• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Longevity of Popular Type II cassette tapes

oldvinyldude

oldvinyldude

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
I read a post recently, that stated that Type II tapes degrade over time, and have vastly different recording characteristics than when new.

I have quite a hoard of Maxell UDXLII tapes, and some TDK SA\SAX, all used.

I was not aware of any significant drop in performance in recording\playback for these 20-40 year old tapes, provided they were stored with care.

What are other's experience with re recording of older cassettes-do you notice a drop in performance?
 
Register to hide this ad
In my experience with different makes and types of cassettes, it's more likely to ruin a cassette by playing it in a dirty deck and having the pinch roller squash and eat the tape, than them deteriorating by themselves.
All my recordings from my "first tape era" made on decent cassettes hold up great since the late 70s to late 90s. And I haven't had any unexpected issues with old NOS or once recorded cassettes I purchased in lots.
 
Based mostly on TDK SA and some Maxell UD XL

Really old tapes sound bad to me (ea early to late '70's). But that might just be the technology of the time. It's the tapes from the late 80's that actually sound the best to me, with 90's tapes sounding 'okay', as of today.

Except for maltreated tapes I haven't noticed any decay at all really, except for the mechanics of often played tapes. They get loos and wobbly over time. Of course it is hard to compare sound quality in any detail based up on memory from 20 years back, when I had better ears and lesser equipement.
 
Apparently no special care is needed lol, mine have lasted decades "in my truck, on the dirty construction site, in the heat of south Florida", that's right, they were left in my truck over night every night for decades.

These were made for the sole purpose to be used in my truck, also on the job site in a boom box and in my truck.

They still sound phenomenal, thank you Maxell for making such great tapes.
 
oldvinyldude said:
I read a post recently, that stated that Type II tapes degrade over time, and have vastly different recording characteristics than when new.
Click to expand...

That is plain wrong.

However, it has emerged in recent years that chrome tapes, such as made by BASF, AGFA, PDM, ICM, ..., do decay, resulting in significantly different recording parameters and reduced recording performance. I have a full report here http://audiochrome.blogspot.com/2019/02/cassette-tape-comparative-measurements.html

The dominant type II tape, cobalt-doped ferric, is not affected. But ...

I have quite a hoard of Maxell UDXLII tapes, and some TDK SA\SAX, all used.
Click to expand...

Ferro-cobalts dating from after 1985 are increasingly sensitive to mechanical stress, resulting in rail-roading and scratching of the magnetic layer.

I believe this is a consequence of the aggressive tape polishing methods used to reduce bias noise. You will see that in the period 1985-1988 TDK SA/SA-X noise dropped spectacularly, and this was not just from using finer particles. https://audiochrome.blogspot.com/2019/04/cassette-tape-comparative-measurements.html Most other brands followed suit.
 
My experience has shown that the old Type II are holding up well, but Type I are not. I have some Type Is that are lottery rusting away.
 
SiliconTi said:
My experience has shown that the old Type II are holding up well, but Type I are not. I have some Type Is that are lottery rusting away.
Click to expand...

with type II being so cheap back in the day I never purchased any type I. But with today's prices along with my age they'll last long enough, and here's the thing, I find very little difference if any when the deck is calibrated for the tape used.
 
Wow WernerO-thanks for the links-I read through them and have learned quite a bit.

Firstly, that my old Maxell and TDK hoard is still very good to record on today, but with mechanical issues as you note.

Secondly, that tape sold as TDK-SA, changed numerous times as the line was sold from introduction, to it's last days. A similar awareness I now have, about the Maxell UDXLII tapes I own.

I am interesting in learning now about 'railroading'. I have read this term with passing interest, but now I want to learn more.
 
Some people claimed rewinding a cassette, then storing, tended to stretch the tape. Word was you stored the tape after play, without rewinding.

Like some things we "knew" in the 70's, it may have been truth, or urban legend...
 
cgutz said:
Some people claimed rewinding a cassette, then storing, tended to stretch the tape. Word was you stored the tape after play, without rewinding.
Click to expand...

I never heard this one. Honestly, back in the day, I just popped out the cassette and put in back in the box, when I was done listening-no matter where in the tape it happened to be.

Now, I try to fully rewind, after use-so I don't leave a portion of the tape exposed to the elements.
 
I think the theory was rewinding bypassed the capstan roller, and so the tape was "pulled" rather than "pushed" through, result in more tension. Not sure what validity it had. I never noticed a difference myself.

