28.01.2023, 19:08
Thank you for your reply!
I didn't really realize that fact about non-porosity and higher particle density.
The TDK particle picture is familiar to me, but I always felt that companies in the 90's focused too much on particle subtlety, the detail and clarity of the sound improved, the treble response improved, but the overall performance and dynamics were worse than in the old models of audio cassettes. TDK as well as almost all brands probably had a quality peak for me in 1988 or so.
If I recorded two TDK SF audiotapes, one 1988 and the other 1990, the treble response improved with the newer one, but the performance was worse and I had more problems with azimuth and tape fluctuation.
I also read somewhere here on the forum or Tapeheads that the magnetic pigment was purchased from big companies, why then is there so much talk about custom formulations and in-house manufacturing and technology?
Both Maxell and TDK had changes in tape color in the transition to the 90s gradually.
Both Maxell and TDK had brown Type II tapes before, but then Maxell switched to black, dark brown, TDK to dark brown, it's suspicious.
There has also been talk of crystals breaking when ground too finely (especially the early TDK SA-X? ).
I wonder if TDK continued to develop the tape and shrink the particles, since that picture is until 1990.
But our dilemma regarding the TDK AR model was probably not about non porous, but about whether it contained cobalt or not, similar to the Sony HF-S models where cobalt was first mentioned in 1990, similarly it could have been the case with the HF-ES or AHF, but this information is almost untraceable.
Maxell has been bragging about its Epitaxial since 1978 in the UDXL models.
Many other companies have been able to list the composition directly on the packaging without complicated fancy words.
But us, we're just collectors bred on marketing information and experience using audiotapes, no first hand data, except Wilhelm from Basf, so I guess no one can tell any real experience regarding production, or am I wrong?
I didn't really realize that fact about non-porosity and higher particle density.
The TDK particle picture is familiar to me, but I always felt that companies in the 90's focused too much on particle subtlety, the detail and clarity of the sound improved, the treble response improved, but the overall performance and dynamics were worse than in the old models of audio cassettes. TDK as well as almost all brands probably had a quality peak for me in 1988 or so.
If I recorded two TDK SF audiotapes, one 1988 and the other 1990, the treble response improved with the newer one, but the performance was worse and I had more problems with azimuth and tape fluctuation.
I also read somewhere here on the forum or Tapeheads that the magnetic pigment was purchased from big companies, why then is there so much talk about custom formulations and in-house manufacturing and technology?
Both Maxell and TDK had changes in tape color in the transition to the 90s gradually.
Both Maxell and TDK had brown Type II tapes before, but then Maxell switched to black, dark brown, TDK to dark brown, it's suspicious.
There has also been talk of crystals breaking when ground too finely (especially the early TDK SA-X? ).
I wonder if TDK continued to develop the tape and shrink the particles, since that picture is until 1990.
But our dilemma regarding the TDK AR model was probably not about non porous, but about whether it contained cobalt or not, similar to the Sony HF-S models where cobalt was first mentioned in 1990, similarly it could have been the case with the HF-ES or AHF, but this information is almost untraceable.
Maxell has been bragging about its Epitaxial since 1978 in the UDXL models.
Many other companies have been able to list the composition directly on the packaging without complicated fancy words.
But us, we're just collectors bred on marketing information and experience using audiotapes, no first hand data, except Wilhelm from Basf, so I guess no one can tell any real experience regarding production, or am I wrong?