB. Sample variation?)






INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES

Cassette tape measurements: Agfa, Denon, Mark II, PDM, Permaton, Philips, RAKS, Realistic, Scotch, SKC, That's

In this series of cassette characterisations now a seemingly-random group of type IIs, including a few 'metal' type IIs (ferro-cobalt tapes with added pure metal particles).

For a detailed overview of the test methods used look here.

INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES

Maxell XLII 90 (1994)  (my calibration reference)

Relative bias: (reference)
Relative sensitivity: (reference)
THD @ Dolby level: 0.62%
MOL400(THD=1%) : +1.8dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +5.3dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +5.5dB
SOL10k: -3.4dB
Bias noise: -54.8dB, -59.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.5dB

I repeat here the results for the tape my Nak BX-300 is calibrated for in type II position, the 1994 XLII. All following results take this as reference.

Agfa CrII-S Superchrom HDX (1982)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: -2.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.3%
MOL400(1%) : -7.5dB
MOL400(3%):  -0.4dB
MOL1k(3%): -2.8dB
SOL10k: -7.4dB
Bias noise: -55.8dB, -60.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.2dB

This is, uniquely, a ferro-chrome for the type II position. Here too the chrome layer has aged, losing its sensitivity (you can learn more on CrO2-aging here). Reducing bias flattens the curves, but the ferric layer cannot save the day and consequently MOL is very low. So is noise ... Like about all Agfas I tried from that era the shell is very chattery during winding.

Agfa C-DXII (1986)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: -3.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 5.6%
MOL400(1%) : -9.4dB
MOL400(3%):  -2.9dB
MOL1k(3%): -3.6dB
SOL10k: -7.7dB
Bias noise: -55.4dB, -60.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.2dB

Agfa C-DXIIS (1986)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: -2.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.7%
MOL400(1%) : -7.1dB
MOL400(3%):  -0.8dB
MOL1k(3%): -3.0dB
SOL10k: -7.3dB
Bias noise: -54.8dB, -59.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 58.9dB

Agfa SR (1989)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.4dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.4%
MOL400(1%) : -1.3dB
MOL400(3%):  +3.2dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.9dB
SOL10k: -5.2dB
Bias noise: -53.8dB, -57.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.9dB

And again something weird and wonderful from Agfa. This tape is greyish-black, yet it lacks the smell typical of chromium dioxide product. MOL, sensitivity, and noise are too high for degraded chrome, yet too low for a good ferro-cobalt tape. It is likely a magnetite-based ferro-cobalt, possibly the first type II with that chemistry. And that might make it the precursor of the 1991 Maxell XLII-S, if you know that there was cooperation between both manufacturers at that time!

Denon HD-L Zippy II (1988, JDM)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: +0.4dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.90%
MOL400(1%) : +0.6dB
MOL400(3%): +4.9dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.5dB
SOL10k: -3.9dB
Bias noise: -52.9dB, -56.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.4dB

My only ferro-cobalt type II Denon. Being Japanese market it is hard to ascertain which European variant it corresponds to. Probably HD6 in a trendy shell.

Denon HD8 (1988)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: +2.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.65%
MOL400(1%) : +2.1dB
MOL400(3%): +6.7dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.7dB
SOL10k: +0.6dB
Bias noise: -50.3dB, -53.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.1dB

This is the second metal particle type II I ever encountered (the first was a promo freebie That's EM-X that I could not appreciate back then). I purchased it from a hifi dealer who was kind enough to dub the soundtrack of a concert VHS onto it (we did not have a HiFi VHS at home). The video machine tracked horribly, and the recording was pretty bad. That as an aside.

Metal-enriched type II tapes as a breed should excel in SOL, giving a wider frequency response at -10 dB and 0 dB. They also tend to have a high sensitivity. Noise is high, of the same order of a decent ferric, but remember that this is with 70us equalisation, and that makes it a pretty bad performance in absolute terms. On the Cassette Deck 1 this tape required a very low bias and produced a mediocre MOL. Not so on the BX-300. Strange. Despite being hardly used this tape has worn badly.

Denon HD8 (1992)

Relative bias: -1
Relative sensitivity: +1.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.97%
MOL400(1%) : +0.2dB
MOL400(3%): +5.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.4dB
SOL10k: -0.9dB
Bias noise: -51.4dB, -54.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.6dB

Compared to the previous edition MOL has taken a hit, while noise is somewhat better.

