I have recently ordered four newly manufactured cassettes to give them a try: RTM Fox C60 EQ Professional C90 ATR Magnetics C-60 Splicit Capture C-60 I have recorded the same few tracks on each of them using the same recorder (Walkman WM-D6C), and then listened back to the results. I used a Maxell UR-90 as a "reference", as in my opinion they sound really good for a Type I, and recorded the same tracks to it as well. Here's my quick opinions: RTM Fox C60 (€6.95) Superb quality for a Type I cassette, I'd even say it sounds almost as good as a Type II cassette. I tried recording different tracks afterwards with lots of dynamic range and couldn't really notice anything obvious missing. In one sentence: If in the future I'd be unable to source NOS metal and chrome tapes, I would be satisfied with the Fox tapes. EQ Professional C90 (€8.00) Very close in sound quality to the RTM Fox. It's hard to say objectively how close. It is also slightly cheaper than the Fox of same length (€8.30), so might be worth getting for that reason. Overall, very good quality for a Type I tape as well, and I'd also be happy if that was the only tape I had. ATR Magnetics C-60 (€6.00) I believe I received a defective tape. I was unable to get good sound quality out of it, despite trying everything I could. Not even my Pioneer deck with automatic bias and level adjustment was able to make it work. Very disappointed. The tape looks like it was scratched with sandpaper. Splicit Capture C-60 (€6.00) Doesn't sound as good as the Fox or the EQ tapes, but sounds okay. Let's say it sounds like a cheap tape, which is unfortunate because it cost almost the same as the others. It also has a scratchy appearance, but not as bad as the ATR. In fact, these two tapes have extremely similar packaging, J-Cards, and shells, so I think they might actually be made in the same factory (and both claim to be made in the US). That's about it, I don't have the equipment to do a more analytical comparison, but if you have any specific questions that I might be able to address with consumer equipment and an oscilloscope, fell free to ask!
Thanks for doing this and interesting to read. How would you rate the Fox and Eq Pro in comparison to your test Maxell UR? (I assume it’s a new UR, the ones currently available that is your comparison tape?)
@brunophilipe You motivated me to do some comparisons between the FOX and a few other NOS TYPE Is. The initial subjective impression on the RTM FOX C60 was very good, however objective measurements would indicate it's pretty close to the latest Maxell UR (which although good, is nothing spectacular in my opinion). The initial good impression probably came from the fact that I took as a reference a UR that was recorded with levels a bit too low (and hence the hiss seemed to be higher than the FOX). The pictures below represent relative noise floor measurements between the 5 cassettes. It can be seen that both SONY AHF/BHF and the Maxell UD I (which is cobalt doped TYPE I and one of the best TYPE I that I have seen) perform significantly better in terms of noise. The MOL of the SONY AHF is significantly better (at about +6dB) compared to the other ones (at about +3dB). The MOL of the FOX is also at about +3dB. What I like about the RTM FOX: - freshly made, so potential storage environment problems are non-existent; - a good quality tape, which doesn't seem to shed any significant amount of oxide; - doesn't have any dropouts, even at the beginning of the tape; - a decent noise floor: can be used without Dolby, but it would benefit from Dolby when recording music with quiet passages; What I don't like about the RTM FOX: - the performance of the tape itself is nothing to catch attention, having similar MOL and noise floor to the Maxell UR; - the price is pretty high for a newly made tape; I bought sealed Maxell UD Is at a similar price a couple of months ago; - the shell of the cassette is very basic and feels cheap; can't not compare it with the UD I that looks and feels way better; NOTE: The Maxell UD I tested is the one from 1991-1992 (with transparent oval window). @C83 In Europe new Maxell URs are not available anymore since somewhere around last year (the stock that I tested are one of the last URs available commerically). There is/was a statement on Maxell's website that it doesn't produce the cassette anymore, don't know if that applies to Europe only or worldwide.
