Hi canyoncruz,
Well, Nakamichi did make the very best cassette decks you could buy. No one else was even close to that quality.
I was authorised warranty for Nakamichi, Revox, Tascam and Teac. There were other brands we warrantied as well, but those I listed were the heavy hitters to beat. Nak was the very best, followed by Revox and Tascam and Teac.
The best tape machine Nakamichi ever made was the 1000ZXL (or the limited version). The dragon used the same basic transport with different options. The 1000ZXL Limited was optimized and many parts in the transport were balanced and gold plated (really). It was a presentation machine with the name of the owner engraved on a plate, and case was a champagne colour to differentiate it from the regular 1000ZXL. The stock 1000ZXL was also tuned, matched Dolby chips (they graded them). Quality above even what Nakamichi normally turned out.
If I were you, I would pull it out and get reminded why it was that you bought it to begin with.
Can you imagine a Nakamichi open reel machine? It would have really been something special and probably would have been the king of those machines in consumer land. In the professional arena, nothing would unseat a Studer.
-Chris
Well, Nakamichi did make the very best cassette decks you could buy. No one else was even close to that quality.
I was authorised warranty for Nakamichi, Revox, Tascam and Teac. There were other brands we warrantied as well, but those I listed were the heavy hitters to beat. Nak was the very best, followed by Revox and Tascam and Teac.
The best tape machine Nakamichi ever made was the 1000ZXL (or the limited version). The dragon used the same basic transport with different options. The 1000ZXL Limited was optimized and many parts in the transport were balanced and gold plated (really). It was a presentation machine with the name of the owner engraved on a plate, and case was a champagne colour to differentiate it from the regular 1000ZXL. The stock 1000ZXL was also tuned, matched Dolby chips (they graded them). Quality above even what Nakamichi normally turned out.
If I were you, I would pull it out and get reminded why it was that you bought it to begin with.
Can you imagine a Nakamichi open reel machine? It would have really been something special and probably would have been the king of those machines in consumer land. In the professional arena, nothing would unseat a Studer.
-Chris
I don't want to belittle Nakamichi, I have one myself, but the analog mastering machines that we made at 15-30ips, 1/2 or full track sonically outran any cassette recorder, and that is what people are still interested in. The overall performance of the Nakamichi was impressive, but it could have been better. They put a lot of time in money is improving the specs, but the electronics was strictly mid-fi. You can't beat cubic inches in autos, or speed and track width in analog tape recorders.
Hi John,
I did a lot of electronics work on these machines (and others). My shop was were their general manager brought his and his friend's machines to get serviced. I know these machines very, very well.
Consider the tape path in a Nakamichi. It is that of an open reel machine, and each head is completely adjustable in free space - similar to an open reel machines. The test tapes we used (and jigs) set each head gap precisely. As long as these machines were set up properly, any tape made on one machine would play back perfectly on another, and noise reduction would track precisely as well.
I have a few Nakamichi cassette decks, and a TD-700 car unit. There should be a TD-1200MKII hiding around here somewhere also. I understand how to make this stuff perform.
I can only imagine your comments applied to a much earlier machine, or you might not understand the signal path in your machine.
I have a Tascam BR-20 half track machine. It burns through tape at an alarming rate, but the sound quality is well beyond what most other storage formats can muster. The only use for a full track machine I can think of is to create test tapes. I can't imagine anyone needing a drum track with that much impact (as it would be squashed down in the mix anyway). 1/2 track is a mastering format. A Studer 820 series gets the nod there.
-Chris
I agree with you, but my comments were on that format of tape, then I suggested that performance with an open reel would be greatly above a cassette format.
Maybe in their first machines, but their head amp had the least noise compared to all the others. From the BX-300 up they are most certainly not "Mid-fi". In fact, even the local power regulators were designed so that there was very little ground current. The only places you could have a valid point was in the noise reduction circuitry (Dolby) that they are forced to use. If you ran them without noise reduction, the Dolby circuits were completely bypassed.
I did a lot of electronics work on these machines (and others). My shop was were their general manager brought his and his friend's machines to get serviced. I know these machines very, very well.
Consider the tape path in a Nakamichi. It is that of an open reel machine, and each head is completely adjustable in free space - similar to an open reel machines. The test tapes we used (and jigs) set each head gap precisely. As long as these machines were set up properly, any tape made on one machine would play back perfectly on another, and noise reduction would track precisely as well.
I have a few Nakamichi cassette decks, and a TD-700 car unit. There should be a TD-1200MKII hiding around here somewhere also. I understand how to make this stuff perform.
I can only imagine your comments applied to a much earlier machine, or you might not understand the signal path in your machine.
I have a Tascam BR-20 half track machine. It burns through tape at an alarming rate, but the sound quality is well beyond what most other storage formats can muster. The only use for a full track machine I can think of is to create test tapes. I can't imagine anyone needing a drum track with that much impact (as it would be squashed down in the mix anyway). 1/2 track is a mastering format. A Studer 820 series gets the nod there.
-Chris
It is remarkable how much performance was wrung out of cassette tape given its inherent limitations. If cassette decks were properly calibrated they could be pretty good for consumer use, though without much in the way of pretensions to "high fidelity". The Sony Walkman Pro was pretty amazing for something you could put in your pocket.
I once did some repair work on some broadcast Ampex reel to reel machines, they were impressively put together.
I once did some repair work on some broadcast Ampex reel to reel machines, they were impressively put together.
1/2 track / 15ips is now the preferred format for hi end listening tapes. These tapes cost big bucks, but there is now a market for them. The best mastering machines that I designed were 30ips / full track. I admit that this takes far more tape-money, but if you were recording a symphony orchestra, or the finest acoustic instruments, it was outstanding.
Actually I designed a competing analog cassette player when I first worked for HK, back in 1977. That is when I researched the Nakamichi designs to compare with the competition. HK dropped the project at a certain point, but not before I was able to make prototype electronics for it. So I used the electronics that I designed to make a 30ips / full track mastering recorder for Mobile Fidelity, and later for Wilson Audio. Perhaps we could here to note the difference between Nakamichi and one of my electronics sections to show the difference between 'mid-fi and hi end electronics. Would anyone care to put up a Nakamichi schematic?
Actually I designed a competing analog cassette player when I first worked for HK, back in 1977. That is when I researched the Nakamichi designs to compare with the competition. HK dropped the project at a certain point, but not before I was able to make prototype electronics for it. So I used the electronics that I designed to make a 30ips / full track mastering recorder for Mobile Fidelity, and later for Wilson Audio. Perhaps we could here to note the difference between Nakamichi and one of my electronics sections to show the difference between 'mid-fi and hi end electronics. Would anyone care to put up a Nakamichi schematic?
Simplistically stated, the distortion/noise of recording to tape is a function of how much tape goes by the head. So, no, you are never going to have low distortion recording/Playback in a cassette recorder. Let alone low wow and flutter from the thin narrow tape. Indeed it is a testament to excellent engineering that they were able to get what they got out of a cassette.
Cheers
Alan
Cheers
Alan
Had a BX300 and used the Nak metal tape and no Dolby, the difference was remarkable between it and the usual suspects. Friends always asked why they could not duplicate the quality of my tapes played on their machines so there is a lot more to it than playback electronics.
> Would anyone care to put up a Nakamichi schematic?
I can send you the entire service manual, if you wish, John.
Just PM me the email address to send to.
Patrick
.
I can send you the entire service manual, if you wish, John.
Just PM me the email address to send to.
Patrick
.
A Nakamichi BX owner here too, tried many different types of cassette tape brands and materials but chrome had the best dynamics and life like reproduction, metal had slightly better noise and perhaps a bit extended frequency response but it always sounded flat and dull, not only on my Nakamichi but on other decks too.
TDK SA-X was the favorite back then.
TDK SA-X was the favorite back then.
Attachments
Interesting, I forgot to mention that I met the analog design guru at Nak in 1988. Wonderful guy, very knowledgable and spoke perfect English which was rare among Japanese EE's.
Most Japanese tape decks were set up for TDK SA. The Nakamichi tape was from the middle of the rolls of TDK SA-X. Maxell would be about +5 dB hotter at 10 KHz on a machine set up for TDK.
John,
The engineering was excellent in Nakamichi cassette decks. Again, from the BX-300 on the made the least noisy playback amps around, and that went right on into the power supplies for the playback electronics. They started with a J-Fet diff pair. Really super low noise amps for a run of the mill cassette deck. No one else came close and that includes everyone else I did warranty for.
The Marantz PMD-360 was far better than the Sony Walkman Pro toys. Sony got the Dolby C wrong on those and it needed a main PCB replacement. They lied about it 'till the very end. That is one company you simply cannot trust. The Walkman Pro drive was a motor with a rubber tip (I think) running on the top edge of the flywheel that was also coated in rubber. It was a real Mickey Mouse setup, and they sold those for a lot of money! By comparison, the Marantz PMD 360 was a home deck mechanism that used counter-rotating flywheels with a home machine belt drive. The head was a "three head" design that was also used in the 5030B home deck. Needless to say, the Dolby circuits in the Marantz tracked a tape made on any other deck in calibration.
The Marantz had what John would call a "mid-fi" electronics setup. That doesn't mean they didn't sound really good. Those electronics were better than most.
-Chris
John,
The engineering was excellent in Nakamichi cassette decks. Again, from the BX-300 on the made the least noisy playback amps around, and that went right on into the power supplies for the playback electronics. They started with a J-Fet diff pair. Really super low noise amps for a run of the mill cassette deck. No one else came close and that includes everyone else I did warranty for.
The Marantz PMD-360 was far better than the Sony Walkman Pro toys. Sony got the Dolby C wrong on those and it needed a main PCB replacement. They lied about it 'till the very end. That is one company you simply cannot trust. The Walkman Pro drive was a motor with a rubber tip (I think) running on the top edge of the flywheel that was also coated in rubber. It was a real Mickey Mouse setup, and they sold those for a lot of money! By comparison, the Marantz PMD 360 was a home deck mechanism that used counter-rotating flywheels with a home machine belt drive. The head was a "three head" design that was also used in the 5030B home deck. Needless to say, the Dolby circuits in the Marantz tracked a tape made on any other deck in calibration.
The Marantz had what John would call a "mid-fi" electronics setup. That doesn't mean they didn't sound really good. Those electronics were better than most.
-Chris
'Mid-fi' electronics design is practical, but less than the best possible circuit design. It usually has lots of IC's, cap coupling, etc. The Nak is a good design, but like I said, not mastering recorder level, at least not comparable to the very best mastering recorders.
That is an older design. I'll try to find a BX-300 schematic for you.
-Chris
Edit: It is the 1000ZXL with the nice PB amp. I'm trying to find something small enough to attach. John, if you PM me your email address, I'll send it your way.
-Chris
Edit: It is the 1000ZXL with the nice PB amp. I'm trying to find something small enough to attach. John, if you PM me your email address, I'll send it your way.
I have a number of early BIS recordings that were done on a revox A77. I assume this was then schlepped into the mastering suite to cut the record off. Certainly remarkably good results for 'domestic' equipment. Do the Wilson records I have done on John's ultramaster beat it? Of course, but the music is better on BIS.
Dave Wilson started off with a Revox A77, before I made the Ultramaster, and I own an A77 myself. However, it can be outdone, that's for sure.
I'll say! Plus there is that funny switching of channels in record mode that just doesn't cut it. I wonder why that was designed like that?
The B-77 is a better machine that doesn't swap channels in record. An A-700 was a very nice machine. Same heads in all three units, but the A-700 was better in every way. I'm not sure if the PR-99 was better or not for sound quality.
-Chris
The B-77 is a better machine that doesn't swap channels in record. An A-700 was a very nice machine. Same heads in all three units, but the A-700 was better in every way. I'm not sure if the PR-99 was better or not for sound quality.
-Chris
Massively contaminated with 8 legged monsters.
Seriously, using a CMOS bilateral switch like the 4066 to switch on/off the playback channels speaks loud and clear about the expected level of distortion and crosstalk in these tape recorders... Rich snobs are welcomed to spend their money for the bragging rights on this crap.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.