John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[john curl]

While I would agree that the Nakamichi was a pretty good cassette recorder, it was not the very best that could be done. I know, because I designed much more sophisticated electronics, in 1978 for HK. Unfortunately, my design was never put into production, but the essential circuitry that I developed was quickly applicable to designing all discrete 30 ips electronics for a Studer transport, within 6 mo, for Mobile Fidelity.
One factor was the bass coupling caps that I really improved on. However, even the Nak, used very traditional, simple electronics, with cap coupling absolutely necessary.

[Pano]

Originally Posted by john curl

It would appear to this engineer that it is the ANALOG part of the electronics that is the primary weakness. Digital seems to be working as expected. Perhaps that is a good part of the bass problem.

John, I doubt the analog section was used in this case.
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
As I read it, it was the down-sampling to 44.1K that caused the difference in the bass. That was likely not done in the analog domain. Joachim?

[Chris Hornbeck]

I think it's completely safe to say that the Nakamichi electronics was very good in its consumer electronics setting of the time, but not remotely John Curl quality. Didn't have to be, it was just a cassette tape after all.

Thanks,
Chris

[john curl]

MY cassette tape recorder would have changed the industry standard. Why not?

[Chris Hornbeck]

Nakamichi in its day was accused of moving the goalposts by re-interpreting the original (Philips?) specs for standard playback. Their contention (from memory - add granular NaCl) was that their gap losses were correct and everybody else was out of step. They were probably righter than not, but whadda I know?

Thanks,
Chris

[john curl]

They were good products, I have one, myself, but they were NOT mastering quality electronics. And I suspect that modern digital recorders, in general, have the same failings.

[Chris Hornbeck]

Recorders as a class have the un-enviable position of being subject to a straight-wire bypass comparison. That's a tough test, depending on good quality source material, environment, yada-yada, but at least the standard of comparison is completely unambiguous: is it different or is it ain't?

I've finally gotten old enough that I can't tell the difference between an A/D/A copy of commercially available source material and a bypass, using a good modern A/D/A of course.
Probably wouldn't apply to everybody, but good enough for me is good enough for me. Leaves me more time to bitch about other stuff!

Thanks,
Chris

[SY]

Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck

I've finally gotten old enough that I can't tell the difference between an A/D/A copy of commercially available source material and a bypass, using a good modern A/D/A of course.

No one else ever has, either, assuming levels are set correctly. So enjoy your golden years.

[PMA]

Originally Posted by SY

No one else ever has, either, assuming levels are set correctly.

You seem to know everything

[SY]

No, but I do know a few things.

Yes, I'll allow the philosophical possibility that someone has set up a controlled listening test, demonstrated the audibility of an ADA chain, then not published this remarkable result anywhere.