Mark II Super Chrome (1982)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: -4.0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 7.9%
MOL400(1%) : -9.5dB
MOL400(3%):  -4.6dB
MOL1k(3%): -4.5dB
SOL10k: -5.6dB
Bias noise: -51.2dB, -55.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 51.3dB

This is an early type II from a short-lived German budget brand. I was expecting BASF or Agfa chrome tape, but no ... The tape is black, but there is no crayon smell and its surface is somewhat rough. The evenly-spaced (remarkably bumpy) frequency response curves and the high bias noise suggest that this is not (degraded) chromium dioxide. On the other hand MOL and distortion are so bad that ferro-cobalt also seems unlikely. Whatever the formula really is, I would call this the worst type II cassette ever. Were it not, of course, that in 2021 NAC achieved the same sort of performance with its home-brew ferro-cobalt 799 MkIII!

Memorex CRS+ (1992)

Relative bias: +1.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.78%
MOL400(1%) : +1.0dB
MOL400(3%):  +4.9dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.1dB
SOL10k: -2.4dB
Bias noise: -50.6dB, -54.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.6dB 

Made by Saehan. Very high noise.

PDM 500 Crolyn HG (1983)

Relative bias: -3.5
Relative sensitivity: -2.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.1%
MOL400(1%) : -7.0dB
MOL400(3%):  -0.3dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.4dB
SOL10k: -6.2dB
Bias noise: -55.9dB, -60.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.4dB

Another aged chromium dioxide tape. Made in Switzerland (ICM?). This was a premium type, apparently single layer. (There was also a cheaper 500 Crolyn, with a mediocre score in Audio September 1983.) The frequency curves are quite reasonable. The dynamic range parameters are now entirely in line with 1982-1987 chromes from BASF and Philips.

PDM CD (1990)

Relative bias: -1
Relative sensitivity: +0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.75%
MOL400(1%) : +1.3dB
MOL400(3%):  +5.2dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.2dB
SOL10k: -3.2dB
Bias noise: -53.1dB, -57.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.2dB

A neutral tape, with parameters in-between 1988 SA and 1994 XLII.

Quite confusingly in 1990 PDM offered three 'CD' models, with nearly-identical looks. One, like my sample here, said 'chrome position' and contained ferro-cobalt tape. It has the same shell as Fuji DR-I and was likely SKC QX. A second version with different hubs was made by General Magnetics, who also manufactured for That's. (To add to the confusion, the above sample measures nearly the same as That's OW-2, as you can see further down this page.)  Finally, the third 'CD' had the legend 'chrome' and contained chromium dioxide tape (the same as Philips UCX). This 'CD' is discussed in the next section.

PDM CD (1990)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: -3.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.6%
MOL400(1%) : -8.5dB
MOL400(3%): -0.8dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.8dB
SOL10k: -7.1dB
Bias noise: -56.3dB, -61.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.5dB

Made by ICM with Agfa or BASF tape.

Permaton Chrom Super II (1984?)

Relative bias: -3.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.0%
MOL400(1%) : -4.1dB
MOL400(3%): 0dB
MOL1k(3%): -0.5dB
SOL10k: -3.7dB
Bias noise: -52.1dB, -55.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 55.6dB

This one smells like CrO2, but noise is very high, while MOLs are uncharacteristic.

Philips Chromium (1978)

Relative bias: -5
Relative sensitivity: -1.9dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.5%
MOL400(1%) : -7.4dB
MOL400(3%): -1.0dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.8dB
SOL10k: -8.1dB
Bias noise: -55.6dB, -59.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 58.6dB

Philips UC-II (1984)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: -2.9dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.7%
MOL400(1%) : -8.3dB
MOL400(3%): -1.1dB
MOL1k(3%): -2.2dB
SOL10k: -7.1dB
Bias noise: -56.1dB, -61.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.1dB

Philips UCX (1987)

Relative bias: -2
Relative sensitivity: -3.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.0%
MOL400(1%) : -7.3dB
MOL400(3%):  0.0dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.3dB
SOL10k: -7.8dB
Bias noise: -56.1dB, -61.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.2dB

Philips MCX (1987)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: -2.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.3%
MOL400(1%) : -7.6dB
MOL400(3%):  -0.6dB
MOL1k(3%): -2.4dB
SOL10k: -7.1dB
Bias noise: -56.6dB, -61.8dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.2dB

The premium version of the UCX. Curiously it came with the flimsiest of j-cards I have ever seen, making it look and feel like the budget cousin to UCX! Performance is typical of age-degraded chrome. Bias noise is the lowest I have ever measured, though, together with BASF Chrome Super II.