My neighbor, who had a much better stereo than my midfi, followed this principle religiously, never fast forwarding or rewinding a tape. He let the dead space run through to the end before storing.
 
cgutz said:
I think the theory was rewinding bypassed the capstan roller, and so the tape was "pulled" rather than "pushed" through, result in more tension. Not sure what validity it had. I never noticed a difference myself.

My neighbor, who had a much better stereo than my midfi, followed this principle religiously, never fast forwarding or rewinding a tape. He let the dead space run through to the end before storing.
Click to expand...

ridiculous actually, I've often had to rewind a tape to loosen them to play better. auto reverse tape decks in cars are hard on them as well as the tape tends to settle to one side never being flipped played on their sides.
 
WernerO said:
That is plain wrong.

However, it has emerged in recent years that chrome tapes, such as made by BASF, AGFA, PDM, ICM, ..., do decay, resulting in significantly different recording parameters and reduced recording performance. I have a full report here http://audiochrome.blogspot.com/2019/02/cassette-tape-comparative-measurements.html

The dominant type II tape, cobalt-doped ferric, is not affected. But ...



Ferro-cobalts dating from after 1985 are increasingly sensitive to mechanical stress, resulting in rail-roading and scratching of the magnetic layer.

I believe this is a consequence of the aggressive tape polishing methods used to reduce bias noise. You will see that in the period 1985-1988 TDK SA/SA-X noise dropped spectacularly, and this was not just from using finer particles. https://audiochrome.blogspot.com/2019/04/cassette-tape-comparative-measurements.html Most other brands followed suit.
Click to expand...

I never did like BASF tapes. They always seemed to degrade faster than any other tape I used.
 
Pure chromium dioxide tapes lose a bit over 1 decibel of output in the first year or two, and the noise also goes down by the same amount. That means that the dynamic range remains the same, but Dolby NR tracking can be compromised. Chromium dioxide tape can also suffer from output losses and print-through if exposed to temperatures in excess of 100 degrees F. because of their low Curie point. Ferric-cobalt tapes suffer from magnetostrictive effects due to the pressure of the capstan/pinch roller combination over time. This affects only the short wavelengths/high frequencies and can range from terrible--the earliest Agfa ferro-cobalt tapes when they were the first to develop cobalt enhancements--to moderate with a 1-2 dB loss. This loss also affects Dolby NR tracking, but is difficult to notice because it affects frequencies above 8 kHz. Chrome tapes are immune to magnetostrictive effects. Ferric-cobalt tapes are also prone to delta noise, which means the noise level increases a small amount over time and reduces dynamic range slightly.

Recording over an old ferric-cobalt tape that is in good mechanical condition will reproduce quality close or identical to what that tape could produce when new because magnetostriction and delta noise occur after the recording is done. Older chromium dioxide tapes appear to suffer from severely reduced sensitivity if a user attempts to record over them, although the original content differed very little from the early recordings on them. The differences in sensitivity appear to vary from formulations: whether single-coated, double-coated, or the chrome/ferric-cobalt hybrids. In short, no tape is "perfect." Type IV metal tapes that do not suffer from oxidation over time generally keep their sensitivity levels and are the most immune to print-through. Their chief problem is bias noise, but recordings on them can be so high in level that dynamic range is the same as the best of the Type IIs for low frequencies and unexcelled for high frequencies.
 
When I tossed all my cassette tapes as I had sold my Dodge 2500 Ram diesel and bought a new one it used blue tooth. So I didn't need cassettes any more. The tapes I had were any where from 45 years to a year old. I used the original Maxell UD to begin with and then as tapes improved I used type II Maxell metal tapes. I never had a Maxell tape fail in all those years. Everything else did. You name it, it failed. So I used Maxell exclusively . As we were a dealer I always had 10 to 20 cassettes from Maxell in reserve. TDK was petty close to Maxell in dependability. Ampex and Sony tapes couldn't be depended upon. Neither was BASF. The massed produced tapes used for educational and consumer duplicated music tapes were horrible. Of course haing Nakamichi tape decks helped the situation, too. But the deck in the RAM was a factory original, but after 18 years still worked perfectly with Maxell tapes.
 
Last edited:
All these tapes will outlive us, they will outlive me. This is not something I am worried about. Presently I care more about preservation of content I have in any shape and form, than in preservation of specific medium. The stuff I really care about I digitize and put on two different media types, like Blu-ray and external HDD. Ideally, I should store them in different geo locations, but I don't bother than much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom