Type I vs Type II Cassettes

graywolf

graywolf

Sonically Challenged
Is there any other advantage to the Type II Chrome high bias tape other than the extended top end range?

I ask, because in my old age (doltage?), I can not hear those frecquencies anyway, anything above 15K is just so much silence to me. Would I be just as well off buying normal bias tapes for my personal use instead of the hard to find, in this small town, expensive high bias stuff.

I have been using Maxell XLII 90, the only thing I can get locally? The fact is I can pick up a lot of the normal bias stuff at thrift shops for almost nothing, but have only been using it for voice recordings.
 
Register to hide this ad
Type II also has the benefit of lower noise floor. But I agree with you, on a good machine, type I is very listenable.
 
yeah, type I is the best for everyday use, I can hear up to 21k, on some tests, and regular bias still has clean highs and great vocal range. I think the quality of your deck matters more than anything else.
 
In addition to the extended high frequency response, type II cassettes will allow you to use a slightly higher recording level. They are tougher to overload.
 
Well, this is even more important as I stopped by the store where I was getting the XLII and they are no longer carrying it. That means I would have to get it off the web, and when you add shipping it is even more expensive. I think I am going to copy a good CD to both types of tape on both my decks and compare them to my own ears.
 
rockin1150 said:
yeah, type I is the best for everyday use, I can hear up to 21k, on some tests, and regular bias still has clean highs and great vocal range. I think the quality of your deck matters more than anything else.
Click to expand...
and keeping the heads spotless.

i learned the hard way from making tapes back in the '70s/'80s and not cleaning the heads often enough. several tapes from then that i still have are lacking in hi freqs while others of the same age and make still sound good (i must have cleaned the heads for these).
 
Well, I did my test.

I loaded Maxell XLII in the Tascam and Sony HF in the Yamaha after some tests to check for comparable levels. Then I recorded Benny Carter's "New York Nights" CD to them both at the same time. I used Dolby C on both decks.

When they got to the end of the tape, I turned them over this time putting the HF in the Yamaha, and the XLII in the Tascam. For this turn I recorded Henry Mancini's "Peter Gun" CD.

Then I played both sides of both tapes back in both machines.

I did have one little problem, the Yamaha K-500 is a prima donna, she will not record in position 2, I had to move her to Tape-1 before she would deign to record. The Tascam 112R, being the workman it is, had no problem recording as Tape-2 or Tape-1. No, I have no idea why this was.

Anyway, the results are that I can hear the difference. The XLII Type II tape is both brighter and a bit louder than the HF Type I tape in both machines. The low end response seems to be about the same. Whether it makes enough difference to pay three, or more, times as much for the Type II tape is something I will have to think about. I suspect I would not notice the difference if I was not directly comparing them.

The results with both tape types is definitely high fidelity sound. The decks makers' claim 20-18K with Type I, 20-19K with Type II, and 20-20K with metal. Both decks are from the late 1980's.

So, there you have it.
 
Hi,

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember that a good Type I tape had a better low end than a Type II of comparable quality. As it has been mentioned, Type II has the advantage of higher frequency response on the upper portion of the spectrum and the possibility of recording at a higher level without distortion, which effectively improves the s/n ratio.
 
my experience with type 1 has louder bass (possibility from distortion??) and flat highs in the same cassette deck when i use type2 the bass extension sounds deeper the mids are flatter and highs seems brighter/crisper
 
The Sony HF cassettes aren't anything close to good enough according to what I've read here. The only decent Type I cassettes normaly available are the lowly Maxell UR tapes. I find them to be slightly better than the TDK D grade that is also widely available here.

The problems with Type I tape are:
Higher noise level,
higher distortion,
high frequency cut-off about 2-3kHz lower than type II,
Bad quality, dropouts and residue on heads with several low price - low quality formulas. (It is much less common for Chrome grade tapes to be bad).

The best Type I tape I've used (and almost prefered over II) was TDK AR. I once switched from TDK SA (that was getting really expensive for my small student budget) to TDK AR as I found it to perform equally well.
 
I used the Sony HF because I figured it was the worst of the type I tapes I have (I have about 3 generations of TDK D plus some Maxell UR, and some old RCA as well). The only blank type II I have (If you can call the two remaining cassettes having) is Maxell XLII (The only type II I had been able to buy locally, and now not even that).

However, I personally cannot hear any quality difference on the different brands of tape. Oh there is an audible difference but it is more of an equalization difference than a quality difference, a matter of preference in other words. The point of my testing was to see if there is a real sonic difference to my not hypersensitive ears. There is, but I am not sure the difference is worth the difference in price. I think I need to listen to the type I without comparing it to the type II.

For live recording I think I need to buy some more type II, TDK SM if I can find it, but I now pretty much feel OK with type I for dupes.
 
My favourite tape is Scotch XSM IV.
Not type I or II but IV.
In general I find IV over II, II over I and III are all worn down, unfortunately.

"dolph"
 
Maxell UD, UD2, XL2, UR, TDK D, MA, Have some old Radio Shack Metal that sounds great-----------ooops wrong thread
 
Last edited:
The best Type I tape I've used (and almost prefered over II) was TDK AR.
Click to expand...
agreed...the tdk ar90 was probably the best type 1 i've used with as much overload headroom as the better commercial grade chrome tapes..

other good sounding low noise type 1's include the older (late 80's early 90's) sony hf-s (i think it had green on the insert cardc and green letters on the cassette shell) , maxell ud90, ul90 and tdk ad90 from the late 80's...and i seem to remember agfa and scotch (bx90?) made a few decent type 1 and type 2 tapes also..
 
I went through a tape-addiction when I picked up an Onkyo Integra TA-208 (I think) tape deck. Beautitful 3-head Dolby B/C/HX Pro...best sounding deck I've ever owned for playback and recording.

I got a couple of the XLII's from the late 80's with the thing (still sealed), picked up some new XLII's (Best Buy still has 'em), was able to pick up a couple of Radio Shack Type IV's and my local grocery store has 2-packs of the Fuji brand of tapes...DR-I and DR-II.

For type I tapes...I had a varied selection of cheap-no-name cassettes I picked up at dollar stores, Fuji DR-I's and TDK D-90's.

Now, when I say addicted..I mean straight up addicted...I rediscovered the lost-art of the mix-tape and actually made about 15 of the things.

On the subject of Type II tapes...the XL II's are the "gold standard" - even without Dolby (although my deck has HX Pro). The Fuji DR-II's I was never that impressed with.

On Type I's, naturally the cheap dollar store tapes sounded like crap with the TDK D90's being about the best type I's you can find. Moderate amount of surface noise and ok response up to about 14khz. Using Dolby B or C really helped (espically C).

Those RadioShack Type IV's were rather horrible for Type IV's. I managed to find some older Maxell Type IV's at a Tower Records when it was going out of business....while I can't really tell much difference between those and the XLII's, they did sound nice for a cassette.

Type II's have more than just extended frequency range...they also have a broader dynamic range than Type I's. I stopped playing with cassettes once I discovered the joy of Reel-To-Reel.

The biggest thing when doing a tape is not only getting the Bias setting right for the tape...but sometimes if you EQ the signal going on to the tape (also known as mastering) you can get better performence out of it.
 
Over the years, I think I've tried most of what's out there - Maxell, TDK, Sony, Scotch, Memorex, BASF, Agfa, ... and nothing I've seen compares to Maxell in terms of the durability of the cassette mechanism itself. I still have Maxell's from the late 70's and it's the rare one that has ever malfunctioned (I'm talking mostly car, walkman, and boom-box use) and they still sound good enough for these purposes after 30 years. I was also quite fond of the sound quality of the UDXLII and the UDXLIIs - nothing I tried was any better. On the other end of the durability spectrum was Memorex. Some of those damn things would jam, kink or break within the first couple of plays and none made it over a couple of months - simply awful.
 
that's funny...i have a memorex dbs tape I made in...gosh...1994...and it got a lot of walkman use and carrying around..and it managed to survive, I played it a few months ago, although since then I've replaced all that music with a digital version.
 
Maybe Memorex improved over the years - hopefully, for their sake. I was referring to an early 80's CrO2 version. I don't think any of a case of 12 made it through a year intact. I remember thinking on numerous occasions over the years that Maxell had actually over-engineered their cassette mechanism, something unexpected for something so small and inexpensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom