This continues my evaluation of old cassette tapes, this time almost the entire Maxell UL/UR series, and the cheaper S-LN.
For details on the measurement method look here.
Maxell UR (1994) (what the deck was calibrated for)
Relative sensitivity: (reference)
THD @ Dolby level: 0.42%
MOL400(THD=1%): +3.4dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +5.3dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +2.9dB
SOL10k: -1.3dB
SOL15k: -7.3dB
Bias noise: -49.5dB, -52.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.8dB
Many comparisons, not just using my own measurements, make me believe that at 400Hz this UR's sensitivity matches that of the IEC I references R723DG (1979) and Y348M (1994). At 10kHz UR will produce somewhat more than R723DG, and somewhat less than Y348M. (R723DG allegedly corresponds to BASF Ferro Super LH-I, while Y384M has no commercial equivalent.)
Edit: the sample I used for calibration, seen above, apparently was well-chosen, as its sensitivity matched that of many many other tapes. But end of 2019 wear started to take its toll, with side A being quite useless for precision work (but note that side B had not drifted a yota). So I opened a brand-new UR of the same vintage. It operated at the same bias, but sensitivity was 0.8dB lower!
Maxell UL (1980)
Relative sensitivity: -1.3dB
MOL400(3%): +1.7dB
Bias noise: -47.9dB, -51.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 52.8dB
An old entry-level tape, and it shows. Due to a much lower MOL and a slightly higher noise the overall dynamic range is 5dB less than that of the 1994 cousin.
Maxell UL (1982)
Relative sensitivity: -1.1dB
MOL400(3%): +1.4dB
Bias noise: -48.2dB, -51.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 52.6dB
Not much different from 1980. Late production samples of this type were already loaded with the newer tape, see 1985.
Maxell UL (1985)
Relative sensitivity: +0.4dB
MOL400(3%): +4.8dB
Bias noise: -48.8dB, -51.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 56.7dB
A new shell, and a new level of performance. My guess is that in order to conform to IEC I Maxell had to entirely re-think the formula.
Maxell UR (1986)
Relative sensitivity: +0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.65%
MOL400(1%): +1.6dB
MOL400(3%): +4.5dB
MOL1k(3%): +3.3dB
SOL10k: -1.6dB
Bias noise: -49.5dB, -52.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.2dB
With the new, improved performance came the need for a new name.
Maxell UR (1988)
Relative sensitivity: -0.2dB
MOL400(3%): +4.5dB
Bias noise: -48.7dB, -51.9dB(A)
Dynamic range: 56.4dB
Strangely, noise went up, compared to the previous generation.
Maxell UR (1988, OEM)
Relative sensitivity: -0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.50%
MOL400(1%): +3.0dB
MOL400(3%): +6.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.3dB
SOL10k: -1.8dB
Bias noise: -47.8dB, -51.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.1dB
Made in Germany, most probably by Agfa, in which case this is equivalent to 1989 AGFA HR. A curiosity because, while run alongside 'real' Japan-made UR, its compatibility and performance parameters are quite different. This must have caused quite some confusion.
Maxell UR (1991)
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
MOL400(3%): +5.1dB
Bias noise: -49.3dB, -52.6dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.7dB
This one is nearly identical to the 1994 version.
Maxell UR (1994??, Japan)
Relative bias: -1
Relative sensitivity: -0.8dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.75%
MOL400(THD=1%): +1.0dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +3.8dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +2.7dB
SOL10k: -1.4dB
Bias noise: -49.8dB, -53.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.2dB
In the early 1990s Maxell moved the assembly of European-market cassettes to Telford in the UK, based on Japan-made tape. However, this UR iteration was made in Japan, and curiously it deviates quite a bit in compatibility and performance from the UK-sourced version.
Maxell UR (1997, Japan)
Relative sensitivity: -0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.27%
MOL400(THD=1%): +2.7dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +4.9dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +3.4dB
SOL10k: -0.6dB
Bias noise: -49.2dB, -52.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.1dB
Maxell UR (2000)
Relative sensitivity: -0.1dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.36%
MOL400(THD=1%): +3.2dB
MOL400(THD=3%): +5.3dB
MOL1k(THD=3%): +3.3dB
SOL10k: -0.7dB
Bias noise: -49.0dB, -52.2dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.5dB
Overall similar in settings and performance to 1991 and 1994.
Maxell UR (2012)
Relative sensitivity: +0.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.48%
MOL400(1%): +3.1dB
MOL400(3%): +5.6dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.9dB
SOL10k: -1.3dB
SOL15k: -8.3dB
Bias noise: -47.3dB, -50.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 55.9dB
This is the last version of Maxell UR that was widely available in Europe. It has the 'globe' wrapper and states to be made in Malaysia, distributed from Hungary. The shell lacks the 'globe' logo, has four screws, no hum shield. It appears rattlier than older 'real' UR.
Reducing the bias relative to UR 1994 resulted in very smooth and flat response curves. However, undulations in the upper octave suggest a less than ideal tape-head contact. (I once tried to align a two-head deck to this tape and had to give up.) MOL is fine, but noise is high.
Maxell UR (2012, alternative version)
Relative sensitivity: -0.7dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.30%
MOL400(1%): +2.2dB
MOL400(3%): +4.4dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.0dB
SOL10k: -1.4dB
Bias noise: -47.0dB, -50.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 54.5dB
This version of the 2012 cassette looks 100% identical to the one above. And yet, it contains a totally different tape, with different compatibility parameters and lower MOL. Contrary to the one above this cassette tracked well.
Maxell UR (2012, third version)
Relative bias: -1.5
Relative sensitivity: +0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.62%
MOL400(1%): +2.3dB
MOL400(3%): +5.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +3.0dB
SOL10k: -1.5dB
Bias noise: -48.1dB, -51.0dB(A)
Dynamic range: 56.1dB
Believe it or not, there is a third version, again looking exactly the same as the other ones. This sample was purchased in a German brick-and-mortar store in 2020. The tape-head contact was not totally secure, confirming that this shell really is not very good. The tape is paler and redder than the two above versions, like milk chocolate. You can see this below (note that tape number 1 was transplanted into the tinted shell of an older UR).
Maxell Super LN (1972)
Relative sensitivity: -1.5dB
THD @ Dolby level: 3.0%
MOL400(1%): -3.8dB
MOL400(3%): 0dB
MOL1k(3%): 0dB
SOL10k: -3.6dB
Bias noise: -48.0dB, -51.1dB(A)
Dynamic range: 51.1dB
Maxell LN (1985)
Relative sensitivity: 0dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.7%
MOL400(1%): +2.0dB
MOL400(3%): +4.3dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.9dB
SOL10k: -0.9dB
Bias noise: -49.2dB, -52.3dB(A)
Dynamic range: 56.6dB
Since the early seventies Maxell's entry level tape was the 'LN' line. This got replaced with UL and UR, but LN occasionally reappeared in some markets as a budget product placed below UR. This one here is by many websites dated in 1982. This is not realistic: this model is much better than 1980 or 1982 UL. In fact performance, compatibility, and colour tells us without any doubt that this is 1985-1986 UR tape in an old-style UL shell.
Maxell S-LN (1990)
Relative sensitivity: -0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.28%
MOL400(1%): +2.9dB
MOL400(3%): +4.9dB
MOL1k(3%): +2.9dB
SOL10k: -1.0dB
Bias noise: -49.2dB, -52.4dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.3dB
At least one version of this S-LN was made in Japan, but my sample was a different tape, made in Korea. Its performance is roughly at the level of a late-80s UR, i.e. pretty good. Note the very low distortion at Dolby level.
Maxell Original UR (1998)
Relative sensitivity: -0.6dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.48%
MOL400(1%): +1.8dB
MOL400(3%): +4.1dB
MOL1k(3%): +4.0dB
SOL10k: -1.8dB
Bias noise: -48.7dB, -51.7dB(A)
Dynamic range: 55.8dB
Finally a ferric tape with pure irony in its formula: this is all but an original Maxell, made as it is by Emtec. Its performance falls somewhat short of the real deal.
Maxell Original UR (1999)
Relative sensitivity: -0.2dB
THD @ Dolby level: 0.28%
MOL400(1%): +2.9dB
MOL400(3%): +5.0dB
MOL1k(3%): +3.4dB
SOL10k: -0.7dB
Bias noise: -49.2dB, -52.5dB(A)
Dynamic range: 57.5dB
INDEX OF ALL CASSETTES
