Cu Dbx?

[asc444]

Dorind sa achizitionez cele mai bune benzi ce au existat vreodata, Stebo de pe okazii mi-a spus ca, totusi XLI e mai buna ca XLII.
Astfel ca am luat o banda de la el inreg cu Teac, XLI.
Cu minimele mele filtrari (procesare dinamica expandoare+ cut off frecquency pt inalte), cu amplif la max, nici un zgomot de fond. Fara interventii, zgomot de fond insignifiant. Dbx la asemenea benzi e cam inutil. E bine de stiut ca benzi inreg cu dbx se aud distorsionat fara, prelucrarea fiind puternica.
Merita?

[Mitica]

[ECL]

Nici intr-un caz XLI nu e mai bun decat XLII-EE! XLI se gasesc la greu (second-hand), fata de XLII, care si second-hand se gasesc cu mult mai greu, plus ca diferenta de pret dintre ele este substantiala. Asa ca ...

Mie personal, mai mult decat XLII, imi plac enorm, dar sunt greu de gasit si scumpe (ptr bezni in conditii f.bune), 3M 996 Mastering.

[asc444]

Mie, sa fiu cinstit mi-a dat stebo 2 benzi xl, demult. Erau superbune. Insa, si ce zici tu e un aspect. La Maxell, XL e deja un stagiu al superioritatii. Am sa iau si XLII. Stebo poate a facut o chestiune de vanzare.
Sunt convins: Maxell cu EE nu vei gasi niciodata!

[asc444]

XLII gasesti la 50 eur. Bani sa ai.

[asc444]

XLI 45 eur fara numar, XLII 50 eur, bani sa ai. Preturi Stebo, care e cel mai ieftin.

[clauelf]

Excelente observatii . Ca fapt divers, Maxell XLII si Maxell EE sunt unul si acelasi lucru.

[asc444]

Clauef, Maxell nu produce benzi EE. Sunt unele firme de rahat, parca Sony, ce au asemenea benzi. Pe benzi cu EE se mentioneaza ca au EE.

[clauelf]

Cineva spunea ca observatii de acest gen ( ca sa nu spun mai pe sleau ) sunt necesare pentru a stimula inteligentele obosite. Problema devine acuta cand numarul oamenilor care vin cu astfel de observatii creste in mod necontrolat. Din pacate, acum ne aflam pe partea ascendenta a acestei faze.

[clauelf]

http://www.google.ro/imgres?imgurl=http://www.audioscope.net/images/maxellxl22.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.audioscope.net/maxell-xl-ii-ee-tape-14-zoll-26-cm-p-890.html&h=552&w=770&sz=53&tbnid=SqjgtjGOeHDi4M:&tbnh=102&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaxell%2Bxl%2Bii&hl=ro&usg=__WA8-ICsrXD2qtiIHxv60e1OSwLc=&ei=n-nPS6-vPJahOObI6a0L&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=6&ct=image&ved=0CCMQ9QEwBQ

Am atasat link-ul tot ca fapt divers.

[asc444]

clauef, tu confunzi compatibilitatea cu dedicarea.

[clauelf]

Ti-as fi spus eu ce confund, dar din fericire ptr tine n-am loc de intors aici.

[ECL]

Din 14 benzi (8 noi sigilate) Maxell XLII toate sunt cu EE. Eu nu stiu sa fie XLII fara EE. Si daca eu nu am periat mapamondul dupa benzi noi Maxell XLII si 3M 996 Mastering, atunci... Cu greu dar am gasit si benzi noi. Pret-ul ce mai conteaza...acu' mi-e mila sa le desigilez.

[asc444]

EE e o inventie ieftina a Akai.

[akaiofil]

de pe forumul "Tape Project" (posibil sa se priceapa )

"The EE tapes were developed for improved low speed performance. The mfrs of these EE tapes claimed freq resp & snr at 3.75 ips on par w/ normal tapes at 7.5 ips. Several publications at the time (1980's) verified these claims.

These EE type tapes are the equivalent to CrO2 or ferricobalt formulations in cassettes known as "type 2". They require more bias and utilize a different EQ curve. Normal ferric oxide EQ is spec'd at 120 usec for 1.875 ips, 90 usec at 3.75 ips, 70/50 usec at 7.5 ips (IEC/NAB resp), and 35/50 usec (IEC/NAB) at 15 ips.

The EE type spec'd the EQ at 70/50/35/35 usec at 1.875/3.75/7.5/15 ips resp. During the record mode, the EE type incurred more treble boost than the normal type. Being type 2 tape, this could be done since type 2 can accept more signal, particularly hf, before saturating. Then, upon playback, less treble boost was used (50 usec for EE vs. 90 usec for normal at 3.75 ips). The result was an improvement in snr. Also, due to type 2 formulation, the frequency response improved as well, particularly at low speeds.

But, this took place in the early and mid 1980's as an attempt to bolster rtr sales. By then, however, rtr was pretty much a niche market. The cassette was very strong, and digital adapters for VCR's that used PCM offered digital capability. The EE tape was discontinued sometime in the late '80's or early '90's IIRC.

At low speeds, especially 3.75 ips, EE should easily outperform non-EE by a big margin. At 7.5 ips, EE wins by a lesser margin. The EE particles are small and thin giving them good low speed capability. The mastering tapes in pro use such as 3M 250 and Ampex 456 back at the time were optimized for 15 or 30 ips. These tapes use a long particle and cannot perform well at less than 15 ips.

So, for a 3.75/7.5 ips tape deck, the EE is definitely an advantage. But high speed and pro machines never offered EE capability. Apparently the 250 and 456 formulations are great at 15/30 ips, but not at less than that."

[asc444]

Vi cu afirmatii de pe forum? Se pare ca nu sti cu cine discuti.