TDK SA vs Maxell XLII

braxus

braxus

FeCr Type III
For years Maxell was my main brand of tape, while others like Fuji-TDK-Triad-Sony-JVC-Denon-BASF were secondaries for me. XLII-S and XLII were the tapes I used the most. Then I got my Tandberg and had it aligned to Maxell tapes. Then I found out some other brands (like Sony) did a better job then Maxell on that deck. The XLII tape sounds okay, but doesn't have the sharpness of a Sony UX-Pro. Same story with the XLII-S. My tech seems to support TDK more due to the fact those tapes don't leave residue all over the heads like Maxell does- according to him. So I've been shifting my focus more on to Sony tapes since then.

Then I got a free tape from Kelv which was an early 90s TDK SA. I already have some of these tapes, but was in the process of getting rid of all my mid grade chromes which included this tape. Im trying to thin down my collection of over 800 NOS blanks. I'll never use them all. So basically keeping the best of the best and getting rid of the rest. Back to Kelv's free tape.

I made a recording on it for Nando since he was interested in hearing some Art of Noise and Enigma. I put that music on the TDK SA. While listening through headphones, I noticed these SA tapes have that nice sharp treble that I was getting from my UX-Pro tapes. Im like- how could this be? The deck was calibrated to XLII tapes, and TDK SA is very close to XLII in terms of how its dialled in. Yet the TDK was doing something the Maxell's didn't. Maybe I'll have to try XLII tapes again to make sure they don't sound different then from before (my deck has been to the tech twice). But this little SA tape sounds pretty darn good for a mid grade tape. I wonder how the SA-X tapes will fare?

Anyone else notice this? Nando- do you agree with my findings on the SA tape I sent you?
 
Acoustic

Acoustic

Serious Tapehead
After getting back into cassettes these past few years I've come to the same conclusion. I'd rather use and listen to almost any years TDK SA over a XLII almost across the board. I will also say that I'll take any SA-X over all the XLII-S's I've tried. I am also to the point that without knowing the year that a UX-Pro has come out I will grab one quicker than a XL-II for something to tape of importance.

This is strictly for cassettes... R2R is another discussion. *reelspin* *reelspin*
 
braxus

braxus

FeCr Type III
Interesting I never noticed this on my Sony. Anyone else agree?
 
Last edited:
Skywavebe

Skywavebe

48 year Technician
Hi Braxus,
In my working at Teac and being surrounded by mostly good machines and some junk units as well, I had the opportunity to test a lot of tape. In fact I still can test tapes even better today than in the past due to test equipment I have obtained. The TDK brand was no low grade tape and I think it outsold Maxell back when it was out. I have not had Maxell tapes leave any unusual residue on the heads either. The tapes can be very similar to each other. I always preferred SAX to any tapes and used many while I used and tested many Maxell UD XLIIS tapes they did not have the formula finalized back then and it was all over the place. The UD XL II tape in some tests actually did better than the XLIIS tapes. I have used XL II tapes in my collection because I had observed that they wore better in a car player under those extreme conditions and due to the wear on 4 track cassette heads- most car decks I had were auto reverse. I always used instruments and test equipment when I tested a tape so I could have visual and data to offer as proof. That is just the way I am. Many can disagree but they only use their ears.
 
Old Busted Hotness

Old Busted Hotness

Am I doing this right?
SA was the bomb back in the day (points if you know what SA stands for) *grin* I always liked it better than XLII, but the Maxells seem to age better.

SA-X: Yes please. Even the funky brown shell couldn't turn me off.
 
darkstar078

darkstar078

Serious Tapehead
Both [UD]XLII and SA tapes are very good and have always pleased me for many years. *bigthumbup*
The S-versions are a noth better of course.

Never had residue-problems with Maxell of any sort. The tapes I use mostly are not younger than say '95 like myself. *wink*
But some younger tape are excellent specimen, like the Maxell MX-S from 1998-2000 I got from Dazen1.
 
Last edited:
Flick

Flick

Serious Tapehead
Back in the day my tape of choice was TDK SA 60. My only deck at the time was an Akai HX1 and those tapes gave me the best sound for the price. Thirty years later, those tapes that were not abused have held up remarkably well. I used a few Maxell XL-II's and XL-IIS's back then but most of my Maxell purchases was for their metal tape because they were readily available and not over the top price wise, but the majority of my older tapes are TDK SA. I got back into tapes at the end of 2009 and as you know, 99% of the good stuff can't be found new in stores unless someone has some new old stock so I started buying new and used name brand chrome tapes wherever I could find them. While it is true I only have my ears to judge a tape, in the end, regardless of what charts and graphs may tell us from a scientific /technical perspective, it's our ears that ultimately makes the final decisions and my ears confirm what people have said when evaluating Maxell tapes; depending on the year and model of tape (man in the chair, gold with square windows, etc), the quality varied and at times they could be all over the place. Although today's SA's are nothing like the SA's of old, until the 21st century, the quality was pretty consistant and an SA from 1993 sounds pretty much the same to me as one from 1983. They have worked well in every deck I have played them on and don't seem to be as tempermental as Maxell. The XL-II went through a lot more changes than the SA and I think TDK used the same business philosophy they applied to their D line of tapes which is "It works, it's a winner, don't mess with it." Maxell may have been reaching for loftier goals with the formula changes in the XL II line, or maybe they were trying to produce the best tape for the cheapest cost, I really can't say, but it has been my experience that when you got a good one, it was very good and when you got a mediocre one, it was flatter than a 2 week old open bottle of soda, or they had a balance problem. (In my opinion, both companies made great shells) Whatever TDK did in making the SA formula worked and it worked well in all kinds of decks.

I've nothing against Maxell or Sony and those Denon tapes I have from the 80s are still outstanding but for the price (when they were new) SA was the best bang for the buck and for the buck you got one heck of a bang. For about 20 years SA was a very good tape, maybe just a few hairs shy of being a great tape, and when TDK was in charge of their manufacture, the quailty was consistant and first rate. I'm surprised it eluded you for so long.
 
Last edited:
braxus

braxus

FeCr Type III
Flick said:
I'm surprised it eluded you for so long.
Click to expand...

Thats because TDK was not high on my list of tapes to use, and on my Sony didn't seem much different then the Maxells I was using. Now that I have my Tandberg- I can hear the difference.
 
Time_Stand_Still

Time_Stand_Still

Serious Tapehead
Old Busted Hotness said:
SA was the bomb back in the day (points if you know what SA stands for) *grin* I always liked it better than XLII, but the Maxells seem to age better.

SA-X: Yes please. Even the funky brown shell couldn't turn me off.
Click to expand...

TDK, SA = "SUPER AVYLIN"*Hi5*

BTW both tapes are great Type II and are very similar to each other. More similar than different anyways.*reelspin**reelspin*
 
Elite-ist

Elite-ist

Serious Tapehead
Hi Scott,

I began listening to Side A of your TDK SA90 mix tape I received 1.5 weeks ago. The second track on that side is Art Of Noise's "Beatbox." That song was featured on a previous mix tape you recorded for me when you had just got your Tandberg 3014A deck back from servicing. At that time, I remarked how well it sounded using the Fuji ZII cassette. So tonight, I played both the TDK SA 90 and Fuji ZII mix tapes selecting "Beatbox", and alternating between both recordings on my Pioneer CT-F1000 deck. I don't use headphones when listening to a mix tape, only during monitoring while recording, or just after I've completed a recording and want to check the recording. It only took the first 30 seconds of the track (before the lyrics began) to hear the difference in both tapes' sound signature. If anything, the Fuji ZII is the tape your Tandberg 3104A excels with for recording quality, edging out the TDK SA. It's not so much the ability of the Fuji ZII in reproducing the high frequencies, but the mid and bass range frequencies were more pronounced. The Fuji ZII also tracked the stereo imaging much better, especially, during the beginning of that song where the tracks fade left to right quickly.

I still like to record on Maxell XLII, but I would prefer the Sony UX-Pro over it. The TDK SA is a tape I haven't recorded on since copying the "Wish You Were Here" album in the mid 70's. It won't be long before I try one (TDK SA 90) out to hear the difference on my system, as well.

DSC06575.jpg
Nando.
 
Wilhelm

Wilhelm

Serious Tapehead
The Super Avilyn is a coined phrase referring to an adsorption method of attaching and fixing of cobalt ions to the crystal lattice structure of ferric oxide particles. The original cobalt doped particles suffered from the drifting of cobalt ions within the lattice structure. TDK developed a chemical process that used secondary dopants in addition to cobalt so that the cobalt is adsorbed on to the particles before the furnace conversion operations.

Maxell used particles that had the cobalt added after the finished state, followed by diffusion within the particles themselves. This method is referred to as "epitaxial" adsorption, from the Greek preposition epi, meaning "on," and tassein, "to draw in a line."
 
M

Marc Hugo

Serious Tapehead
Excellent Wilhelm. I have here the data received from an ex employee of Nakamichi (who was a member of Naktalk in 2000) based on data they received from TDK in submission to their head designers, probably during the 70's and 80s. There is no mention of ratios or other details.

Avylin 1974/Super Avilyn 1974: magnetic ferrous alloy pigment; Tok. Denki Kagaku: inst 1974- 1995

1. Iron oxide (as non-hydrogen-ionised goethite α–Fe3+O(OH))
2. Molybdenum trioxide (as non-magnetic oxidase inhibitor MoO3)
3. Nickel oxide (as magnetic superalloy particle NiO)
4. Cobalt (as magnetic alloy {cobalt substituted iron oxide nanocrystal} particle of coprecipitated cobalt with NiO and goethite as oxalate Cox Fe3- x O4)


MH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top