Сравнительный анализ потребительских качеств аудиокассет, Для тех, кто их использует по назначению

А такие думаешь хуже будут?

Есть вот такая одна, как бы лишняя, я не решил ещё, верхняя на снимке. Топовый нормал от знатного производителя

За Агфу душу продам    

Бесплатно и за углом отоварить могут дубинкой. Не дай Бог, конечно))).

Test Report: Maxell XLII 1988 Version

Maxell cassette tapes, especially the older versions are generally held in high regard. And the current and recent ones in much lower regard. Interest generally seems to revolve around the 1980-1985 lines, and the post 1992 examples being generally regarded with disdain.

The "lost" era of cassettes seems to be the late 80's to the start of the 1990's. This is generally considered the high water mark of the format. Yet relatively speaking, very little attention gets paid to the tapes of that time period, even though it can be argued that many of the tapes from those years were adequate if not spectacular when compared to their bretheren from just a few years prior. And that's why I chose the tape that I did for todays test and review. One tape that gets frequent mention is the XLII line. The geneology of this tape goes back as far as the mid 1970's beginning with the first UD-XLII. The descendent of this tape is one of the few that remains in production today. Many have bemoaned the admittedly medicore quality of todays offering when compared with the mid 80's versions, which is where interest generally seems to taper off. But did the quality of the XLII fall off a cliff post 1985 leading to today or did the quality hold awhile longer?

That is the question I sought to answer today. So sit back and read what ol' Des has to say on the subject.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAPE INFORMATION:
Brand: Maxell
Model: XLII (Type II/High Bias-CrO² equivalent)
Length: C-90

The XLII series tapes was Maxell's bread-and-butter tape for many years. Indeed, there was a time when this tape was among the most ubiquitous of all cassettes, being available in every store-music, audio, food, and drug near and far. The version featured in this review was in production from 1988 to 1990. There were versions both prior to and since.

TAPE DESCRIPTION

The 1988 Maxell series featured block-style abstract designs, shifting away from the striped and elaborate designs of years prior. Use of color was still evident, but not to the degree that existed before. The XLII in this lineup features a two-color packaging with alternating blocks of dark beige and black and the model designator being written in an attractive serif font. The descriptors used were brief but right to the point. The cassette itself is well visible through the packaging.



The cassette itself features the termed "high resonance proof mechanism with a large oval design, which provides excellent and totally unobstructed views of both the tape pack as well the hubs. The hubs are black in color and feature an added ring of white, with the leader clamps also being in white. This provides the best possible contrast and easy gauging of tape in motion. The outer portion of the shell is a heavy duty textured plastic.



As with all Maxell cassettes, the XLII featured the standard [stated] head cleaning leader, which is an opaque white along with directional arrows and indicators for which side (A or B) was ready to play. The actual recording tape is a very dark brown that is solid. No light could be seen to shine through the tape. The surface appeared to be mirror smooth and evenly textured with no visible graininess, clouding, or other imperfections.



The included J-Card is simple but adequate. You get 19 track lines. The opposite side features standard warranty and descriptive information, along with a blank 'checkerboard' pattern area to write a title. The title cards come four to a package, with two marked for dies "A and B". They are gold stripe in color and are tapered around the edges to conform to the contours of the large sight window. Room to write is ample, but because of the rounded edges, you actually lose a few characters' worth of space. This can be a minor nuisance if you wish to write your notes/title symmetrically.



TESTING METHODOLOGY

When performing any type of sound based tests, it is important to take two things into account: OBjective and SUBjective. The former includes using straight, neutral test tones at various levels and noting how the test subject responds. In the case of the latter, it is using actual recorded source [musical] material that encompasses a variety of styles and intensities in an effort to mimic how the tapes might be used in the real world. It should also be noted that the differences in mono tone (test signal) versus music (multiple tones and frequencies overlayed with each other) can produce significantly different results even when all other parameters are identical.

So for the OBJECTIVE testing, I brought out the Stereophile Test CD. I used the following tones in my experiments:

Pink Noise
1Khz Warble tone
100 htz tone
50 htz tone



For all four tests, I made two test recordings, noting where 1) they would sound as neutral as possible at a given bias setting at 0dB gain input, and 2) at what threshold would the tape saturate into total harmonic distortion. During the initial recording phase, I would adjust the bias while using the decks live, off-the-tape monitoring function until I arrived at what I thought was the most neutral and natural sound. And during the second phase, I would continue to increase the gain input (again using the monitoring function) until the tape would fail as a result of signal overload.


For the SUBJECTIVE phase of the test, I used three musical recordings that I feel represent a good cross section of most of what I like to listen to that also happen to encompass a broad cross section of intensity and depth.

The choices were my standard test songs:

1. "Renaissance Man" By The Ocean Blue, chosen because of it's emphasis on strong electric guitars, percussion, and bass lines.

2. "Fable" by Robert Miles, chosen for its heavy electronic beat, etheral sounding backing synthesizers, upper range keyboard chords, and high pitched female vocals.

3. "Learning To Fly", by Tom Petty, chosen for the clarity of its multiple accoustic guitar overdubs and strong midrange vocals.

To hear a brief snippet of each of the test songs, please view/listen to the video I made of them here.

At the start of the test, I fast wound the tape to note its transport characteristics. For the most part, it was smooth and solid. But a small amount of rattling towards the end was noted. And the tape did not pack smoothly in fast wind mode either. So in that respect, I would rate this tape as average.

TESTING DECK

This test was performed on a Denon DN-790R three-head cassette deck using Dolby C type noise reduction.



FINDINGS FOR TEST TONES

PINK NOISE The sweet spot was at a sustained +3 to +5dB on the meters with the bias set to about the -1.5% position. At these settings, the tape tracked perfectly with the original source. Indeed, the pink noise appeared to have more base noise hiss than did the recorded version. While this is not necessarily a plus because it means a deviation from the true original source, for pink noise, it DID sound BETTER on the tape. Base noise [hiss] was present as expected. But was very low and buried beneath just about any input audible to the ears.

1 Khtz Warble Tone Although I was not able to *EXACTLY* replicate this tone, it sounded CLOSEST to natural with the bias in the 0/neutral position with the gain turned to +5dB. Interestingly there were actually two settings where this tone sounded great. If I reduced the bias to -3%, the tone recorded with even better clarity than above but at the expense of added hiss and base noise. Conversely, I was able to substantially reduce base noise at the expense of a slightly duller sound with the bias turned UP the same amount to +3%. No distortion was audible until the gain crossed about the +6dB threshold.


100 htz tone This was the most difficult of the tones to try and capture. I was not able to capture a lifelike reproduction of the source at any bias/gain combination. However, again the BEST (or least bad) setting was with bias set at 0/neutral and the gain set at around -5dB. Interestingly, there was a very noticeable rolloff of this frequency with the gain set at 0. However, in the +3-+5 range, it again would sound very close to the source. At +5, and above, the fidelity plummeted in a sea of distortion and rolled off sound.

50 htz tone Best sound, very close to original was with bias set to around -½ pct and the gain at about -3dB. However, it held steady and remained faithful up to about +3 before distortion and tonal failure was evident.





FINDINGS FOR MUSIC CHOICES

The test tones above presented some challenges. But the second leg of the test was quick and easy, as it was almost a no-brainer:

Song #1: Flawless and all but indistinguishable from the source with bias at neutral and a sustained gain with peaks up to +3. But if sustained was turned to +3, it would still hold true but the peaks on the low end instrumentation (such as a drum hit) would distort on the leading edge of the note. Same thing with the high intensity guitar riffs. Sounds great, just don't turn up the gain too much.

Song #2: Utterly unable to distinguish between source and playback with bias at neutral/0 and the gain set to sustained +3. Indeed it was so well matched that I had initially thought I had forgotten to engage the deck and that I was bouncing between "source" and "source" as opposed to between "source" and "tape".

Song #3: Results identical to song #2 but with bias turned down ½ pct and gain set to +4dB.



CONCLUSIONS

In a word, fantastic. Although this may not be the BEST tape as measured in available headroom, flair and appearance, or least amount of base noise, it IS by far both the most lifelike and easy to use of all the tapes I've tested thusfar. As noted above, virtually no tweaks in any of the settings were required to achieve a clear lifelike recording.

I have long stated that this is one of the all time better of tapes. Todays findings just confirmed that. To find a tape that offers both true to original recordings *AND* requires minimal setup would probably be difficult if not impossible. So why this tape isn't much more sought after, I don't know. But by all measures, this is an outstanding tape. For an admitted mid-level tape, it's second to none.

It should be noted (as always) that my findings were based on one machine and the hearing of a 36 year old male. It can't be stressed enough that your results may vary somewhat based on how your deck is biased/set up as well as your own hearing.

But nevertheless, I feel that I achieved the primary objective of this test: 1)to see how much signal it can take and 2) how close does it record to the original. That is a test that anyone should be able to replicate regardless of deck or other external factors.

In the case of the former, it's average. If you like to record hard and hot, well then this may not be the tape for you. But if you want a clean and natural sounding tape, this one will be tough to better.

VERY highly recommended.

Thanks for reading.