• 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

Metal Type IV versus Chrome Type II Cassette Tape

Drifting

Drifting

Well-Known Member
I have many Type IV tapes lying around (mainly Sony XR but some TDK MA), and many more Type II tapes (mainly TDK SA). I was wondering, with the high price of type IV tapes, whether it is better to switch to much much cheaper chrome and make a profit by selling the Type IV tapes. Can anyone really tell the difference between Type II and Type IV? How good does your system have to be before you can actually hear a difference, e.g. with rock music?

Also, I have head that metal tapes may wear out the tape heads more quickly than other tapes. Is this rumour true?
 
Register to hide this ad
The quality of the deck is more important than the quality of the tape (within reason). Having said that it's better to keep what you know than to swap for used tapes of unknown history in my opinion.
As for head wear, 'real' Chrome tapes as made by AGFA, BASF and maybe others in the 70's were more abrasive on heads. I suspect stories of excessive head wear by metals are simply confusing the two formulations.
 
For some reason I thought that whole 'metal wearing out the head' story was purely urban legend....but could be wrong.

From my perspective - never heard the difference between metal and SA. And, all of my SAs from over 30 years ago are still running strong - especially the TDK-SA 90s. I swear by them. (Though I'm working on transferring all to digital wavs before they destruct.)

Have just as old metals and they're good too....just don't notice the difference in goodness.
 
The audible differences between TDKs tpye II and type IVs are significant on good decks, but almost irrelevant on cheaper decks. Their SF & SA are OK, the SA-X is way better across the board and the MA is the base tape in type IV. The MAX and MAXG use an identical tape but different housings over the years, with the alloy three piece case and ceramic/composite case version MAXG being the best.
If you are looking for the best TDK tape that was reasonably prices- look no further than some NOS TDK ARX-90s if you can find them. The ARX was a type I but possessed an overload hardly bettered by metal tapes and it outperforms most of the type IIs. They were never cheap, costing more than a SA but slightly under an SAX. Head wear is not an issue with anything TDK produced from the early 80s onwards. Any older tapes should be thrown out- the leader splices breakdown, the oxide sheds and the hub clamps fail- and they look crap too.
The benefit of the SA was that is became the defacto tape for setting up bias on most Japanese decks, so if your deck is a non adjustable external bias deck, you can be at least using a reaonably accurate tape for type II.
 
I'd agree with John about the best value tapes - TDK's ARX was their best entry level and could hit +6 or so on the record meter.

The SA was alright, but hit more than +4db on the record meter and it didn't like it. And even thought it was a quietish tape, you still really needed to engage Dolby B.

My favourite was the TDK MA (not the MA-X, that was a bit too bright to be honest). The MA wasn't too pricey, but wasn't cheap either, but in a good quality Nak, I could hit between +8 to +10db, and avoid Dolby B altogether (and also Dolby C). Truth be told, none of the Dolby NR impressed me, although I never played with Dolby S.

Dave
 
koltrast said:
......As for head wear, 'real' Chrome tapes as made by AGFA, BASF and maybe others in the 70's were more abrasive on heads. I suspect stories of excessive head wear by metals are simply confusing the two formulations.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the stories of "real chrome tapes" being more abrasive is yet another story that came out during the "chrome war" between Maxell and BASF during the early 70ties - those two giants didn't spare any means to make the other party's tape look inferiour ..

Here in Denmark the "chrome market" was just about 50/50 between Maxell and BASF/AGFA - you had no means of determine if a head was worn due to use of a certain brand of tape - it was quite common that people forgot a tape in the deck, when it was sent to be serviced, and we saw many Maxell's
- and we saw BASF/AGFA

Actually i think there was a survey that concluded that the cobalt doped tapes (maxell/TDK) did run a bit smoother across the heads, and the bit of abbrasiveness (? spelling) in BASF/AGFA's actually was so inferiour that you had to run a tape more than 1000 cycles, before you could se just a tiny difference in head wear. One must have in mind that BASF is (was) a giant player on the market , and would have sued the cr*p outta anyone trying to harm their marketshare with heresay :)

personally i've allways used BASF Chrome - on decks with Ferrite heads :D
 
Head wear really was an issue in the days of soft permalloy heads and chrome tapes were more abrasive, this is/was accepted fact. Harder heads like ferrite or sendust etc came in the 70's maybe making the difference marginal, but it was there.
 
koltrast said:
Head wear really was an issue in the days of soft permalloy heads and chrome tapes were more abrasive, this is/was accepted fact. Harder heads like ferrite or sendust etc came in the 70's maybe making the difference marginal, but it was there.
Click to expand...

I don't question that "chrome type tapes" is a bit more abrasive that the basic type I tape - only that you can't say for certain, that some brands are more abrasive than others - that was one of the items in the mentioned "chrome war" - Someone even stated that their "chrome" equivalet was better than "real chrome"

we - as techs (*1) - couldn't determine if it was true or not, and please believe me, we where as curious as anyone else.

On r2r tapes - it's said, that EE tapes are more abrasive than normal tapes, and brands like TEAC got more wear resistant heads in the x1000 and up

*1 we didn't have the time or the means .....
 
koltrast said:
The quality of the deck is more important than the quality of the tape (within reason).
Click to expand...
I agree. The quality of the deck is the most important factor by far. Better by far to buy cheap tapes for a good deck than expensive tapes for a mediocre deck. Metal tapes on mediocre decks are just a gimmick. I don't think metal tapes can be justified on any but the most expensive decks. That's probably why they stopped making them, I guess.
 