Thank you @Valentin! I have to say that after I've started to record more (and different) music to the Fox C60, it indeed didn't sound as great as I initially thought. I've been messing around with all these tapes I got and , although it does sound good, it is just about as good as a UR90 indeed. I've made a couple of sample recordings of the same track on both a UR90 and a FOX C60, and they sound virtually identical to me. Check out the attachments:
Both sound the same to me, cannot spot any obvious difference. Initially, I noticed the larger file size on the UR (2.7MB), but that is because the recording is a little longer. I may do a frequency response measurement in the future to compare the 2 (or maybe all 5 that I initially measured), but I don't think there will be any major difference. The one thing that stands out about the FOX is the tape doesn't have any dropouts. Some NOS entry-level tapes, like BASF Sound I (the ones branded EMTEC are worse) have a lot, some of the tapes being even unsable for this reason (dropout at the middle of the tape and for long periods). And the big problem with those is non-uniformity: from a pack of 10 cassettes, you can get 8 very good ones, an ok one and a very bad one. Don't think this is related to aging either, but it's just the tape itself not being quality controlled very good. One thing I like are the looks of the BASF Sound I, if the FOX would have had a shell similar to the Sound I, I would love it. In fact, the reason I use BASF/EMTEC Sound I is for the looks mostly, because in terms of recording it needs Dolby C for good results. The biggest advatage of the UR is cost, the ones I bought last year were about 1 euro/pcs (porbably on sale) from big online retailer. Even those re-selled by people online are still less than half the price of the FOX.
The dropouts near the start and end are something I noticed even on high-quality metal tapes, and I always wondered if it was due to wear (it was mostly noticeable on some used tapes I bought off eBay which still play well after the first minute or two), to the point I'm now used to moving the tape all the way to the middle before running the auto-bias in my deck to make sure it is not affected by the dropouts. Two things I like about the FOX and the EQ tapes is they both have shells that use screws (as opposed to the glued shells of the cheaper tapes), and they also have very long lead-ins, which means if I ever have to splice them, I could probably just reuse the lead-in tape that came with them without worrying it will get too short. One thing I dislike about all these new tapes is that the cases are a bit too big, and the cassette rattles a lot inside of them. Compared for example to the Maxell UR90 and XLII-S cases I have at hand, which have almost no slack whatsoever, it is annoying, considering this would arguably be an easy fix. My theory is that they're big like this to accommodate thick J-card inserts for pre-recorded albums, which are likely a large part of the market for these tapes.
Found this about dropouts: https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/tape-drop-outs-why-how-to-prevent.314967/ As I suspected, there isn't a singular cause for these dropouts. On used tapes, wear can play a role, but that won't explain why the dropout only appears at the beginning and of the tape spool. Is is possible that how the tape itself is handled during the assembly process, espeically the part that sticks it to the leader tape, may play a role. In this process, oxide may be shedded and this may be what is causing the dropouts. I agree with the cases on new ones being very big and this holds true even for new pre-recorded cassettes. That's the thing with NOS cassettes, especially the high-end ones: it's not just better tape, there are better shells, better hubs, slip sheets, pressure pads and even better cases and J-cards. And of course by better I don't only mean better quality, but better design and attention to details. Really don't like at all those cassttes without screws... Did not even knew blank cassettes without screws existed, thought that was something only done to pre-recorded ones.
I’m just wondering if anyone has tried a more recent version of the Fox C-90 cassette tape? what amazes me is how difficult it really is to make a good quality tape formulation, and never really gave it any thought back in the day. It’s a combination of everything about the tape, the shell included. Just took it for granted that it worked, I guess more went into it than I realized. I’m wondering if they improved anything in the last 3+ years. I still have probably 150 NOS and recorded on only once type II tapes. The latter I erase with a realistic eraser, and that’s just something that I do beforehand. To my ears they pretty much sound the same as a NOS tape, but part of that may be due to the quality of the GX heads on my A&D deck.
Ouch indeed. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334780254424 I'm not sure if these are newly manufactured or new old stock. What is a fact is that these Maxell URs were about the last tapes readily available retail here in the U.K. (up to the pandemic ?). Packs like this in places like the now closed Wilko cost less than £1 a tape. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395955448026 As for manufacturing. video tapes needed to be made to a higher standard than audio tapes and used far more tape (area) yet when only Grannies were using them you could pick those up new for £1 each.
Not really bad prices in the UK for the UR’s. I’ve never really used them, but I do have about eight NOS UR’s and I may give them a go to see how they sound. I’ll try to post my findings when I record on the RTM Fox tape that is on the way, and as far as I know this is their own proprietary tape. Most people say it is comparable to the UR tape, which is probably the best we can hope for in this day and age. I know it’s inflation, and the price may be in line but personally I am not willing to pay $9 US for a type I blank tape. I do understand trying to support the company, and maybe I’ll change my mind after I give it a listen.
Good day everyone, I received my RTM C90, I guess it's the former fox tape. I had problems with mine, my A&D deck kept chewing it up, and when I finally did get it to work I thought it sounded very good, almost a perfect match between tape and source. However partway through the recording it chewed it up again, and I’m just not willing to try another one. I probably have 150 NOS And recorded on only once mainly type II tapes and I will continue to use these. The case and tape quality kind of reminded me of An offbrand tape back in the day, or a pre-recorded tape, and while it worked it actually recorded better than it looked. It was very decent, although nothing special. I guess what I’m saying is it is not worth between $7-$9 US. I know with inflation that’s probably not a bad price, but again mine was unusable so I don’t trust them. It makes me wonder if the tape is faulty, or if it’s just not a good match for my deck? I’ve never had this happen with any other tape. I’m recording an NOS TDK SA right now on the same deck, so it’s not the deck.
Tape chewing is likely caused by some slight misalignment in your deck, don't see how the tape itself can cause chewing. Seen many situations where a tape machine works great with many/most tapes, but there are a couple (typically specific make and models) that get chewed. This is not about a match/mis-match between tape and deck, but because: - pinch roller(s) has a problem, not having constant friction over its entire surface. Pinch roller may look perfect and still have this problem. - pinch roller is not perfectly parallel to the capstan, being slightly at an angle. This tends to pull the tape up or down depending on angle. - capstan(s) itself may have an uneven surface, tending to pull the tape at an angle. Visually it can look perfect, so as with roller fact it looks good visually doesn't mean problem is not there. Not sure about what deck are you talking about, but if it's a dual-capstan and supply capstan is belt-driven, perfect tape tension between capstans is critical. Not to mention other adjustments such as head height, erase head height, supply reel height, backtension, takeup torque will all influence tape path on a dual-capstan deck.
Hi, normally I would think the same thing, but I was recording on TDK and Maxell tapes all day after the RTM incident. I think it is a defective tape, because other ones worked fine. The deck is an A&D GX-Z9100 not very many miles on it since it was serviced.
Could be defective tape, it would be interesting to test it in another device being it a deck, walkman, boombox etc. and see if you can reproduce the same effect. If tape itself is the problem, it should be reproducible on other cassette machines. It would be interesting and useful to know if RTM has a bad batch of tapes, as this is a serious problem.
I may try another one at some point, but for right now I’m just going to use what I have. like I said the recording that I did make, although short-lived sounded pretty good. Granted I was just switching back And fourth between source and tape while I was recording it. No reason to believe it would not have sounded very acceptable if it survived. Looking back I did a little fast forwarding via a pen that I have so I could get a look at the tape itself, and if I remember correctly something happened when I was winding it with a pen, that probably should’ve been the telltale sign that there was something defective with the tape. I sent it back and got a refund, but I’m thinking that it was not right inside the case, and I believe the placement of the tape (the tape path) itself was off inside of the case. Not threaded through the right places in the tape itself or however you want to put it.