Philips CD Extra (1990)

Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.8dB
THD @ Dolby level: 2.3%
MOL400(1%) : -3.6dB
MOL400(3%):  +1.1dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.0dB
SOL10k: -2.6dB
Bias noise: -52.3dB, -56.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.2dB

Around this time Philips sourced cassette parts from whoever wanted to sell. Hard to tell where this budget model originated. Perhaps GreenCorp? The tape is greyish-black. The leader looks like a poorly-made copy of Maxell. I also have a version of the same cassette with solid grey hubs. Both tapes appear to be the same, although one seems to be a bit less smooth. At any rate, the smoother of the two sticks and is actually useless.

This cassette has the dubious honour of being the worst modern specialist-brand ferro-cobalt type II in my collection. MOL is incredibly low, as low as degraded chrome. Noise is high, almost as high as type II metal. Frequency response is uneven. The only redeeming features are a high SOL and a widely extended response at -10dB and 0dB. Such a performance may have been acceptable in 1980, but not in 1990!

RAKS HD-X II (1988)

Relative bias: -4
Relative sensitivity: +0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 2.3%
MOL400(1%) : -3.4dB
MOL400(3%): +1.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +1.1dB
SOL10k: -4.2dB
Bias noise: -52.8dB, -56.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.5dB

RAKS SD-X (1990)

Relative bias: -2
Relative sensitivity: +0.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.0%
MOL400(1%) : 0dB
MOL400(3%): +4.5dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.7dB
SOL10k: -3.2dB
Bias noise: -53.5dB, -57.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.8dB

RAKS SD-S (1993)

Relative bias: -2
Relative sensitivity: 0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.4%
MOL400(1%) : -1.7dB
MOL400(3%): +3.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.8dB
SOL10k: -3.6dB
Bias noise: -53.6dB, -57.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.5dB

A budget product, hailing from the early years of cassette's decline.MOL is poor, but noise is decent. As far as I know the same cassette resurfaced post-2000 under the name 'Maxell SQ'.

Realistic Supertape Chrome Plus (1983)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: -3.8dB
THD @ Dolby level: 6.6%
MOL400(1%) : -10.2dB
MOL400(3%): -3.6dB
MOL1k(3%): -4.2dB
SOL10k: -8.1dB
Bias noise: -55.4dB, -59.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 56.3dB

Made by ICM.

Realistic Supertape HB Plus (1992)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.80%
MOL400(1%) : +1.0dB
MOL400(3%): +5.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.3dB
SOL10k: -2.6dB
Bias noise: -52.4dB, -56.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.2dB

Made by SKC.

Scotch Chrome (1974)

Relative bias: -5
Relative sensitivity: -2.0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.0%
MOL400(1%) : -6.3dB
MOL400(3%): +0.0dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.3dB
SOL10k: -8.0dB
Bias noise: -54.7dB, -58.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 58.5dB

Scotch Chrome (1976)

Relative bias: -5
Relative sensitivity: -1.9dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.4%
MOL400(1%) : -7.3dB
MOL400(3%): -0.6dB
MOL1k(3%): -1.4dB
SOL10k: -7.8B
Bias noise: -54.2dB, -57.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.1dB

Scotch Master II (1977)

Relative bias: -3
Relative sensitivity: +1.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.87%
MOL400(1%) : +0.8dB
MOL400(3%): +5.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.5dB
SOL10k: -3.4dB
Bias noise: -51.7dB, -55.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 60.6dB

Sources position this tape in 1977, but some version of Master II always seemed available in some market until 1981. Overall performance is excellent for 1981, and outright stunning for 1977, beating SA and UD-XLII. Bias noise is low, next to contemporary ferro-cobalts. Remember that Scotch's type IV tape of the same series, Metafine, also had lower noise than its direct competitors.

Scotch Master III (1978)

Relative bias: 0
Relative sensitivity: +0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.0%
MOL400(1%) : 0dB
MOL400(3%): +4.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +1.5dB
SOL10k: -8.0dB
Bias noise: -52.8dB, -57.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.5dB

Strictly speaking this one does not belong here, but as it is my only type III ferro-chrome it has to live somewhere, not?

A bit of history ... Around 1976 it became clear that in real-world conditions CrO2 was not quite as performant as anticipated, the main reason being that many affordable decks had to underbias the tape in order to avoid magnetic saturation of the head. Further, compared to premium Fe2O3 tapes CrO2 was less sensitive and offered a lower bass and midrange MOL. The (expensive) solution comprised a two-layer tape: a thick inner layer with iron oxide and a thin outer layer with chromium dioxide. The former was to store low frequencies, the latter high frequencies. As where the medium frequencies had to go ... well ...

Ferrichrome was to be operated at a slightly higher bias than ordinary ferric. This would guarantee a high MOL, while the underbiased chrome layer would take care of SOL and treble sensitivity. Opting for 70us playback equalisation then ensured low noise, potentially leading to the highest dynamic range of all tape types at that time. Ideally the recorder would be equipped with a dedicated FeCr position, not just for the elevated bias, but more importantly for straightening out the crossover region in the midrange. In practice FeCr had its own class of problems, not just cost, and the arrival of metal tape in 1979 meant its demise.

