Test Report: Maxell UR New Versus Vintage

[Des-Lab]

Here is the latest in my ongoing occasional series of reviews. Since it was the subject of considerable discussion this week, I have taken it upon myself to do my latest full scale report with the Maxell UR cassette as my test subject.

Before we even get started, it needs to be stated upfront that it's generally well known that the tape in question for this review is not one that is now nor has it ever been held in any sort of high regard vís-a-vís being a premium quality tool for serious high fidelity recording. Instead, the purpose of this review was to possibly offer some guidance for a basic type of tape and whether a prospective buyer should seek out vintage copies as opposed to new; inasmuch as this is one of the very few remaining in production tapes. It's lineage is among the longest of any tape, with its ancestry dating back as far as the mid 1960's. So it's important to keep that in mind when reading this review.

So that said, let's get on with it.

TEST SUBJECT: Cassette tapes

Brand: Maxell

Model: UR

Versions: A: Production years: 1988-1992 B: 1999-Current

Type: IEC Type I/Normal (Ferric Oxide)

Length: C-90 (2 X 45 min @ standard 1 7/8 ips)


Version A (upper left). Version B (lower right)



TAPE DESCRIPTION:

The UR represents the bottom or entry level tape from the Maxell lineup. In years past, it existed in several forms including LN and assorted incarnations of UR. Today, it is the sole remaining Type I available at the new retail level, 'professional' grade(s) notwithstanding. The cassette housing for both is a two piece, screwed, clear plastic that is slightly tinted. In the case of Version A, the outer perimeter of the housing is also frosted with a somewhat coarse to the touch material. Both types have designated trace lines to both provide a place to affix a title label as well as to provide some lines of symmetry. In the case of Version A, an emphasis is placed on a more rounded and flowing appearance whereas Type B is blocked, rectangular, and abstract. Both versions also have all text and lettering stamped on the inner liner anti-friction sheet. Version A has smooth semi precision hubs and Version B has generic spoked style hubs. The cassette itself has no stamped letters or marking of any kind. Version A is said to have been assembled/made in Japan. Version B is stated to have been made/assembled in Indonesia.



Both types appear to have been assembled with a reasonable thought to quality. There is no sloppiness apparent and neither is there excessive rattling or shaking. Although it should be noted that on both versions, the internal liner sheet and printed lettering can be seen to shimmy and vibrate to some degree when the tapes are being operated in a fast wind mode.

Both tapes are leadered with Maxell's long running opaque white, dry-style head cleaning leader. However, in the case of Version B, the splicing tape where the leader is attached to the main tape is a translucent and apparently substandard quality. See next image.

The surface area of both tapes looks to be reasonably smooth and polished. Both are a shade of brown. In the case of Version A, it is darker and slightly translucent. Version B is a lighter shade of brown and virtually no light could be seen through it.

Type A (top)
Type B (lower)



Both versions come with enclosed J-Cards. However, Version A's has more than twice the amount of writable area for track sheets, notes, etc. It also has a brief description of the tape and warranty information. The front page is also perforated and may be removed. The J-Card for Version two is highly minimalist and has less area for writing. No other warranty or tape information is provided. Of note is that all three sections of this card is perforated. So it can be easily trisected should the need ever arise.





TESTING METHODOLOGY:

In order to best determine this tapes sonic abilities, I ran both through an identical battery of tests. The tests covered two trains of thought: OBjective and SUBjective.

In the case of the former, it is to take a series of single frequency tones and see how the tape responds to it in a variety of parameters.

In the case of the latter, it is to take a series of actual musical selections that encompass a multitude of sonic attributes and run them through the same sets of parameters. This is an effort to mimic how the tapes might be used in the real world while noting that single tonal versus multi-tonal inputs may not always respond in lockstep even when assuming all other parameters are identical.

For the objective phase of the test, I recorded four different test tones off of the Stereophile Test CD. They were:

Pink Noise
1Khtz Warble Tone
100 Htz Tone
50 Htz Tone

During the battery of tests, each tone was recorded repeatedly to determine two optimum key measures of performance: 1) to determine how much input signal the tape could handle before saturating, and 2) to establish an ideal bias setting so as to achieve the best possible recorded sound closest to the original. While testing was in progress, I would, using the test decks monitoring ability, switch between 'source' and 'tape' until the desired results were achieve, noting the settings at each point.



For the SUBjective part of the test, I performed the same line of testing with my three standard test musical selections. They were:

"Renaissance Man" By The Ocean Blue (henceforth "Song 1")
"Fable" By Robert Miles (henceforth "Song 2")
"Learning To Fly" By Tom Petty (henceforth "Song 3")

A video clip showing each of the three songs intermixed can be viewed HERE.

TEST EQUIPMENT:

Test deck: Denon DN-790R three head
Source Deck: Denon DN-C615 single well CD player
Tape Speed: Standard 1 7/8 ips
Noise Reduction: Dolby "C"
Monitors: Infinity Kappa 7's Stereo Configuration



FINDINGS: Re: Version A (Vintage)

Pink Noise: Tape was able to almost perfectly duplicate the sound with little discrepancy between the source and playback. Optimum bias setting was at -2.5% and the tape was able to handle a sustained gain up to about +3 dB input before showing audible saturation and distortion.

1 Khtz Warble Tone: Best sound was at -3% bias. However, it was a delicate balancing act between bias and input; I was unable to achieve a perfect capture of the sound: too much bias resulted in a progressively duller sound irrespective of the input gain level. And below -3% bias resulted in an unacceptably high level of base noise. The saturation point was at +3 and complete distortion and signal rolloff occurred at +5 and above.

100 Htz Tone: Very challenging tone. Was not able to properly bias at any level until the input gain was reduced to -4 dB or lower. At that level, optimum sound was achieved with a bias setting of +1%.

50 Htz Tone: Unable to achieve a true sounding reproduction at any bias/input combination. This low frequency sound was simply more than the tape was capable of handling. While the original tone had clear and distinct modulation, it was rather compressed and somewhat undefined sounding on the playback. However, the best and closest sound was at a -4 dB input with the bias set at +2%.

Song #1: This tape did NOT like this song at all, what with the deep bass, percussion, and electric guitars. All low frequencies were either distorted or simply not picked up at all. However, the mid and upper frequencies were captured extremely well. Because of the sonic mix, the highest the input was able to go before dsitorting was only -1 dB with peaks up to about +2. Best bias position was at -2%. Any higher and the higher frequencies would've suffered with only marginal improvement with the lower frequencies. Further reduction of bias current resulted in increased base noise and hiss.

Song #2: With the emphasis on higher octave range keyboards, female vocals, and light, airy synthesizers, a near perfect recording was made. But becuse the song does have a deep and sometimes heavy bass beat, occassional missteps were noted. The beat was captured, but not with the clarity that was evident with the other instrumentation and vocals. Maximum sustainable input was around +3 with peaks to about +5 before more broad saturation was audible. Best bias postion was at -2.5%.

Song #3: With the light and multi layered accoustic guitars, mid level vocals and a very light bass and percussion track, this song was the best performer. Also, a near perfect rendition was achieved. Optimum bias and maximum input gain were the same as for above Song #2.

Conclusions

For a bottom level tape that is at or approaching two decades in age, it performed very well. Of course, because of its status as the 'lowest' grade, the results were about in line with expectations. The tape is very good for use in low intensity recordings that are weak or absent of any heavy and low frequency beat or instrumentation such as dubbing from pre-recorded tapes, mono or old stereo LP's, and any other casual recording where lifelike sound across all frequency ranges isn't essential. Also, not surprisngly, for speech and/or a capella recordings, this tape can capture the sound with near total sonic perfection.




Findings Re: Version B (Current)

Pink Noise: Near perfect sound reproduction with bias set to -1.5% and input set to between -1 dB and 0 dB.

1 Khtz Warble Tone: Recorded reasonably well though a close lifelike match was not able to be made at any setting. Best possible sound was achieved at -2% bias and input of +2 dB.

100 Htz Tone: Unable to achieve a reasonably close to original sound. Shifting between all combinations of bias versus input were of little help. Best sound was at -1.5% bias and -3 dB input.

50 Htz Tone: Unable to duplicate the tone with any degree of accuracy regardless of settings. Best bias was at -2% and maximum input was just -3 dB.

Song #1: As with its older counterpart, this tape did not like having this song fed to it either. Results pretty much mirrored that of the other tape with a very marked low frequency loss, distortion, and hollow sound. At +2 dB or higher and the entire signal began to roll off. Below that, it tracked reasonably well. Best bias postion was at -2%.

Song #2: Performed considerably better. Was able to capture a very clean recording as long as the input did not exceed +2 dB. Best bias setting was at -2%. When reaching the threshold of input, of course, the low and lowest frequencies began to suffer. As a result, even with otherwise crystal clear vocals and keyboards at maximum gain, the base beat suffered significant mistracking, some distortion, and was outright missing from the playback.

