cassette tape format ?

I

iamjethro

Member
My 488 recommends type II tapes. I am not going to put normal bias tapes in it to keep cheaper tapes and faces from touching the heads, but will type IV metal tapes harm it? Are their any advantages to metal tapes that my machine will be able to notice?

thanks,
Jeff
 
DO NOT use any metal tapes for they will indeed harm your recorder by putting undue wear on the heads. Use any name brand type II tape, 60 or 90 min are best.
 
Metal tapes use an oxide that will scratch the heads on your Tascam. You can only use metal tapes in machines that ask for it.

DO NOT USE METAL TAPES IN YOUR TASCAM!!!!
 
Farview said:
Metal tapes use an oxide that will scratch the heads on your Tascam. You can only use metal tapes in machines that ask for it.

DO NOT USE METAL TAPES IN YOUR TASCAM!!!!
Click to expand...

Indeed!....I recall my beautiful Tascam 246 of 20 years ago loved metal tapes, and I was pleased with the reduced noise/increased response I seemed to get from them..(though I never used the DBX function).
Problem was, as plainly stated above, that one day, about 18 months later, all that 'tape frequency goodness' seemed to dissapear!
Upon inspection found a 'track', the same width of cassette tape had worn into the head. I did use the 'high speed' function on all my recording, and this probably exasperated the wearing (?)...

anyways...stick with CrO2 or whatever they call it nowadays...just not metal.
Regards,
Spit.
 
thanks,

I found an alco store locally that has Maxell type II's in 5 packs for 10 bucks. 90 minutes. I would prefer 60's but I will take what I can find.
 
No 60's anywhere close. I will use these for now, then order some 60's online, I guess. I do not reuse any tapes. Once a song is finished, that tape is retired. Hopefully, I will not use any one tape too long and cause a problem.
 
iamjethro said:
No 60's anywhere close. I will use these for now, then order some 60's online, I guess. I do not reuse any tapes. Once a song is finished, that tape is retired. Hopefully, I will not use any one tape too long and cause a problem.
Click to expand...

that will help. but you can probably have the store that sells the 90's order some 60's for you. especially if you're going to buy a bunch at a time
 
Your Tascam is not designed to record on metal tapes because of erasure, bias and eq incompatibility, however I've never heard of anything saying Metal tapes are more abrasive than either Normal or Chrome tapes.

AFAIK normal tapes are not more abrasive than Chrome. While the machine will happily erase normal tapes, the bias and eq settings are incorrect and you will get a less than ideal recording. But I doubt there would be any extra wear issues.

Daniel and Farview, I wasnt aware Metal tapes are more abrasive. I just looked up Wikipedia. Not necessarily the last word, I know, but still it says that Metal tapes are LESS abrasive. Are you sure Metal is more abrasive?

Cheers Tim.
 
Tim Gillett said:
Your Tascam is not designed to record on metal tapes because of erasure, bias and eq incompatibility, however I've never heard of anything saying Metal tapes are more abrasive than either Normal or Chrome tapes.

AFAIK normal tapes are not more abrasive than Chrome. While the machine will happily erase normal tapes, the bias and eq settings are incorrect and you will get a less than ideal recording. But I doubt there would be any extra wear issues.

Daniel and Farview, I wasnt aware Metal tapes are more abrasive. I just looked up Wikipedia. Not necessarily the last word, I know, but still it says that Metal tapes are LESS abrasive. Are you sure Metal is more abrasive?

Cheers Tim.
Click to expand...

mmmm....interesting...I have a little bit of understanding on the 'bias IE' issues of cassette tape formulation...and the particular equipment it can/shouldn't be used in.
Though I do recall the increase in various qualities using metals as opposed to (the old) 'TDK-AD' (for example) type in my T246..(as I wrote above).
.....I'm sure it must have been the metal tapes that caused my issues.....or maybe it was the of 'high-speed' setting.....(surely not??)...mmmmm.

Sorry...i feel like I'm hijacking this thread!!.....and.....begin!:D
 
While tape in general is abrasive, type IV is more so than any other. Recorders which can take a metal tape have different heads, more resistant to the wear.
 
Daniel, I asked "are you sure?". Just repeating what you have already said adds no more information. I was seeking references other that just your say so. Do you have any?

Cheers Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
Just repeating what you have already said adds no more information.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how do you feel about misinformation, claiming metal (type IV) tapes cause no more wear [or abrasion] than other types and providing Wikipedia as your reference? 'Cmon, you're not serious, are you?:rolleyes:

Type I, II and IV tapes are composed of different magnetic particles, from ferric oxide to chromium dioxide to metal particulate, with the latter having more abrasive qualities. As would the tapes differ, so would the recording heads, on many machines, with the better ones able to handle the abrasive properties of pure metal particulate tape. This is common knowledge, especially if you've been around tape recording for a while.;)
 
Last edited:
cjacek said:
Ok, but how do you feel about misinformation, claiming metal (type IV) tapes cause no more wear [or abrasion] than other types and providing Wikipedia as your reference? 'Cmon, you're not serious, are you?:rolleyes:

Type I, II and IV tapes are composed of different magnetic particles, from ferric oxide to chromium dioxide to metal particulate, with the latter having more abrasive qualities. As would the tapes differ, so would the recording heads, on many machines, with the better ones able to handle the abrasive properties of pure metal particulate tape. This is common knowledge, especially if you've been around tape recording for a while.;)
Click to expand...

That does sound resonable.......
I can recall when Akai released their 'GX' series' tape decks which had 'Glass Heads' on some of their hi-end consumer gear....this was about the same time CrO2 by BASF were making inroads into the domestic market.
I also sort of recall them marketing the 'wear rate' reduction and improved s/n ratio that could be achieved with these heads when using IE type IV formulations......but then again....that's from memory!!...and that's gettin pretty faaaarked.....
anyways.....and....begin!
 
cjacek said:
Ok, but how do you feel about misinformation, claiming metal (type IV) tapes cause no more wear [or abrasion] than other types and providing Wikipedia as your reference? 'Cmon, you're not serious, are you?:rolleyes:

Type I, II and IV tapes are composed of different magnetic particles, from ferric oxide to chromium dioxide to metal particulate, with the latter having more abrasive qualities. As would the tapes differ, so would the recording heads, on many machines, with the better ones able to handle the abrasive properties of pure metal particulate tape. This is common knowledge, especially if you've been around tape recording for a while.;)
Click to expand...

Daniel, in the early days of CR02, yes it was said that that Cr02 was more abrasive than Fe2 03 and I'm sure there was truth in that. One might infer from that, that the next generation, metal particle, was even more abrasive, but I was asking for confirmation as it was an assertion I had never heard before. That is not to say I have any reliable confirmation it isnt more abrasive, and that's why I wasnt dogmatic on it.
I cited the Wikipedia reference, as it was the only reference to the subject I could find in a quick internet search, while I was still writing the post. I mentioned my hesitation about citing Wikipedia as an authority. I sought the further contributions of you or Farview or anyone else reading this thread. I cited the source of my reference so anyone could and can check it out.

BTW that it was said in Wikipedia doesnt make it misinformation, any more than it makes it Gospel Truth. But if what you say was such common knowledge, Wikipedia can be edited by the public. Go ahead. Just be aware that new software is coming up that will make it possible to trace the identity of those who so edit, and get it wrong. But then for all I know you may be right.

If what you assert was common knowledge then you should have no problems getting confirmation from all sorts of sources. Except for the Wiki ref (and I noted my reservations about that in my initial post) so far I've been unable to get external confirmation EITHER WAY. But that doesnt prove anything other than that I havent found it. The world doesnt revolve around me.
I dont have a vested interest either way if that's what you mean. I am not a "Metal tape is not more abrasive" missionary or troll if that's what you mean.
If you are proven to be right then I will have learned something. Same with if you are proven to be wrong. Either way I cant lose.


Metal tape certainly required a record head that was able to magnetize the tape much more strongly than type II or Type I, but that ability doesnt necessarily mean a head that was of better wear characteristics.

Cheers Tim.
 
Tim Gillett said:
Daniel, in the early days of CR02, yes it was said that that Cr02 was more abrasive than Fe2 03 and I'm sure there was truth in that. One might infer from that, that the next generation, metal particle, was even more abrasive, but I was asking for confirmation as it was an assertion I had never heard before. That is not to say I have any reliable confirmation it isnt more abrasive, and that's why I wasnt dogmatic on it.
I cited the Wikipedia reference, as it was the only reference to the subject I could find in a quick internet search, while I was still writing the post. I mentioned my hesitation about citing Wikipedia as an authority. I sought the further contributions of you or Farview or anyone else reading this thread. I cited the source of my reference so anyone could and can check it out.

BTW that it was said in Wikipedia doesnt make it misinformation, any more than it makes it Gospel Truth. But if what you say was such common knowledge, Wikipedia can be edited by the public. Go ahead. Just be aware that new software is coming up that will make it possible to trace the identity of those who so edit, and get it wrong. But then for all I know you may be right.

If what you assert was common knowledge then you should have no problems getting confirmation from all sorts of sources. Except for the Wiki ref (and I noted my reservations about that in my initial post) so far I've been unable to get external confirmation EITHER WAY. But that doesnt prove anything other than that I havent found it. The world doesnt revolve around me.
I dont have a vested interest either way if that's what you mean. I am not a "Metal tape is not more abrasive" missionary or troll if that's what you mean.
If you are proven to be right then I will have learned something. Same with if you are proven to be wrong. Either way I cant lose.


Metal tape certainly required a record head that was able to magnetize the tape much more strongly than type II or Type I, but that ability doesnt necessarily mean a head that was of better wear characteristics.

Cheers Tim.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is relevent?
http://www.macievideo.com/articles/maintkeyarticle.htm


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part7/


"...14.16 Will CrO2 or Metal tapes damage a deck made for normal tape?
No. They will work fine. They are no more abrasive than common
tape and may actually be less abrasive than very cheap tapes.
Recorders which are designed for CrO2 or Metal tape have
different bias settings and equalization settings to take best
advantage of the greater headroom and to give flat response with
these different types of tape. However, they use similar if not
identical heads as less expensive tape recorders. Almost all
tapes are in some way lubricated, and these lubricants minimize
wear and squeaking..."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top