Back to my (Italian-made) Master III ... What to do with such a sample today, without a deck equipped with the necessities for FeCr? I started with the most logical combination: type I bias and 70us. The expectation was that the ferro layer would still be healthy, while the chrome layer would have lost sensitivity, demanding a lower bias than normal for obtaining a flat frequency response. And this is indeed how it was borne out (after first having had to rescue the tape which was entirely locked up due to a variant of sticky shed syndrome). The ferric layer proved happy enough with centerline bias and responded with fine MOL and sensivity, while the chrome layer still provided a decent treble response, albeit with saturation very quickly rising with level (due to the hard treble drive of the recording equaliser). As for the midrange and lower treble ...

In a bid to flatten out the low treble I reduced bias massively. This did the trick, but now high treble peaked astronomically, while MOL400(3%) dropped to a paltry 0dB:

And then medium bias again, now with 120us equalisation: similar to the original curves, but with less treble saturation.

Scotch XSII (1982)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: +1.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.2%
MOL400(1%) : -0.5dB
MOL400(3%): +3.7dB
MOL1k(3%): +3.2dB
SOL10k: -4.2dB
Bias noise: -51.2dB, -54.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 58.1dB

Scotch only in name, this is a 1981 Denon DX7 in disguise. Its compatibility parameters are clearly modelled on contemporary TDK SA, but its performance does not even reach the level of 1979 SA!

Scotch XSII (1988)

Relative bias: +0.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.9dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.8%
MOL400(1%) : -2.6dB
MOL400(3%): +2.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.4dB
SOL10k: -3.0dB
Bias noise: -52.9dB, -56.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.2dB

Made by SKC. Low MOL, with compression starting well below Dolby flux.

SKC QX (1988)

Relative bias: +0.5
Relative sensitivity: -0.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 1.0%
MOL400(1%) : 0dB
MOL400(3%): +4.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.5dB
SOL10k: -3.8dB
Bias noise: -52.8dB, -56.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.0dB

TEAC HDX (1984)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: +2.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.95%
MOL400(1%) : +0.2dB
MOL400(3%): +5.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.7dB
SOL10k: -0.1dB
Bias noise: -50.0dB, -53.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 58.3dB

This is clearly an early Taiyo Yuden metal tape for type II. Also see That's here below.

That's EX (1987)

Relative bias: -2.5
Relative sensitivity: +2.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.85%
MOL400(1%) : +0.8dB
MOL400(3%): +5.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.7dB
SOL10k: 0.0dB
Bias noise: -51.0dB, -54.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.6dB

Taiyo Yuden (That's, Triad) specialised in metal and metal-for-type-II tapes. Their first of the latter type was 1983's EM-X, followed with the cheaper EX in 1987. According to Audio 10/1988 EX was very similar to EM-X, but with 1dB less dynamic range.

Bias and sensitivity make it incompatible. Noise is high, MOL is fine, SOL excellent, the frequency response is dished, like a two-layer tape, and the fine SOL can only be exploited with bright-sounding music.

That's CD/MH (1990)

Relative bias: -2
Relative sensitivity: +2.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.80%
MOL400(1%) : +0.8dB
MOL400(3%): +5.7dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.4dB
SOL10k: -0.3dB
Bias noise: -51.0dB, -54.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.7dB

Once upon a time That's launched a super metal named SUONO. It's Giugiaro-designed heavyweight shell was later used in That's entire product line, albeit with a much lighter plastic: these cassettes bring in 16 grammes less than the real thing. The heavy shell later was adopted again in the BASF 353 series (read my warning here).

That's history, now back to CD/MH: it measures very close to EX, and probably contains the same tape.

That's OW-2 (1990, JDM)

Relative bias: -1
Relative sensitivity: +0.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.63%
MOL400(1%) : +1.8dB
MOL400(3%): +5.5dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.5dB
SOL10k: -3.7dB
Bias noise: -53.2dB, -57.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.7dB

This Japanese model is my only That's ferro-cobalt tape. It is probably the same as European AS-II.

Video Dragor Chrome (1987)

Relative bias: -2
Relative sensitivity: -2.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 2.4%
MOL400(1%) : -5.3dB
MOL400(3%): +1.1dB
MOL1k(3%): -0.8dB
SOL10k: -6.1dB
Bias noise: -55.4dB, -60.8dB(A)
Dynamic range: 61.9dB

A Bulgarian cassette, made with BASF tape.



INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES