[krayzie]

Okay here goes: the cheap ass tape deck I just got (supposely a Yamaha from the early 80's, single recording deck with aluminum trim) only has a rec. knob but no bias knob, so is that bad? cuz I got it just to replace my even cheaper tape decks that are part of my old Sharp mini Hi-Fi... I thought it would do a better job recording metal tapes (my Sharp mini system would record metal tapes with low output, not enough bias current?)

the deck also has Dolby B/C only, and auto tape selector and all feather touch buttons... just missing the bias setting knob I guess, so is that really bad for trying to make some good metal tape recordings? any suggestions are appreciated thank you!

BTW it's only 40 bucks CDN at Cash Converters, and looks kinda excellent even b4 I cleaned it up

 

[fredpb]

Don't sweat the bias control. The tape deck should sense that and make a coarse adjustment on the bias and equalization. That should be enough. Different manufacturers used different types of tape brands and types for "standards".

Use what SOUNDS best to you.

Metal.
Maxell XL II S
Maxel XL II


It has been a while since using tape. But Metal or Maxell IIS would be my choices.

 

[krayzie]

Okay call me inexperienced but this $40 Yamaha 20yr old tape deck is the best piece of audio equipment I've ever bought... after some experiments with the rec setting I've got my Sony Super Metal Masters (only kind of tape I've tried so far today) recording off the CD Line-Out of my hi-fi to sound close if not better than my MD recordings.. no more distortions like from my old cheap mini hi-fi's tape component! I'm so amazed right now I keep wondering what a $1000+ Nak could do...

 

[PRR]

> Stupid Ques

There are no Stupid Questions.

> no bias knob, so is that bad?

No. That was typical until you got up in the $400 range (and in those days, $400 was a lot of money).

And even when there was a Bias adjustment, flattest response with any good standard brand tape was usually so close to the center of the adjustment that it was hardly worth fooling with.

(And back in reel-to-reel days, Bias adjustments that drifted off their settings were the bane of my life. Had a huge Ampex that would drop 4dB of bias if you bumped it....)

> my Sharp mini system would record metal tapes with low output, not enough bias current?

Did it have a setting for Metal tape at all? Cheap decks generally didn't. And the problem with Metal tapes was that you needed about twice as much record level (not just bias) to get the same playback level. And if the playback level wasn't what the recorder expected, your Dolby mis-tracked.

> auto tape selector

Golly, I'll have to do a gynecology exam on a cassette well to remember how that worked. {open wide, darling...} CrO2 sensed a hole next to the Record Lock tab. Metal tapes had a hole in the center of the spine. So peer up inside the well. Top Center is a big kick-out spring to hold the cassette tight. Top Right is the Record Lock finger to feel if you busted-out the Record tab. Next to that is the CrO2-hole sense finger. And over next to the kick-out spring, Metal-capable decks had an extra finger to sense the Metal-Tape hole.

If it does not have the third finger, and does not have a manual Metal setting, then don't even try to record Metal tapes on it. CrO2 will work much better than Metal recorded on the CrO2 settings.

> is that really bad for trying to make some good metal tape recordings?

How good is "good"? But Metal tape on a non-Metal deck is not going to work at ALL well. (And I never saw an "old Sharp mini Hi-Fi..." that was made to record Metal tape.)

> it's only 40 bucks

That, and your use of expensive Metal tape on a $9 Sharp mini-Fi, does say something about how "excellent" you can afford to be. (Yes, the transports in most of those mini-Fis sold wholesale for $9.)

Frankly, I've done a LOT (thousands) of live concerts on non-Metal tapes and unless I screwed-up, nobody complained. Because most of my work was Classical, I actually mostly used high-grade Normal tape. For Jazz, sometimes I resorted to CrO2 to get a few dB more headroom on cymbals. I did mess with Metal when it came out, but ya know what? In 95% of my work, the 6dB extra S/N possible with Metal didn't matter. Room noise was equal to tape noise with Normal tape, and decent (not mini-Fi) deck, and Dolby B. Dolby C, or DAT or CD-R, lets me be a lot sloppier with record level and still recover a usable recording (I've put 20 dB playback boost on CD tracks when the choir sang far softer than expected). But almost all real musical situations fit fine within Normal or CrO2 tape and Dolby B.

> supposely a Yamaha

What, did they file off the model number? You can tell a Yamaha by the logo on the engine... oh wait, this isn't a motorcycle. Seriously, Yamaha never made a deck that was bad, certainly nothing like the toy decks in mini-Fis. Be sure the heads and capstan are clean enough to lick, then clean some more. Pray that the belts are not about to die of old age. Stick in some good CrO2 tape, pay close attention to the level meters, and you will be amazed at the difference between any real hi-fi recorder and your mini-Fi.

> sound close if not better than my MD recordings..

CLOSE??? Hell, analog tape should sound better than that obnoxious sound on MiniDisks. I'm not golden-ear, but I can hear those digital MD digits grinding against each other. Fast analog tape is smooth and clean. Slow tape, as in cassettes, is a bit hissy and less crisp, but it is REAL. MD... it takes a while to notice the over-crunched digital approximation, and you can get used to it. There are worse sounds (like some mini-Fis). But you can get UN-used to MD's overcompression if you clean your ears with good analog tape.

> I keep wondering what a $1000+ Nak could do...

Better than a former-$300 Yamaha, but not drop-dead better. The Dragon will (IIRC) auto-calibrate to find that last dB of high end smoothness. It has more input and output options. The meters are more entertaining. It will have less flutter than the Yama (but either Nak or Yama will have MUCH-MUCH less flutter than an old cheep mini-Fi). Moving from a $9 transport to a $99 transport has already got you 98% of the way to the Nak's $999 transport. Many of us were very happy (and well paid) with machinery like your Yamaha.

-PRR

 

[krayzie]

Heh I don't even know why I put the word supposely in the beginning... but here's the facts: It's a very clean and mint (considering it's already 20 years old, just a dent here and there and some scratches on the top, no big deal) Yamaha K-300 Natural Sound Single Cassette Deck in brushed aluminum, retailed for 250 when new around 1982 (I finally found some info on Google). My old Sharp CDX-17 mini system wasn't cheap either when I got it in 1989, it has a really really good CD player that can read even really damaged CDs (the ones borrowed from the library are often like this) but I guess the deck weren't all nice (it's one of those "twincam" ones where the two tapes are slot one behind another in the loading tray), it does have a normal/CrO2/Metal switch tho and all feather touched buttons with music search capability, but being a mini hi-fi I never expected it to be high-end. The other wonderful thing I like is the motorized volume knob, adjust the volume via remote, and the knob turns as its red LED on it would blink as well, cool eh? hehe

So far the Yamaha is excellent (I guess ya rite, moving from a cheapo deck to something mid-end does yield a huge improvment). It does have the third finger ya talked about, and it has a 3 light indicator for auto sensing the tape type. Anyhow, when I have more money I'll try to find something better like a used TEAC or Nak. But for now, my tapes will complement my nicey Sony Walkman well!

BTW, do I have to adjust the rec level for diff. kinds of tapes that I have (like diff. brands or diff. types for that matter)? Anyhow, I hooked up my Yamaha to the AUX of the mini system which also has 2 backlit bar graph level meters (looks more pro, not like the mini systems of nowadays with all these fancy animation), and the two machines' bars do match accurately!

 

[JML]

You have to adjust the record level for everything you record. Sorry. Find the cut on the LP/CD/source with the highest levels, and record up to the +3 db indicator for Type II tapes or +5 for Type IV (metal) (those are general guidelines).

By the way, a great source for tape is http://www.tapeworld.com/

I use TKD Metal in my Nakamichi -- you'll see that not too much else is available these days, and the price differential between Type II and Type IV tape is very small.

 

[redshifter]

first i'll warn you away from the maxell xl2 tapes. they are type 1 tapes with the ferrite ground fine enough to meet the type 2 standard. they are not true type 2 formulation.

since you are already using sony metal master tapes, i'll just say stick with metal tape and if you can stand it don't use dolby.

to get the most out of your tapes i suggest getting a turntable and going full analog.

Quote:

> sound close if not better than my MD recordings.. CLOSE??? Hell, analog tape should sound better than that obnoxious sound on MiniDisks. I'm not golden-ear, but I can hear those digital MD digits grinding against each other. Fast analog tape is smooth and clean. Slow tape, as in cassettes, is a bit hissy and less crisp, but it is REAL. MD... it takes a while to notice the over-crunched digital approximation, and you can get used to it. There are worse sounds (like some mini-Fis). But you can get UN-used to MD's overcompression if you clean your ears with good analog tape.

prr,
what equipment did you compare md and tape on? what atrac version? i compared an md recording of good vinyl on a top of the line sony md deck using atrac type r to a metal tape recording of same vinyl on a good self calibrating sony deck with no dolby. what i found is the md has much less noise and overall harmonic distortion, and any digital artifacting was not audible to me--plus much of the vinyl warmth was preserved(!); however, the md version had a slight veil over the music, and seemed frequency compressed at the extremes. on tape the sound is closer to the original vinyl, and has a wider stereo image with better instrument placement, better drum and bass reproduction, and a wider frequency response; however, the tape version also had noise, a little edge in the treble, and over time experienced high frequency loss, dropouts, etc. plus md is much more portable.

just a suggestion for setting levels: i always try to never let the levels go higher than +2 for any tape, otherwise i found deep bass gets distorted. if you are using dolby b your levels should peak at the db symbol (about zero).

 

[PRR]

> do I have to adjust the rec level for diff. kinds of tapes that I have (like diff. brands or diff. types for that matter)?

My advice: pick one tape brand/model and stick with it.

But mostly, the same Type tape from different high-quality makers will give "similar" performance. There are standards. Makers sometimes "flavor" their formula a little away from "standard", hoping that people will like it better. I remember when TDK and Maxell gave 1 or 2 dB different highs for the same level and bias. I standardized on a Maxell XL tape, but used TDK when I had to, and could rarely tell the difference. Any differences are very small. Exotic brands may deviate more, so experimentation may be needed.

Different Types allow different levels. The difference between Normal and CrO2 is not large. Except if you have heavy-treble music, you have to record Normal tape well below the red zone, CrO2 will take more treble power. Metal tape needs twice as much record power for the same playback level. I forget if this is allowed-for in the metering or if you are supposed to run the meters higher for Metal. JML's remark suggests you can sock Metal 2dB higher than CrO2, which sounds right to me.

> up to the +3 db indicator for Type II tapes or +5 for Type IV... (..general guidelines).

These numbers are not real standardized. What is standardized is the little Double-D symbol found on almost every Dolby deck. This mark is near the point that gave 3% THD on 1980 Type I tape. 3% sounds like a lot of distortion, but we usually tolerate levels higher than this on analog tape and record 2 to 6dB higher. Especially on slow tape where we are always fighting noise. (But with Dolby C, you really don't have to sock the meters to stay out of the noise, and being gentle means less smearing of loud parts.) On most machines from the last 15 years, the red zone starts 2 dB above the DD mark. In my work, I don't like to see a lot of red lights, maybe less than a second in a whole concerto. Rock music can dance in and out of the red constantly with little ill effect, but going 6 or 8 dB into the red (with CrO2) is audible distortion (not always bad, depending on the sounds).

Recording from CDs: CDs have an absolute maximum level with no rise of distortion when you come close. And digital techniques make it easy for the mastering engineer to put the loudest peak very-very close to maximum. So if you check a few loud commercial CDs and find the loudest peak, and set your tape to give a reasonably high undistorted recording, you can leave the REC knob at that setting for most well-mastered CDs. Some indie CDs and many homemade CDs have erratic levels. You won't have to turn the tape REC knob down, because CDs can't have peaks higher than good commercial CDs, but you may want to crank-up an under-recorded CD.

LPs and tapes do not have well defined maximum levels. With good cassette tapes, generally a 1:1 copy, same level, will work OK. LP levels vary all over the place, +/- 6dB. It is tedious to sit through a whole LP watching for peaks, and results won't be bad if you are conservative and set the REC knob a bit lower than "optimum". With Metal and DolbyB or CrO2 and Dolby C, tape noise may be less than the noise of most vinyl.

-PRR

 

[PRR]

> the md has much less noise and overall harmonic distortion,

Very true.

> any digital artifacting was not audible to me..; however, the md version had a slight veil over the music, and seemed frequency compressed at the extremes. ...a wider stereo image with better instrument placement

The veil is UN-harmonic distortion, and detail lost in the digital compression. The highs use the most digits per second, so are compressed hardest, and lose the most. If the sound were Mono, the bitrate is half; they don't make it mono but they do compress the L/R information harder than the signal common to both sides, so stereo suffers some.

> the tape version also had noise, a little edge in the treble, and over time experienced high frequency loss, dropouts, etc. plus md is much more portable.

Yes, there is always noise. Or Dolby mis-tracking. The highs can be very hard to get right. Bias-trim will affect highs a lot. Many tapes are formulated "hot" so the sound survives the over-recording that many users subject it to. Dolby tracking can be pretty fussy. And yeah the highs wear-off too easily on this slow skinny tape. (But old DAT gets drop-outs too, and it isn't subtle like analog fade-out.)

Yet I've pulled poorly-stored tapes from the 1950s and gotten lush sound. I have a 1958 cello & orchestra work web-posted somewhere. (Even on a fast connection, the digital web-post is nowhere near as nice as the analog tape.) There are a few dropouts on the outside layers, but the rest of the tape was fine. It is mono, that's how things were those days. But I can reach out and touch the cello (in fact I want to move him back a couple feet; the reproduction is that detailed, clean and compelling). It is a nice woody cello, but he needs better rosin. (Or maybe that was the fashion in 1958.) Of course, it helps that this was direct-to-reel from an RCA ribbon mike to a good Ampex recorder, and I have the original master.

I may have been too hard on MD. It is great stuff. And as you say, better chips with better algorithms make a difference. But I wanted krayzie to know that his analog tape should have audible advantages over compressed digital.

-PRR

 

[Beagle]

This is an excellent thread. PRR has given a wonderful crash course on analog cassette recording which, to my ears too, sounds more natural and musical than MD, although the cassette is much more of a hassle to get consistency with and is very fragile and vulnerable to change and deterioration in frequency balance.

With a good cassette recording, you basically get back what was on the source i.e. the cassette copy of a CD should sound the same as the CD in terms of tone, balance and audible frequency response. With MD it sounds like everything was taken apart and put back together again with slightly smaller "parts".

When I factor in that blank MD's and a good blank C90 cassette cost about the same now here in Canada, and also the editing/moving/reuseable forever benefits of the MD, it's hard to go back to the cassette. Yet the extra work and flaws are more than offset by the natural listenable musical sound of tape. It seems I can accept an occasional dropout over a constant lossy compression distortion woven into MD sound. Having a Sony D6C Walkman Pro doesn't hurt either.

I guess I like 'em both

 

[krayzie]

Wow thanks for all the input guys, I've learned much just from this thread... I guess I would try recording with Dolby B off tonite to see the difference, I guess I can tolerate tape hiss if the soundstage would seem wider (just an inference)...

In terms of the meter, the DoubleD sign is marked at +3db (0VD at 0, so what does 0VD mean?) and I try to set the rec. level so that the absolute peak would get just at that DoubleD level (this is set at 3 on the rec. knob with scale of 1 to 10). I've tried setting it higher than 3 on the knob, but low end distortion would be very obvious by about 4, and between 3 and 4 don't sound all that clear to me... But the level meter scale aren't that accurate (on the scale after +3db the next marking is +8db), I rather have analog meters but at the store I couldn't find one like that in condition as good, or one that old which can support metal tapes (many had cracked cassette windows or really flimpsy/loose rec level adjustments).

I've also borrowed a book from the library called Home Audio (it's thick like a school textbook), inside it says something about how a single deck should give better recording quality than a double deck around the same price range. So is that true? Cuz I was gonna find a double deck thinking it would be more convenient... There was a Sony ES dual deck for 70 bucks but the recording function broke which render it useless. I also saw a TEAC CD Player and Single Deck integrated component for 200 bucks but I don't have money for that (poor looking cosmetically tho, I'm only an unemployed student so 200 bucks is a lot of money!)

By the way the Yamaha deck only has 2 heads, two motors and one pinch roller... I know I ask annoying questions but would my deck be somewhat like an entry level machine back in the early 80's or there were stuff much worst? I know Nak and TEAC already have wicked stuff then like digital readouts and stuff like that (hell mine don't even have auto reverse or intro scan), but there is this MUTE button on mine which I have no clue what it does!!! and one last question hehe everytime I push rec pause and then start recording by pushing play, I can hear a click sound of the head assembly loading on my tape recordings, how can I eliminate that? thx so much you guys!

BTW, I find tapes nice too as I'm like the only guy out of all my friends who stuck with tape as the main medium, I hardly use my MD recorder other than for MP3s.

 

[fredpb]

Just a comment on Maxell XLIIS.

This is great tape. It is the best I have used in my cassette units. I don't record cassette anymore, so it's been a while.
The XLIIS was definetly not type I tape. Sound's like a saleman or
usenet guru might have been misleading.

But things changed. The tape might have.

 

[redshifter]

fredpb,
i said the xl2 tapes are actually type one. these are different from the xl2s tape you refer to. i agree, the xl2s are great tapes. the maxell mxs is even better.

unfortunately maxell has discontinued the xl2s and mxs tape in favor of the inferior xl2 tapes.

 

[fredpb]

Maxell has apparently gone downhill big time. Their minidiscs are not so hot either.

 

[krayzie]

And may I add their CD-Rs aren't that good nowadays ever since they've moved manufacturing from Japan to Taiwan... In the old days when 4X burners was still pretty expensive, Maxells were the top choice among the people I know, but now their discs are prone to bad burns (personal experience).

In my city I could only find one place that still sells Japan made Maxell MX-S, while England made XLII-S are everywhere pretty much!

I like Fuji ZII, I think they're the best I've ever used for a TypeII tape.