Song #3: Again, the best performing of the trio. With a bias setting of -2% and an input of 0 dB with peaks not to exceed +3, a near perfect recording was made.

Conclusions: Perhaps the most striking thing with this tape was that in spite of its shortcomings, that it performed as well as it did Given the overall decline in both popularity and selection with cassette tapes here in 2008, my expectations for this tape were low to nonexistant especially taking into account that it is and always was 'bottom of the line'. However, I was pleasantly surprised that for the most part, it performed on par with its 20 year old ancestor. As with the version above, it is not a tape that I can seriously recommend for any sort of high fidelity and/or high intensity recording. It would suffice for speech, low fidelity sources, or as a 'practice' tape for anyone new to the hobby. Also, because it is a Maxell tape, I have little reason to think that this tape would not last for long term storage.



Recommendations:

So which tape is better? I still believe that the older, vintage Version A is. However, I want to quantify that in two ways. First, it is my opinion that while the vintage UR has an edge, it's only a marginal one. Unless you prefer the aesthetics and/or J-card of that tape, the chasm of quality between the two isn't enough to justify any sort of substantial difference in price. In short, if you are inclined to include the UR into your cassette collection, for the most part, I would make the selection based on price and availability. Although the Vintage tape is the [barely] winner here, I would not afford it more than a 10% price advantage than its current counterpart; ergo the 'winner' here is only a winner and the tape I would recommend ONLY if you can procure it for no more than a 10% higher price over the lowest priced CURRENT UR that you can find.

But ultimately truth be told: If you are serious about high fidelity cassette recording, then you need to look at some premium Type I tapes (which the tapes profiled here are not) or else go for a Type II or Type IV.

Thanks for reading.

[macster]

Des

Thanks for the review, I have a ton of the UR and they serve me very well. I use them primarily to record music from albums that are damaged.

M~

[braxus]

Thanks Matt for the review. Shame I couldn't have gotten in on that deal on Ebay for this earlier tape, but reading your review puts me at ease. I can easily get the current UR here for a $1 for a 90 minute tape, so I have many at my disposal here. Since there isn't much difference sonically between the old and new, I can buy the new without worry.

[Mr. Lin]

Excellent Matt, thank you for taking the time to do that. I'm surprised at the results, I almost expected the new UR to burst into flames while in use, considering it's reputation around here.

As for the older version, how does $6 for 10 sound?

[4tified]

Awesome review, this was the one I was waiting for You always perform extensive tests and back up your findings with tangible proof. Glad to see that these newer UR's perform adequately....I have so many of them, time to put them to good use!

[Web Police]

Great in depth review. Thanks for taking the time.

[gamve]

Great review Des,
I was wondering what to do with the ones I have. This review helps. Looks like they are perfect for dolby B for tapes for the car.

[Scorpion8]

As always Grand Poobah, an excellent review.

[Marc Hugo]

Excellent, thorough review as always Matt. Many thanks. I have a good number of the earlier and later ones and my experiences certainly reinforce your analysis.

Cheers - Marc

[Flyquail56]

Thanks for taking time to do this review, Matt.

My experience with the new UR tapes does not disagree with your findings.

Going further however, they do not pass the Long Term Test, so to speak. You made an observation about the difference in the hubs between new and old. Apparently the new hubs are so cheaply made that they are seldom perfectly round, or anything near it. I have observed hubs in these tapes that are slightly oval, and also warped. As you might imagine, after a few playings, the tapes are unusable, due to irregular winding of the tape pack. I intended to use these tapes to make recordings for my work van, which does not have eq for high bias tapes. Eventually these tapes will not play much past half way before causing the auto-reverse to activate.

I had similar experience with Sony HF tapes. Both boxes of the Maxell and Sony tapes went in the trash. In contrast, the TDK D cassettes have been fine for an entry level tape. I haven't tried any other new production type I tapes, and usually use the NOS Akai SX now when I want to use a type I tape. I guess it's possible that my experience with the Maxell and Sony tapes is not typical, but I won't be buying another box to find out .

Best regards,
Mike

[ferriteman]

Originally Posted by Flyquail56

Thanks for taking time to do this review, Matt.

My experience with the new UR tapes does not disagree with your findings.

Going further however, they do not pass the Long Term Test, so to speak. You made an observation about the difference in the hubs between new and old. Apparently the new hubs are so cheaply made that they are seldom perfectly round, or anything near it. I have observed hubs in these tapes that are slightly oval, and also warped. As you might imagine, after a few playings, the tapes are unusable, due to irregular winding of the tape pack.

Best regards,
Mike

Hi Mike. Just wondering...how many of the UR tapes have you had the hub defect? Just trying to get an idea here, sometimes you get tapes from a "bad" batch but other ones are OK. I've had this with some Sony SR metals (dropouts mainly). Thanks.

[Flyquail56]

Originally Posted by ferriteman

Hi Mike. Just wondering...how many of the UR tapes have you had the hub defect? Just trying to get an idea here, sometimes you get tapes from a "bad" batch but other ones are OK. I've had this with some Sony SR metals (dropouts mainly). Thanks.

It was probably a little over a year ago, but if my feeble memory is correct, I bought a ten or twelve pack, probably from Walgreens, and recorded maybe seven or eight of them. I'd say that more than half of them became unusable. While that's not a statistically significant sample size, it was enough aggravation to keep me from buying them again when there are other choices.

Mike

[Maxell-LN]

Interesting review Des,
I'm am somewhat surprised that you didn't find much difference between the old and new UR tapes.. I used several of the 1984 and 1988 models with an input level of 0db, and have found the results more then satisfying. Though a little hissy, the freq response is clear and shiny, with good base response. You might want to record your material again at a few db's less, if you are having issues with distorted base reproduction. I do have high regard for the 1988 UR tape, one of my favourites. I would do agree that the newer UR tape is very ordinary.

Originally Posted by Flyquail56

Going further however, they do not pass the Long Term Test, so to speak. You made an observation about the difference in the hubs between new and old. Apparently the new hubs are so cheaply made that they are seldom perfectly round, or anything near it. I have observed hubs in these tapes that are slightly oval, and also warped. As you might imagine, after a few playings, the tapes are unusable, due to irregular winding of the tape pack. I intended to use these tapes to make recordings for my work van, which does not have eq for high bias tapes. Eventually these tapes will not play much past half way before causing the auto-reverse to activate.
Mike

My newer UR models didn't have hub issues, however sounded very muffled with no treble. Thought my heads were dirty (Sony TC FX211) as I cleaned them, and tried a fresh one, but same problem, new reddish UR's (made in indonesia) are just pure rubbish.

[1979TDKAD-C90]

I have mostly used URs from 2002-now. I much prefer XL II but for an entry level tape its quite extraordinary. My deck prefers the older urs. For some reason the more recent ones with the lighter brown tape seem to make my Sony hungry at the beginnings of tapes. NAUGHTY PINCHROLLER! I wonder why it likes to eat later model URs? any ideas?

My freind gave me a 1990 model UR tape to try and it sounds way better than any of the tapes listed above in my opinion. Maybe my sony is more sensitive when it comes to type ones...

[Maxell-LN]

Originally Posted by 1979TDKAD-C90

I have mostly used URs from 2002-now. I much prefer XL II but for an entry level tape its quite extraordinary. My deck prefers the older urs. For some reason the more recent ones with the lighter brown tape seem to make my Sony hungry at the beginnings of tapes. NAUGHTY PINCHROLLER! I wonder why it likes to eat later model URs? any ideas?

Tape is much, much thinner.

[1979TDKAD-C90]

I can understand that, I mostly use them in my Aiwa mini stereo to record BBC programmes. I save my XLIIs to record some good music on the sony. I wish this was 1979 when I had a better selection of tapes to choose from. As well as Maxell had normal bias tapes back then that were indeed thicker!

[Warped Bezel]

I can live with older, better ferrics such as (UD)XL I but it's clear I will continue to look for new and used Type II tapes. I went to the Maxell US website and sadly, this is all they sell now. I've never been too happy with this formulation--it's too noisy and narrow for the person who is spoiled for chrome and used to the somewhat flawless act of recording on it.

When the supply of quality tapes vs. affordable price became small I did use a few Fuji but more often SKC Type IIs, which were OKAY and I can still use them over ten years later...

I still prefer Maxell Type II cassettes but it looks as if Hitachi and it's soon to be wholly-owned subsidiary Hitachi Maxell (bought into by Hitachi in 1962) will be developing more miniature (coin-sized) rechargable lithium batteries and new batteries. Although Maxell still makes VHS cassettes I have to wonder about the future of Maxell recording tapes in general. It looks as if the leader in 'leaders' is gone.

[Alshalan]

why always oldtimer is better?

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by Alshalan

why always oldtimer is better?

Because when it comes to decks and tapes, it usually is.