Фирменные записи на кассетах

[Serge44]

Тем, кто покупает альбомы, записанные на фирменных кассетах, будет любопытно почитать о производителях кассет, использовавшихся для записей как на рынке США и Европы.
Это сравнение от человека, работавшего в американской индустрии звукозаписи на кассетах в 80-ые годы.

Music cassettes in the United States and Europe were of varying quality. The final quality depended on: the tape used; the C-zero used; the recording process; and the level of attention paid to the process. Some operations were better than others, of course. BASF supplied most of the ferric tape used in both the United States and Europe and almost all of the chrome for most of the period. (Up until 1985, BASF was third in the market after Agfa and Capitol. In 1985 BASF's Terry O'Kelly took over as the head of the professional division and overhauled tape quality and the operations; and from that point on, BASF moved to the lead position. In 1992, BASF bought Agfa and kept most of those customers, too.)

A quick run-down of labels:

A&M - BASF chrome tape, thanks to A&M's Marvin Boornstein and Herb Alpert

Capitol Records - used either CS-1 or GS-1 (known internally as "crappy shit, Type I" and "good shit, type 1") until they got out of tape manufacturing. From that point on it was mostly SKC and Aurex unless they needed C-120 stock. BASF supplied the C-120 ferric tape.

CBS/Sony - Sony production in Carrolton, GA, for standard ferric. All C-90 ferric and all chrome requirements came from BASF.

Cinram - a major duplicator, not a record label. Recorded A&M on BASF but everything else was evenly divided between BASF, SKC, and Aurex.

Motown - farmed out to the cheapest duplicators available; could be any tape. After Polygram bought them (and was shocked to learn that Motown reused and did not save its 1-inch or 2-inch multi-track masters!), Polygram moved duplication to better quality duplicators who were free to choose any tape.

Musical Heritage Society - Julius Konins in New Jersey--all BASF, either chrome or ferric. Julie used his own custom-designed duplication equipment and produced amazingly good classical and world music for this and many other small labels.

Polygram - farmed out to Electrosound and others, so tape varied. Chrome was supposed to be all BASF, but some duplicators cut corners and used SKC or even Aurex chrome.

RCA/Sonopress - mostly SKC and Aurex. Although they had been BASF customers for years, they switched to less expensive stock and remained peeved that BASF would not drop its prices to the Korean or Mexican levels. Their production quality was excellent, but they insisted on cheaper tape.

WEA (Warner, Electra, Atlantic) - 80% BASF ferric (used to be 50/50 Agfa and BASF until BASF bought Agfa), 10-15% SKC ferric, 5-10% Aurex ferric. Quality levels and process control were the best in the industry.

BASF ferric was the equivalent of LH-Extra. The U.S. production was originally a "DPS" formulation developed by Robert Donadio using Pfizer oxides. Donadio left BASF after he was not allowed to give a subordinate a well-deserved raise, and he went on as a consultant to SKC and improved their tapes. DPS changed to LH-D, a pretty good ferric, and LH-Extra was a refined version of Agfa's PE-649 ferric, an excellent ferric tape. Chrome was the improved chrome of the 1980s and saw regular improvements until O'Kelly switched to Chrome-Plus, a combination of 85% chrome particles and ferric-cobalt particles, a formulation almost as good as the Chrome Supers in terms of MOL and SOL, but with flatter frequency response. (It was O'Kelly and Boornstein who started switch to chrome at 120 microseconds for the 5 dB boost in SOL levels.)

Aurex was a good, but inconsistent tape supplier. Their ferrics could be excellent or average, depending on the batch. The chrome they produced was below average, using DuPont pigment.

SKC was a very good supplier of both ferric and chrome tapes. In some parameters, SKC ferric tapes could outperform BASF ferrics; but in most parameters BASF was better, and it was certainly more consistent. The audible differences, however, were probably not worth the price difference between the two. I do not believe that BASF ferric tape sounded any better than SKC ferric tape. In terms of production uniformity, however, WEA told us BASF was more reliable. SKC chrome was very good, but its distortion levels were higher than BASF chrome and its output was not as good. Chrome-Plus was even better, and those differences were enought to be audible.

Maxell never entered the duplication industry. They would have been a respectable challenge to BASF. TDK did enter with both a ferric and with SA Type II tape. WEA ran both versions for about six months and tossed them out because of dirty tape and inconsistent quality. TDK consumer products, unlike either BASF or Maxell, were quite inconsistent because formulation changes and deviations in measurement parameters happened with no announcements or changes in product names, packaging, or numbering. Such a policy may have been successful in consumer sales, but it was anathema in the duplication industry. (When looking at test reports done by consumer magazines, the TDK figures are always the best values we would find in random checking, suggesting that TDK supplied "lab queens" to reviewers. BASF and Maxell test scores were both typical of random checks, suggesting that production levels were more consistent.)

The ferric duplication tapes used were "inferior" only in comparison to premium consumer ferric tapes typically enhanced with cobalt. That inferiority would be apparent on lower MOL and SOL values. However, in terms of durability, cleanliness, and consistency, the BASF and SKC ferrics were as good as and often better than the best of the consumer premium ferrics. Other ferric tapes from Sony, CBS, Capitol, Audio Magnetics, Saehan, and a few others earned a reputation for inferiority that has blemished the record of the better ferric offerings.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/sho...9&postcount=47