I can hear a difference between type II and type IV tapes I record with dbx on my TEAC R-888X, but I wouldn't spend $15 or more for a type IV tape to get the better sound quality. I would consider my deck fairly high end, but I would be happy just using chrome tapes and dbx, cause the difference isn't worth the increased price. IMO, of course.
 
besides the ability to record at a higher level on metal tapes - it's hard for me to hear much difference between Chrome tapes and metal tapes, here it's not so much a matter of wanting to pay extra for metal tapes, it's more a question of finding them at all ...

Best way i use to get metal tapes is to buy a deck and the tapes that goes along, luck do occasionally strike - last deck was a Denon DMR44hx, and nearly 100 Denon metal tapes .... got the package for less than "a Franklin"
 
Other posters are correct. Better to use a cheap tape on a TOTL deck then a top tape in a cheap deck. Top decks can make cheap tapes sound better then they deserve to. I noticed this in my old 909ES Sony deck using Dolby S and TDK D tape. That said you must have a heck of a deck to be able to use the best tapes and actually hear what makes that tape so good. Sort of like what better cables can do.
 
I do not have a high end deck. Mine is a JVC TD-W309. I notice a slight difference between freshly recorded Type II and Type IV. Over the long term, I would say that Type IV tapes seem to survive better over time (i.e. archiving). There's nothing wrong Type II tapes. I love 'em too. But, if I had one chance to record something and that chance let me fine tune all my settings, I would choose Type IV. Most of my metal tapes are Sony SR series. Some are TDK MA.

I have had hit and miss luck with Type I tapes and I usually tried to avoid them unless the tape was for my car, Walkman, or recording off the radio.

-- Boris
 
I agree also, Type IV will resist accidental erasure far better. They are very difficult to bulk erase on purpose! Metal is quieter. If your deck has a metal setting wear is a non-issue. On a quality deck, the difference between Type IV and Type II on the bench is staggering. Whether this translates to a listenable difference is totally subjective.
 
Hi, I know this thread is a bit old but still relevent today. I have a number of cassette decks, nothing high end compared to what you guys have.

I have a number of run of the mill Sony cassette decks, and also have a few Nakamichi's. A BX-2, CR-1A, and a LX-3. I suppose the best one of the bunch would be the LX-3? I hope to find a BX-300 someday, as I wouldn't be able to afford a Dragon or RX505 higher end stuff.

I have a number of new Sony Metal SR tapes and wondering if they are overkill for what I have? Maybe sell those and buy Maxell or TDK high bias instead?
 
I'm not sure about the relevance of the thread since most of the information about headwear related here is incorrect. There is also a statement about metal tapes being quieter when, in fact, they were the noisiest of the premium tapes because of difficulties in orienting them in the coatings.

On properly adjusted machines, one should hear little difference between a good Type II tape and a good Type IV metal tape unless the musical content being recorded has enormous amounts of high frequency energy. Metal tapes have the best SOL values and can capture that energy with little or no distortion and compression. They also suffer least from print-through effects, so over time there will be no pre- or post-echo unless it is from the source. Metal and true chrome tapes do not suffer from magnetostrictive effects that reduce high frequency output after multiple plays, so that is another consideration. Recordings on metal tape can and MUST be at high levels to overcome the disadvantage of the higher noise levels, and inexpensive recorders tend to add distortion to the recordings because of both the higher signal levels and the higher bias current required for metal tape. Better cassette recorders have no problem in this regard.
 
Way back when I was using cassettes and my hearing was better, it seemed that TDK-SA tapes were close enough to perfect so as not to matter. The trick was having the deck in perfect shape and biased correctly for the tape. I was using an HK CD-91. Looking at the tapes I recorded, I see TDK-SA, Maxell XL-II, Sony UX-PRO and UCX-S. The only metal tape I ever bought was a single Maxel Metaxial MX 90, and I remember the discussions about head wear quite clearly. The HK deck shows near zero wear, but replacement belts have never been as good as the originals.
 
Last edited:
Metal is only of benefit on high end decks where the heads and record amplifiers can sustain the higher recording levels without distortion. The primary benefit of metal is the higher HF MOL (maximum output level) which is significantly higher than for type II and considerably higher than Type I.

In practice, on a high end deck you could push metal tape harder without HF distortion and therefore got improved SN ratio and less HF squash.

On a lesser deck the advantage is largely lost, since the record amplifiers would often distort at the higher levels, and the head would saturate with both the additional signal drive and bias current. On these decks a good type I or II was usually best. Many early 80s 'Metal compatible' decks gave poor results with metal - some such as the budget Pioneer models produced results inferior to a good type I.

Type II was an interesting category.
The pure chromes from Phillips, BASF and 3M produced 2-3dB less hiss than other type IIs - the so called pseudo-chromes, but their LF MOL was also slightly reduced. A great choice for competent decks with good transports but less than stellar heads...

Type I tapes often had better LF MOL than type II, a factor often overlooked.
Some such as the latter versions of AD and then AD-X could gives type IIs a good run.

On a decent mid range deck something like SA or XLII, or SA-X if you spent a little more could make recordings close to those made on a top flight deck with metal, but with slightly reduced dynamic range.
 
Last edited:
Good response to an old thread. Just to clarify what I mean by quieter is pretty simple. Put the unused blank tape in the deck and play and measure the noise at -60dB. On 3rd generation TypeIVs I've yet to find any that are noisier than a similar grade brand TypeII. The first 2 gens, 1978 through about 1981 were noisier. After that, not really. Couple that with the clearly higher by a few dB recording level and higher coercivity and signal retention, then they are the clear winner. The better the deck, the bigger the difference. Again, as in my original post, this is easily measured but does NOT mean you will prefer the sound over TypeII enough to justify the price. Tapes were always a moving target and the decks varied hugely in capability and features. More important by far is that the deck be calibrated or be user calibratable to a specific tape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom