This is the second part of my cassette characterisation effort, now for the various generations of Maxell XLII-S, using a Nakamichi BX-300 recorder.
For the full introduction and a description of the method please go here.
Click on the graphs for a larger version.
Maxell XLII (1994)(my calibration 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 XLII-S results take this as reference.
Maxell XLII-S (1980)
Relative sensitivity: +1.0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.82%
MOL400(1%) : +1.0dB
MOL400(3%): +5.2dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.1dB
SOL10k: -2.4dB
Bias noise: -50.7dB, -54.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.2dB
The very first XLII-S, and the prettiest. MOL is better than UDXLII, but noise is higher. Still, in overall dynamic range XLII-S wins. SOL is remarkably good.
Maxell XLII-S (1982)
Relative sensitivity: +2.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.70%
MOL400(1%) : +1.4dB
MOL400(3%): +5.2dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.7dB
SOL10k: -4.5dB
Bias noise: -53.2dB, -57.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.2dB
A massive improvement in noise, at the cost of SOL, and a totally different alignment. Note the low bias. When I tried this tape in my Cassette Deck 1 I could not even get a flat response with the front-panel Fine Bias knob. Luckily the BX-300 has more adjustment range.
I never really liked these, but that was probably because the dual gold/transparent foil tended to delaminate on mine, turning these cassettes into an expensive, ugly, sticky mess. Strangely my XLI-S tapes never did this.
Maxell XLII-S (1986)
Relative sensitivity: +1.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.95%
MOL400(1%) : +0.4dB
MOL400(3%): +5.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +3.4dB
SOL10k: -4.5dB
Bias noise: -54.1dB, -58.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 63.4dB
I vividly remember buying a five-pack of these, together with Peter Gabriel's So LP, summer of 1986. I had my TEAC V-455X aligned to them, at great cost. The dealer doing this job screwed this up, so I ended up trying it myself.
(I probably botched that myself, too, but with that TEAC deck being a piece of junk this did not really matter anyway. By the time I got my first Nak, a CR-2 in 1990 or so, I was capable of doing decent alignments within the confines of the limited tools available to me. I once even got a congratulatory telephone call from the Nak distributor.)
This XLII-S was the winner of a group test of German magazine Audio's June 1987 issue. The reviewer commented on the low noise nicely compensating the also low MOL, and on the superb performance of the shell. My own measurements match these in the magazine!
In this test Audio swept bias 2 dB to both sides of the IEC type II reference point defined by tape S4592A. The optimal operating point for XLII-S was found to be a bias only very slightly above the reference, i.e. essentially IEC II-compatible, while sensitivity was 1dB too high. This amounted to a better compatibility than BASF's own Chromdioxid Super II and Maxima II of that era.
Maxell XLII-S (1988)
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.92%
MOL400(1%) : +0.3dB
MOL400(3%): +4.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.2dB
SOL10k: -3.5dB
Bias noise: -53.9dB, -58.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 62.2dB
I never purchased these. I only recently got a few samples, most of them heavily used and worn. This is the best of the lot. Less strange compatibility parameters than 1986, at the cost of MOL and noise. Lower MOL, SOL, and noise than XLII, but the same dynamic range.
Maxell XLII-S (1991)
Relative sensitivity: +0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.39%
MOL400(1%) : +3.2dB
MOL400(3%): +6.5dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.4dB
SOL10k: -2.7dB
Bias noise: -54.1dB, -58.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 64.8dB
This is where Maxell dropped the 'Fine Epitaxial' marketing name in favour of 'Black Magnetite'. A much better formula and almost a match for 1990 TDK SA-X, if you forgive it the bulged lower treble response. Performance is virtually identical to 1993 BASF TPII. Indeed, BASF based their early TPII on Maxell pigment.
Maxell XLII-S (1994)
Relative sensitivity: +0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.25%
MOL400(1%) : +4.5dB
MOL400(3%): > +7.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.5dB
SOL10k: -3.0dB
Bias noise: -54.3dB, -58.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 65.3dB
This was my standard tape when I got my Nakamichi CR-2. Very low distortion at Dolby level.
Maxell XLII-S (1995)
Relative bias: +2
Relative sensitivity: +0.3dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.34%
MOL400(1%) : +3.5dB
MOL400(3%): +7.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.1dB
SOL10k: -3.2dB
Bias noise: -53.9dB, -58.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 65.0dB
The usual catalogueing websites tag this tape as 1998, but Hi-Fi Choice November 1995's tape special already features it.
The final chapter. I purchased lots of these, they were dirt cheap. Cassette was clearly in its decline. I virtually stopped taping at this time, so my stocks are still sealed. My older measurements with Cassette Deck 1 made it appear as if this tape was significantly lesser than the previous generation, but on the BX-300, and with my improved measurement routines, they are virtually identical.
Maxell XLII-S (1998, USA)
Relative bias: +3
Relative sensitivity: +0 dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.23%
MOL400(1%) : +4.1dB
MOL400(3%): +6.9dB
MOL1k(3%): +6.5dB
SOL10k: -2.9dB
Bias noise: -54.5dB, -58.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 65.5dB
The American version of the above tape, part of the 'man in the chair' series. It is usually put in 1998, but it may well have existed earlier. Essentially the same tape as before, with excellent performance.
This cassette (not mine!) was damaged in a spectacular accident involving a Nakamichi CR-3 and frying fat. Part got cut out, which is why the tape pack in the picture looks too small for a C-100.
Hitachi SX (1981)
Relative sensitivity: +0.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.85%
MOL400(1%) : +0.7dB
MOL400(3%): +5.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +5.0dB
SOL10k: -2.9dB
Bias noise: -51.1dB, -54.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 59.3dB
I recently found ten of these, unsealed, but as a noise measurement testified, also unused. Nicely even tape packs, perfectly flat tape, as if they were made yesterday. These are of course Maxells, sold under the name of their parent company. The box of the UD, the shell of the UDXLII, and the tape of the 1980 XLII-S. You can compare my measurements, or just look at the graphs on the j-cards. One thing is puzzling ... the typical Epitaxial smell is totally absent.
INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES
