Was talking to a tech today who has been doing warranty work on Teac decks since forever. Knows the products inside and out. Asked him how it would compare to my Nak 681ZX that is still in sickbay. He said the Nak will eat it up and spit it out. Just no comparison whatsoever. I told him I was very happy with the Teac, and he said it was a fine deck, but the Nak is just on a totally higher level.

Is this possible? Is the difference really THAT big???

I had almost the same conversation with the guy I recently bought my Nak ZX-7 from. He made a similar comment.

I've owned some of the best studio and hi-fi cassette decks from Akai, Teac, Tascam, and ... Nakamichi.

I would say the answer to your question is that when they are maintained and working well, and properly used (adjusting bias and azimuth for each tape) ...

YES! Good Naks are that much better! :yes: :music:

Please remember that we HAVE to talk about these pieces of equipment as they are today, not what they were like when new. Argueably, many decks can be brought to better than new specs, with new electronics, better rubbers, etc, so everything is variable. I may think my deck works perfect, and is ok and it may be way out, but I try ;-)...so it really depends on what you are comparing.

The lowest 2 head Nak is no contest against a TOTL Teac. The 681ZX was a TOTL in its time, like $1600 when new, so OF COURSE, if it's up to snuff it would eat it up and spit $600 Teac out. And to anyone who's listened to high quality music it's painfully obvious, like, "I better put this on ebay with a $20 BIN ASAP" kind of obvious. Apples to apples, Nak only had competition from other very high end consumer electronics (Akai, B&O, Tandberg, Revox, a few others) . But were ALWAYS WAY more expensive for the features and published specs of it's competitors (except maybe Revox, who published worse specs and higher prices), yet they STILL sold well, better than similarly priced, high end decks, IIRC. Even discounted they were still higher than most others list prices! IMHO, (and I am by no means a Nak expert in any sense, just a user) their strengths were that they brought a very high level of synergy to their products, great controls, great heads, great electronics, great adjustability, etc, etc. so compared to the average deck of the time, they had very few equals. They pushed what they saw as the envelope. When I play a high quality pre-recorded tape on either of the Naks, I have to A-B to the CD to tell the difference..not so with any of my other decks. I can tell it's a tape on them. Naturally, I've not heard every high quality deck, but I've heard a lot of them, both when they were new and my ears were young, and now, when I KNOW I can't be hearing as well as back then, and no other deck I ever heard compared to a TOTL Nak of the same era. They are normally colorless, whereas almost every other deck seems to add (or subtract) something to music, though it may not show up when you do a frequency sweep. When I play something new and still get that sh1t eating grin when the music plays, vs thinking "hmm, that bass ,( cymbal, what ever,) doesn't sound quite right," I know Nak did something right. Luckily they built so friggin many of them, that they can still be maintained.

That said, the Revox B710 & B215 are built better, (which I agree with), but don't sound as sweet. Supposedly Tandberg 3014s (when they work) sound better. I had a friend (still do) in the 70's & 80's that swore by Tandberg, and he had a few pieces, and they sounded great. But every single one just stopped working, at different times and always for no reason..no abuse, no lightning, nothing. I've seen more non-working Tandberg than any high end brand that I can think of. He still owns them, in hopes of someday deciding they are worth getting fixed.

Nak never had Dolby S or dbx, and never went to the later tape standards. WTF? I've read (both when it happened and here on AK) that Nak stated that they didn't NEED to change, as the changes were necessary for lesser manufacturers to achieve better sound. I'd love to hear a Teac V-8000. That would tell me a lot. Can you imagine if Nak had pushed the wider record path to the limit that they took the old standard to? Naks were already the most expensive decks inthe world, don't you think they could afford to license dolby S or dbx as well? I remember in the 80's thinking that if Nak wasn't making the effort, then tapes were truly dead.

THE best?? I can't say that, there are very few really THE bests that I can think of. Consistently one of the best? You bet.

The only cassette decks that gave Nakamichi´s best units a serious run for their money were a few Tandbergs.


Just wait till you hear your fully restored 681ZX, Erik.:yes:

Mind you, towards the end, even Nakamichi produced some unexceptional decks.

The only cassette decks that gave Nakamichi´s best units a serious run for their money were a few Tandbergs.......



I would mention Luxman K05 and Alpage AL90 as candidates too

I think that Tandberg is the only manufacturer that made decks that sounded better than the Best Naks.

I presently own a CR-7A, as well as several other lesser Naks. I have owned, but sold a Dragon, and a ZX-9. Prior to acquiring a Tandberg 3014A myself I thought that the hype out there about the best Tandbergs sounding better was all just hype. But, I discovered that I was wrong. I've simply never heard another machine which sounded so musical as my 3014A does.

My Revox B215s has the best-buit mechanism of any machine, but sonically it takes close third place berhind the 3014a and the CR-7A.

If you looks at measurements though, the best Naks and Tandbergs are simply unmatched (although the naks do measure a tad better). No other machines even come close if you look at their HF Frequency Response extension. Naks had better HF headroom without HX pro that most manufacturers TOTL decks had with it! And the very best Naks could go out to 24kHz, without using metal tape, and the waveforms at those frequencies were quite clean. But so can a 3014A.

But Naks are definitely more reliable than the Tandbergs. Your 681 is a truly superb unit. You may well be shocked at how good it sounds when you get it back. At some point measurements don't mean much however, and it all comes down to subjective listening. In this regard you will discover that your Nak truly excels. You probably won't beat it though, until and unless you get one of the best Tandbergs.

I have had my 670ZX for less than a week now. After experimenting with it daily, I have to say it is far and away the best sounding and recording deck I have ever owned or even heard.

For me, these are the best sounding cassette machines!

1. Tandberg (the best in audio quality and good mechanically)
2. Middle of the line and upper Nakamichis
3. ReVox/ Studer (The best cassette transports, excellent sound but not up to #1 or #2.)
4. Upper end JVC 3 head machines.
5. Advent 201 (mechanically as reliable as a ReVox, good sonics. Has kept working for many owners when fancier machines needed repairs. Many of them function to this day. First made in 1971, ahead of it's time by years and USA built to high standards. The father of hi-fi cassette decks)
6. Tascam 122, 122 Mk II and III (Good sounding, broadcast reliable.)

I've owned middle of the line NAKS for many years and have always been impressed by their quality.

NAK never used Dolby S because they were basically out of the cassette market by the time "S" became popular. "S" was marketed because of the failure of Dolby "C" with consumers because it is only works well within certain parameters and too many of the decks with the "C" circuit couldn't meet those parameters. For a manufacturer to get a license for the "S" circuits they had to agree to only put it into decks that had better control of these variables - tape alignment to standard; eq and bias to standard; repeatability from deck to deck; head saturation standards; head alignment and azimuth to standard. In other words, the deck must have better engineering & quality control than is required for inclusion of a "B" or "C" circuit. That's why you won't see an "S" circuit on a cheap deck. NAKS, even their cheapest models, already exceeded the quality requirements and their "B" and "C" circuits worked just fine.

Is this possible? Is the difference really THAT big???

YES! Good Naks are that much better! :yes: :music:

I'd dissent. Most of my experience with MOTL Naks has been anticipation was greater than result. Now just about any really TOTL tape deck can produce good results. I think if you get good results that you're happy with that Teac, then enjoy it. Naks are like Hollywood girlfriends .... way too high maintenance and costly for only incremental improvement. IMHO.

I feel Nak's are great, but.... some observations.
- There are more great decks: tandberg, Revox, the Teac Z-series, some Aiawa Excelia's, TOTL Sony's.....
- There come's a point when the cassettedeck isn't the limiting factor, but the cassette itself.

I've worked with some R2R's as well, and I have to say that something like a Revox PR-99 at 15 ips is just better than my own ZX-9. I admit: an unfair comparison, but there's always something better...

There certainly were a number of TOTL decks from other manufactueres that were in the same performance league as MOTL Naks (prior to the decline of Nakamichi in the 90s). But with the exception of Revox, and Tandberg nobody else consistently produced such excellent quality.

Where Naks were most exceptional was at the BOTL and at the TOTL. BOTL Naks could often compete with the performance of many other manufacturers TOTL machines. And TOTL Naks were rarely matched or exceeded by anybody other than TOTL Tandbergs (note: Revox was right up there too, but was not quite up to the same performance standard as the best Naks).

R2R is a different category of machine. And at 15 IPS, a good machine had darn well better outperform a cassette! But it is pretty amazing to me that the very best cassette decks could outperform all but the very best R2Rs at or below 7.5 IPS. Sorry, I love R2R, but even my B77 running at 7.5ips is outperformed in many respects by my CR7A, and my 3014A.

I have a yamaha K1000 3 head deck

teac v900x

and am working on a nak bx-300....

I can tell you this, I had a bx-100, Lx-3 nak and the teac and yammy spank them both handily.

The bx-300 better be some kind of deck to knock off the teac

I have a yamaha K1000 3 head deck

teac v900x

and am working on a nak bx-300....

I can tell you this, I had a bx-100, Lx-3 nak and the teac and yammy spank them both handily.

The bx-300 better be some kind of deck to knock off the teac

I used to work warranty for the three mentioned manufacturers. IMO there's something wrong with the BX-300 if it didn't wipe the floor of the other decks you've mentioned.

I used to work warranty for the three mentioned manufacturers. IMO there's something wrong with the BX-300 if it didn't wipe the floor of the other decks you've mentioned.
I agree. The BX-300 is one of the true "sleeper" Naks. Those machines are exceptional performers.

The best cassette decks could outperform (or at least match) all but the very best R2Rs but only with the help of all kinds of gadgetry that didn't make it into R2R. My mid-range Sony TC-KE500S can match my Teac A-3440 but only because it has computer controlled bias and level adjustment, Dolby-B,C,S and HX-Pro. The Teac (not necessarily one of the very best either but I think generally well-regarded) is as good as the Sony with nothing but tape and heads. I have the dbx unit for it but haven't even tried it yet because frankly I hear no noise as it is (and I'm only running 7.5 ips).

Very true. I always wished that more cassette technology had made it onto R2R. HX-pro was employed on one of Studer's very best (and last) machines, and Tandberg added their DynEQ and actilinear technologies to thier final R2R models. But short of that, nobody else really did that kind of stuff.

Basically, after the late 70s, pretty-much everybody stopped attempting to make R2R any better because cassette were killing R2R in the marketplace. EE tape was the big exception (where they finally introduced Chrome tapes for R2R), but it simply did not live-up to its performance claimes, and frankly represented the last-gasp for consumer open-reel tape machines.

I used to work warranty for the three mentioned manufacturers. IMO there's something wrong with the BX-300 if it didn't wipe the floor of the other decks you've mentioned.

this is good news then...I'm hoping to finish it up tonight....it will be top dog on the main system then

Yes three head decks are the way to go, always..dual capstan, well that much better..just keep things clean.

I would mention Luxman K05 and Alpage AL90 as candidates too

Sorry, but in 1981 I listened to the BOTL Nak 480 two head deck and the TOTL Luxman three head deck and the comparison was a joke. The Nak 480 sounded better than ANY other cassette deck from the middle tier manufacturers (Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, Yamaha...). Back then it cost me $640 Canadian dollars, but in comparison to everything else, it was a great value. And it still runs by the way. I just don't listen to it any more since I acquired a CR7A. I had a friend who had the expensive Pioneers of that era, and they sounded like junk compared to a Nak 480. I even had a Marantz 3 1/2 ips cassette deck that was garbage when compared to the 480.

I've been wondering if its worth the effort in getting my CR7A extensively modded (better power supply, new Black Gate caps, Gutwire power cord, etc.). Has anyone done this with their decks?

Sorry, but in 1981 I listened to the BOTL Nak 480 two head deck and the TOTL Luxman three head deck and the comparison was a joke. The Nak 480 sounded better than ANY other cassette deck from the middle tier manufacturers (Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, Yamaha...). Back then it cost me $640 Canadian dollars, but in comparison to everything else, it was a great value. And it still runs by the way. I just don't listen to it any more since I acquired a CR7A. I had a friend who had the expensive Pioneers of that era, and they sounded like junk compared to a Nak 480. I even had a Marantz 3 1/2 ips cassette deck that was garbage when compared to the 480.

I've been wondering if its worth the effort in getting my CR7A extensively modded (better power supply, new Black Gate caps, Gutwire power cord, etc.). Has anyone done this with their decks?


....yup, I'd have to agree. We were warranty for practically everybody, Luxman included. You should see swept PB response on a Nak with heads in good shape). Even the 2-head machines get out to 18-20kHz so flat and easy. Most other machines (Tandberg and Revox included) get there kicking and screaming. They just struggle more. It can be easily demonstrated.

Sorry, but in 1981 I listened to the BOTL Nak 480 two head deck and the TOTL Luxman three head deck and the comparison was a joke. The Nak 480 sounded better than ANY other cassette deck from the middle tier manufacturers (Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, Yamaha...).

....yup, I'd have to agree.

Again, gotta dissent here. I have a stack of machines available to me. At one point for fun i had a tape playing in a relatively non-descript HK 100m and sitting on top of it was a Nak 480. I played a segment of a tape in one and then the same tape segment seconds later in the other. The result? It's akin to listening to two stereos, one set flat at modest volume and one with loudness on and the tone controls tuned up and at greater volume: in short, it wasn't an even comparison. And not because the Nak was so much "better", it was just clear that the Nak equalization was totally different than any of the other decks on my desk. The comparison wasn't on equal terms. To check, I used several other of the many decks on my desk at the time with the same result. I almost wanted to measure output levels (mV) and see if the line out levels were equal.

The actual tape and music sounded fine on almost all of those basic decks, but sounded on the Nak like you had a completely different eq curve. I didn't relate that to the Nak sounding "better", just different. Using system controls (volume, bass, etc) I could get any of the other decks to match the sound of the Nak. So my question was if the Nak was "adding" that much coloration before the music ever got to the system and it's tone controls, then it had to be playing games with the music where all the rest were recording truer to the original sound.

My $0.02. Don't get me wrong> I like Naks, I just don't swoon over them. I still have that 480 BTW.

Sorry, but in 1981 I listened to the BOTL Nak 480 two head deck and the TOTL Luxman three head deck and the comparison was a joke. The Nak 480 sounded better than ANY other cassette deck from the middle tier manufacturers (Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, Yamaha...). Back then it cost me $640 Canadian dollars, but in comparison to everything else, it was a great value. And it still runs by the way. I just don't listen to it any more since I acquired a CR7A. I had a friend who had the expensive Pioneers of that era, and they sounded like junk compared to a Nak 480. I even had a Marantz 3 1/2 ips cassette deck that was garbage when compared to the 480.

I've been wondering if its worth the effort in getting my CR7A extensively modded (better power supply, new Black Gate caps, Gutwire power cord, etc.). Has anyone done this with their decks?

Wow... these last couple of posts make me think I did alright when I scored my 480 for $15.

As for the general question I do think based on my experience with my 480 that a Nak deck is worthy of the reputation. Solidly built and great sound.

Wow... these last couple of posts make me think I did alright when I scored my 480 for $15.

.

Hells yeah, you did.

It's true that Nak's did have a "different" eq. curve. Nak's conformed to the IEC (Prague) 1981 standard. If you play a tape recorded on another , non-Nak, machine on a Nakamichi, it's likely to sound dull. This is because the Naks don't need to boost the hell out of their record eq. to get get flat, extended R/P response.

When making comparisons with decks, it must be known what spec the machine is conforming to? and if playback is being evaluated, what machine/spec was the recording made on? I know what question this might raise: "Well if I'm playing back on another machine and being dissapointed, why do I need a Nakamichi?". The answer is, many Nakamichi afficianoado's had Nakamichi's in their cars too. If you had all Nakamichi decks around, there were no better cassette systems. There were interoperability problems with other brands however. For their Pro line, the MR-1'2 and 2's, Nak had a service bulletin where the eq curve could be changed (dumbed down, IMO) so that it would play well with other machines.

Naks are a different breed.

Wow.
Thanks for all the info guys. Sounds like someone could write a good book on Nakamichi and their product.

Much food for thought!

Have found the Nakamichi 480Z to have a great sound. Always makes me wonder what the upper level ones must sound like.

I sold Nak back in the day of the 1000, 700, 700 II and the rest.

Yes, they were so good they set the audio world on its ear.

Back in the day I had a Nakamichi 600, a 500, and a 680 ZX. Picked up the Nakamichi/Telefunken Hi-Com II noise reduction system, and it was off to the cassette races.

With the Hi_com, the noise floor on the 680ZX was comparable to the Revox A77 and B77s I had access to at the radio station. Nak has some classic tape rigs. :yes:

If you play a tape recorded on another , non-Nak, machine on a Nakamichi, it's likely to sound dull.

It is other way around :smoke: .

Alex

Alex is right. Other deck tapes usually sound even better on a Nak...I've experienced the recorded on Nak, not as good on a non-Nak issue for the first time. Still looking into that one, tho...

Guys, about equalization (tapes being dull or bright), with Dolby encoding you have to calibrate for a tape. Once the record and playback are calibrated Dolby tapes should play right on all properly set up Dolby tape machines.

That is kind of the purpose of it all.

Guys, about equalization (tapes being dull or bright), with Dolby encoding you have to calibrate for a tape. Once the record and playback are calibrated Dolby tapes should play right on all properly set up Dolby tape machines.

That is kind of the purpose of it all.

It is not as simple as this. A calibration only will give you a reasonably flat recording-playback frequency response for a particular deck. It may be not the same for another deck, as their playback responses could be different. Look here for an illustration (http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Graphs/PB_FR/album/index.html) - all these pictures show the results of a playback on different decks of an STL reproduce alignment tape (compensated as per IEC 1981, that is why Naks do show a rise in HF). In theory all decks should show a reasonably flat response over 200 Hz (below that the head geometry and a fringe effect do vary the response, but that is not relevant for Dolby). In practice there is a lot of variations. For a good Dolby compatibility the deviation of the frequency response should be not more than 1-2 dB from the standard at frequencies over 2 kHz. Only few decks out of 21 actually close to that requirement. And if the playback response is not standard the deck would not play a properly made Dolby-encoded recording (including a pre-recorded tape with Dolby) correctly. As you may see from the pictures, it is not an easy task to keep the standard :sigh: . That is the reason why Dolby-recorded tapes usually only sound good on the deck used to record them.

Alex

I always thought that Naks recorded a narrower track, with a narrower slit in the rec head, so later IEC decks were reading a wider track, which contributes to noise and hiss, and a wider sample area, which increases distortion and reduces sharpness....and that was why they always sound best played back on a Nak. I would assume any deck that was $1000 when new would have a pretty dang good dolby section for both record and playback. All my commercial pre-recorded tapes sound best on my Naks, hands down..some amazingly so.

It is not as simple as this. A calibration only will give you a reasonably flat recording-playback frequency response for a particular deck. It may be not the same for another deck, as their playback responses could be different. Look here for an illustration (http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Graphs/PB_FR/album/index.html) - all these pictures show the results of a playback on different decks of an STL reproduce alignment tape (compensated as per IEC 1981, that is why Naks do show a rise in HF). In theory all decks should show a reasonably flat response over 200 Hz (below that the head geometry and a fringe effect do vary the response, but that is not relevant for Dolby). In practice there is a lot of variations. For a good Dolby compatibility the deviation of the frequency response should be not more than 1-2 dB from the standard at frequencies over 2 kHz. Only few decks out of 21 actually close to that requirement. And if the playback response is not standard the deck would not play a properly made Dolby-encoded recording (including a pre-recorded tape with Dolby) correctly. As you may see from the pictures, it is not an easy task to keep the standard :sigh: . That is the reason why Dolby-recorded tapes usually only sound good on the deck used to record them.

Alex

Alex, you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges.

I said record and playback. You are talking of playback only of a "standard" tape. Please reread my post. What I said was..."Once the record and playback are calibrated Dolby tapes should play right on all properly set up Dolby tape machines." You are referring to the playback of a tape that wasn't set up using the Dolby standard tape to calibrate the playback reading, then the recording set to playback at the same level and the tape made with Dolby processing.

The whole reason for the Dolby standards was that tapes would be compatible between machines.

P.S. I remember these traces when they were new. I saw many tape machines and tapes showing the differences in frequency response.

TEAC's statement cassette deck, the ZX7000 "Master Deck" will surprise you. It surprised me so much that I sold the Dragon, and kept the Z7000. :smoke:

This deck is hard-to-find....... :yes:

Best,

Paul

Alex, you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges.

I said record and playback. You are talking of playback only of a "standard" tape. Please reread my post. What I said was..."Once the record and playback are calibrated Dolby tapes should play right on all properly set up Dolby tape machines." You are referring to the playback of a tape that wasn't set up using the Dolby standard tape to calibrate the playback reading, then the recording set to playback at the same level and the tape made with Dolby processing.

The whole reason for the Dolby standards was that tapes would be compatible between machines.

P.S. I remember these traces when they were new. I saw many tape machines and tapes showing the differences in frequency response.

Grainger, the Dolby standard tape only can help to set the playback level, but not the frequency response, which supposed to be standard - but it isn't. For 2 reasons: first, there are at least 2 standards used - older, followed by Nakamichi, and "corrected" from 1981, used by others after that date. Even on the Dolby level value there is a confusion - different manufacturers have their own standard tapes and they differ in the actual level by as much as 1 dB! On the frequency response side most decks are not standard enough and in the majority of decks there are no means to adjust the playback response without changes in the circuit.

Even if the playback level set correctly by the Dolby tape, the frequency response may vary , making a correct Dolby playback impossible. Coming back to the topic, Nakamichi used the older, not "corrected" playback standard and that is what makes a systematic difference with most other deck manufacturers, creating the mentioned consistent incompatibility.

Alex

Alex,

Most of what you have said is accurate. The only point which I would take issue with is your wording. "Corrected" is not the right word. "Revised" is a better word

Nakamichi adhered to the original IEC standard, while the rest of the industry progressed to the revised IEC standard. But the rest of the industry had to do this to achieve extended FR on their machines. But Nakamichi did not follow the industry's lead on this because their heads were so much better than everybody else's, that it was unecessary.

Alex,

Most of what you have said is accurate. The only point which I would take issue with is your wording. "Corrected" is not the right word. "Revised" is a better word

Nakamichi adhered to the original IEC standard, while the rest of the industry progressed to the revised IEC standard. But the rest of the industry had to do this to achieve extended FR on their machines. But Nakamichi did not follow the industry's lead on this because their heads were so much better than everybody else's, that it was unecessary.

"Corrected" is actually written on the Standard Tape Laboratory cassette I've used to get these frequency responses. That is why I've used that word :) . In other cases it is usually referred to as just "1981 IEC standard".

Cheers

Alex

TEAC's statement cassette deck, the ZX7000 "Master Deck" will surprise you. It surprised me so much that I sold the Dragon, and kept the Z7000. :smoke:

This deck is hard-to-find....... :yes:

Best,

Paul

Paul,

There were a number of ultimate decks back then. I don't think we were saying that there were not.

But I think the Nak decks were "that good." As the OP asked.

Grainger, the Dolby standard tape only can help to set the playback level, but not the frequency response, which supposed to be standard - but it isn't. For 2 reasons: first, there are at least 2 standards used - older, followed by Nakamichi, and "corrected" from 1981, used by others after that date. Even on the Dolby level value there is a confusion - different manufacturers have their own standard tapes and they differ in the actual level by as much as 1 dB! On the frequency response side most decks are not standard enough and in the majority of decks there are no means to adjust the playback response without changes in the circuit.

Even if the playback level set correctly by the Dolby tape, the frequency response may vary , making a correct Dolby playback impossible. Coming back to the topic, Nakamichi used the older, not "corrected" playback standard and that is what makes a systematic difference with most other deck manufacturers, creating the mentioned consistent incompatibility.

Alex

Alex,

I agree that all decks have different frequency responses and each deck is set up to play a certain tape. With that tape its frequency response is near flat.

Reread my first post. I mention setting up both playback and record for Dolby. You seem to keep missing that point.

I owned 5 different Dolby Cassette decks and sold many, many more models (Advent, H-K, Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha, Tandberg...). I also owned an outboard Dolby NR unit.

I also remember the controversy over the flux strength (density?) of the Dolby signal on cassette standard tapes back then.

My Nakamichi 700II has every possible adjustment for tape and Dolby on it. 90% are user accessible on the back of the machine. Using these adjustments makes tapes "standard." If the receiving deck is properly set up... you know.

Oh, and if it isn't set up properly ....

Though I never heard a top flight Nak, I did have a DR-1 once. Nice sound for a lesser Nak. I heard by quite a few people the top Tandberg decks can beat out the top Naks, which is why I bought myself two 3014/3014A decks. But I'd still like to hear a ZX-9 deck or even a Dragon to get a fair comparison. I've heard ESL can do wonders for refurbishing old Nak decks, making them sound better then new. Some will argue the Naks can still beat the Tandbergs, but its apples and oranges. Some prefer the sound of one or the other. That said I'd still like to get a ZX-9 one day just to know for myself. I'd be happy to own either deck really. The Naks are no slouches in performance for sure.

................Some will argue the Naks can still beat the Tandbergs, but its apples and oranges. Some prefer the sound of one or the other.

I worked at a warranty station for both. If both have fresh heads, the Naks do beat the Tandbergs on instrumentation. Sound quality is subjective, but on instruments, it can be demonstrated. The Tandbergs are great, just not as good.

I will agree that on instrumentation, Naks do test a little better than the Tandbergs. But, subjectively, there is just something inherently slighltly more musical to the best Tandbergs. I love both my 3014A and my CR7A, but they have different strenghts and weaknesses.

I've heard ESL can do wonders for refurbishing old Nak decks, making them sound better then new.

What is ESL?

What is ESL?

Click here > ESL (http://www.eslabs.com/index.htm)

http://www.eslabs.com/index.htm

I kind of use this as a measure of whether a thread has had a skid sideways. The OP hasn't posted since the 25th post, this is the 46th.

We are officially sideways!

Actually, not sideways at all!
Just sitting back, learning and enjoying the thread.
GREAT information!

Sure, the OP hasn't replied in awhile, but with a thread named "Are Nakamichi's really THAT good?", you can be sure that that will take on a life of it's own. I, personally, don't have a problem with others experience and experiences chiming in. Nak haters might disagree, but for technicians that used to work on them almost all universally agree (I think) that Naks ARE all that. It's nice to explain some of the issues such as interoperability with other manufactures that some complain about. It's really not the Nak's fault.

I have a Nak CR-3, which I really like. The recordings I make on it sound, to me, identical to the source. Of all the Naks I have worked on, I like it the best, because it has no idler wheel to wear out, the reels are gear driven. So it is more reliable, besides sounding terrific. However, my Denon DR-M44HX sounds just as good and is also reliable and extremely well built. You don't hear much about these decks so you can buy them cheap (it wasn't cheap when I bought it new!) but they really are the equal of the Naks, IMO. There are other decks that are as good as a Nak, I think, you just don't hear about them because the manufacturer's name doesn't have the cache that Nakamichi does:
JVC KD-V6
Akai GX-F90, GX-F91, GX-F8
Teac C-1
Harman Kardon's TOTL deck from the 1980's, I can't remember the model number.
Onkyo Integra made some wonderful cassette decks.

I'm making a recording on my DR-M44HX right now and it sounds exactly like the source. I am using DBX noise reduction, so that helps.

Harman Kardon's TOTL deck from the 1980's, I can't remember the model number.

HK CD491?

I'd add a few of the TOTL Sony decks IMHO, the TC-K81 produces superb tapes in my system.

HK CD491?

I'd add a few of the TOTL Sony decks IMHO, the TC-K81 produces superb tapes in my system.

That's the one, thanks, Jim! Also Sony TC-K770 ES I think that's the model. The one with the door in the center.

HK CD491?

I'd add a few of the TOTL Sony decks IMHO, the TC-K81 produces superb tapes in my system.

You are probably right about this model number, the one I remember is the CAD-5. I think it was their first. Not a bad deck but not in the stratosphere either.

I have an HK 400Xm which has about every tuning and customizeable feature needed, but IMHO it doesn't sound much better than other MOTL decks. It needs a tune-up though. But the HK CD491's get a lot of rave reviews.

Back around 1980, or so HK had a challenge. They said: "Bring in your deck. We'll test it against our CD-291. If your deck beats it, we'll give you a case of tapes". One Nakamichi came in that day. I watched it on the Leader test equipment that HK was trucking around. R/P, flat to 23kHz. That guy went home with the only case of tapes.

bx-1,bx-2,bx-3, 480,480,480....... my 3 head sony , mitsubishi, hitachi decks can't
touch these 2-headers, let alone the bx3 . no comparison .

i've owned the h/k 291,391 ....not even close to a bx-1 .

imho , no cassette can touch the dynamic range of 1/4" tape . even on a late'70s sony sound-on-sound deck ,
it just sounds like more power's in the tape.

I really can not give a good comparison but I can add that Nak's are a joy to run. I have a Dragon and a CR7A and both are amazing compared to other decks I have owned.

There is no doubt that dbx can make tapes sound great, IMHO. I use it a lot on my Yamaha K-1020, and the dynamics are outstanding. However many will argue (I honestly can't) that dbx adds it's own issues ("breathing", playback interchangeability, distortion, yada yada yada). You'll never play a dbx tape on a Nak. I've never used a Denon tape deck, so don't know any of it's specs, and of course if you like the sound, that's all that counts, but Naks specs just always seem to blow the others away, as well they should for the original price point. And unlike a ton of other manufacturers, they actually meet and usually beat their specs pretty handily. My K-1020 was their TOTL in '85 and has HX Pro as well as dbx, and has a similar Sanyo mechanism, but it can't get the W&F (believe me, I've tried) numbers that that my older RX-505 has, and the running noise is a bit more annoying than the Naks. Of course the Nak was $1500 when new, but I'm sure a bit of that is the UDAR. But the Yamaha has auto tape select, a real time counter (though not as cool as the B215s which will tell you where it is on the tape after a few seconds pretty accurately), 2 speed FF & RW and a very easy to use manual tape bias system, (ORBIT). It is also built like a tank, so you really got a lot of features and quality construction for its original $640 price, compared to what you could get Nak wise for the same money. (Of course, both were availble heavily discounted, in real life) I CLEARLY remember thinking in the late 70s and early 80s, even after listening to and being impressed with a Nak 680, IIRC, "Why would anyone pay so much MORE for a deck with fewer features?", and indeed my wallet was way too thin to even consider a new Nak, so I bought the top of the MOTL new Yamaha K-960 for under $300 (I HAD to have a remote, wired of course) and still have it, still works great with dbx, but not even remotely as nice as any 2 head Nak. Dolby tapes are decidely dull on it compared to any Nak or the K-1020, but it rocked with dbx. It was near impossible to find a used Nakamichi in those days. No one ever sold them once they used them.

One of my favorite AV gear scenes in all of movie-dom is when, in 9 1/2 Weeks, Mickey Rourke takes Michelle Pfeiffer up to his apartment. They walk in, and move to a doorway in the background. There's some awesome music playing (don't recall what it was), but as Rourke and Pfeiffer make out in the doorway (in soft focus in the background), the tape reaches the end of the song. The tape deck comes into focus. It's a Nak Dragon, and it does that cool eject, flip the tape around, resume playing UDAR thing.

One of my favorite AV gear scenes in all of movie-dom is when, in 9 1/2 Weeks, Mickey Rourke takes Michelle Pfeiffer up to his apartment. They walk in, and move to a doorway in the background. There's some awesome music playing (don't recall what it was), but as Rourke and Pfeiffer make out in the doorway (in soft focus in the background), the tape reaches the end of the song. The tape deck comes into focus. It's a Nak Dragon, and it does that cool eject, flip the tape around, resume playing UDAR thing.


Not the Dragon but probably the RX-505

I use a DBX 224 NR unit with my Nak CR3, and it works great.

I am lucky enough to own a Dragon, is it the best deck in the world? I don't know, I never owned a TOTL Tandberg, but I am quite happy with it and am not going to waste my time trying to find out. It is the last deck I will own.

I am lucky enough to own a Dragon, is it the best deck in the world? I don't know, I never owned a TOTL Tandberg, but I am quite happy with it and am not going to waste my time trying to find out. It is the last deck I will own.
I thought the exact same thing when I owned my Dragon. But when an opportunity came along to buy a tandberg 3014A locally for a really good price, and I simply had to jump. Then, I learned what all the fuss was about. I never really believed that anything could best my Dragon until then.

....yup, I'd have to agree. We were warranty for practically everybody, Luxman included. You should see swept PB response on a Nak with heads in good shape). Even the 2-head machines get out to 18-20kHz so flat and easy. Most other machines (Tandberg and Revox included) get there kicking and screaming. They just struggle more. It can be easily demonstrated.

Hahahahahahaha.

No way.

"dolph"

I think that Tandberg is the only manufacturer that made decks that sounded better than the Best Naks.

I presently own a CR-7A, as well as several other lesser Naks. I have owned, but sold a Dragon, and a ZX-9. Prior to acquiring a Tandberg 3014A myself I thought that the hype out there about the best Tandbergs sounding better was all just hype. But, I discovered that I was wrong. I've simply never heard another machine which sounded so musical as my 3014A does.

My Revox B215s has the best-buit mechanism of any machine, but sonically it takes close third place berhind the 3014a and the CR-7A.

If you looks at measurements though, the best Naks and Tandbergs are simply unmatched (although the naks do measure a tad better). No other machines even come close if you look at their HF Frequency Response extension. Naks had better HF headroom without HX pro that most manufacturers TOTL decks had with it! And the very best Naks could go out to 24kHz, without using metal tape, and the waveforms at those frequencies were quite clean. But so can a 3014A.

But Naks are definitely more reliable than the Tandbergs. Your 681 is a truly superb unit. You may well be shocked at how good it sounds when you get it back. At some point measurements don't mean much however, and it all comes down to subjective listening. In this regard you will discover that your Nak truly excels. You probably won't beat it though, until and unless you get one of the best Tandbergs.

I don't understand the rumour about Tandberg being fragile.
I believe it to be a rumour made by people that never owed Tandberg decks.

I have had the Nakamichi CR 7E and the Dragon and some MOTL Nakamichis.
I also have had a lot of Tandbergs and Revox, Teac, Luxman and whatever available.

I, for sure, had more faults on my Nakamichis, Teacs and Revox's than on any of my Tandberg machines.

And for the record it's Tandberg TCD 310 mkI & mkII, TCD 330, TCD 440A, TCD 3014, TCD 3014A, TCD 910.

I still have the 910 and the 440A.
I also have a Revox that I had to get serviced more than once.

I sold my Nakamichis.
I kept the Revox for better build than any.............I mistakedly thought.
Kept my Tandberg TCD 910 for the reason of best recording and sounding and that I didn't mistake about.

The Nakamichi ZX-9 is my favourite from that brand.
And I really like them.
I also like the CR7 and the Dragon.
I just find the Tandbergs do the sound thing better.
And that's what matters to me.


"dolph"

Very true. I always wished that more cassette technology had made it onto R2R. HX-pro was employed on one of Studer's very best (and last) machines, and Tandberg added their DynEQ and actilinear technologies to thier final R2R models. But short of that, nobody else really did that kind of stuff.

Basically, after the late 70s, pretty-much everybody stopped attempting to make R2R any better because cassette were killing R2R in the marketplace. EE tape was the big exception (where they finally introduced Chrome tapes for R2R), but it simply did not live-up to its performance claimes, and frankly represented the last-gasp for consumer open-reel tape machines.


Many confusions are made about HX.

Some cassette decks have Dolby HX.

A few cassette decks have HX-Pro.
Less than those using the cheaper and inferior Dolby HX.
It's not same quality.
HX-Pro is the best technology of the two.

However, even the manufacturers of tape machines sometimes mistook what was what.
It is actually possible to find machines with the writing: Dolby HX-Pro.
That is a non existing thing.

Studer used HX-Pro on a few of their very TOTL machines.
As did Lyrec.

"dolph"

It can be a problem that some Nakamichi machines actually are not Cassette decks, stricktly talking, by the official standard.
It has been mentioned before.
The EQ curve differs on some models.
The head gap differs on some models.

That is a constructive difference.
When decks incooperated techniques like HX-Pro, Dyneq or Actilinear, it was not creating compatibility issues.

Dolby, dbx and HiCom noise reduction systems also made unintentionally compatibility issues due to the nature of the systems being "double ended". They had to do the opposite in PB as they did under recording.

A minor calibrating out of line or differences in Frequency Response and Linearity would make it audible when playing a tape recorded on another machine when these noise reduction systems were in use.
Another issue about double ended noise reduction is that they

That creates compatibility issues with tapes recorded on other brands of cassette decks or tapes recorded on nakamichi and played back on other brands of machines.
The technology was basically compression and expansion.
And as we know from the loudness war and from the compression issues on modern comercial digital reproduced music (in particular dedicated for FM broadcasting) this is destructive technology when out of control and they sure easily gets out of control.

Tape allignment comes very handy and comfortable when automized.
But it's the manual callibration that can do the trick of getting it "most right".
The more allignment featured, the more precise the deck can take advantage of a certain tape.
Bias for each track and for each speed.
Eq for each speed, for each track and seperate for recording and PB.
Record level for each speed and for each track and seperate for recording and PB.
Azimuth on Recording head.
Azimuth on PB head (better left alone unless you really have to play a tape from a foreign machine......otherwise useless).
That's just to list the ultimate.


"dolph"

I don't understand the rumour about Tandberg being fragile.
I believe it to be a rumour made by people that never owed Tandberg decks.

I have had the Nakamichi CR 7E and the Dragon and some MOTL Nakamichis.
I also have had a lot of Tandbergs and Revox, Teac, Luxman and whatever available.

I, for sure, had more faults on my Nakamichis, Teacs and Revox's than on any of my Tandberg machines.
"dolph"
I agree with much of what you have said. The big problem I see with my 3014A is that is it common for one of the two capstan belts to break, and changing these is a serious PITA (I've done it once, but have seen the issue twice). Also spare parts availability is a real issue for these machines if something should break. And why they chose to use belts to drive the hubs in a 4 motor machine is simply beyond me. But despite this theoretical weakness, this has not caused me any problems yet.

The 440A has a much more robust design than does the 3014A. The 440A along with some of ther early Tandbergs is one of the most robustly built machines I've ever seen. It uses direct-drive reel hubs which are really impressive. But I don't think that the W&F performance is nearly as good as it is on the 3014A.

Many confusions are made about HX.

Some cassette decks have Dolby HX.

A few cassette decks have HX-Pro.
Less than those using the cheaper and inferior Dolby HX.
It's not same quality.
HX-Pro is the best technology of the two.

However, even the manufacturers of tape machines sometimes mistook what was what.
It is actually possible to find machines with the writing: Dolby HX-Pro.
That is a non existing thing.

Studer used HX-Pro on a few of their very TOTL machines.
As did Lyrec.

"dolph"
I’m sorry, but some of your facts are mixed-up here. Yes, there was a technology called Dolby HX which preceded (by a few months) HX-Pro. And Yes, Bang & Olefson HX-Pro was a far superior technology to Dolby HX (which actually was almost useless).

But what you fail to remember is that Dolby Labs purchased the licensing rights to B&O HX-Pro within a less than a year of the introduction of HX-Pro on B&O machines, and quickly abandoned the obsolete Dolby HX technology forever. From that point forward, B&O HX-Pro became licensed through Dolby Labs right along with Dolby B&C, and was re-named “Dolby HX-Pro” on everything except for B&O machines where the name “HX-Pro” remained, without the Dolby brand association.

So the fact is that, very few machines ever used Dolby HX because it was no more than a year before Dolby labs replaced it forever with Dolby HX-Pro. I remember a Vector Research model in the early 80s, and a handful of others which featured Dolby HX. But less than a year after the release of B&O’s first machine with HX-Pro, almost everybody except for Nakamichi and Tandberg were using HX-Pro in any machine which made any claims to being high quality.

Interesting thread. Back in the cassette time, I worked in a store sold a lot of decks and we were a top 5 Nak dealer. I think the original decks were very good, 600, 700, 1000, but the breakthrough product was the 580 series and those that followed. These all featured the Diffused Resonance transport with the cassette tape pressure pad lifter. This allowed the cassette tape shell and crappy pressure pad to be removed from the equation.
In the case of the 580 it did work but the decks kept eating the tapes! Ha. After a bit of head placement modification it was then clear sailing. Yes, a properly working 480 is a very good deck then as now.
Other brand machines can sound good and there are sure a bunch of them since the market was huge. Other than the Tandbergs that had other challenges, Nakamichi was in a class by themselves.
I used to run an alignment performance chart on every deck we sold using the SoundTech gear. As stated above the Naks just worked a whole bunch better than the rest, way more extended and very flat response. The three head Nak decks with Metal tape would compare to the Revox, Tandberg and Otari reel to reel decks except the Nak had better noise specs. Amazing.

Thanks,
Ron-C

Hahahahahahaha.

No way.

"dolph"

Way.

Get yourself a Sound Technology 1500, or an Audio Precision System 1 or 2 and some good test tapes. ....easily demonstrated.

The HK CD-491 will match the Better naks in freq response. It is one of the few. A few of the 3 head Onkyo models will go out to 21 KHZ or so. The 3 head JVC and Aiwa decks will go out to nearly 20 khz and are greatly under appreciated.

My understanding is Naks tech out really well in specs. The Tandbergs don't spec as well, but sound better then Naks. So Naks technically do well in recording, why Tandbergs are slightly more musical.

The HK CD-491 will match the Better naks in freq response. It is one of the few. A few of the 3 head Onkyo models will go out to 21 KHZ or so. The 3 head JVC and Aiwa decks will go out to nearly 20 khz and are greatly under appreciated.

I have an Aiwa 9000 deck which in specs go to 24 khz. Not sure where on the +- 3db at -20db that the 24 khz spec is. Not many decks can go that high. I think my Tandberg goes to 23 khz. Of course my old saleman Elliot Cohen of Unrah's TV and Stereo used to pound into my brain that its how a unit sounds and not the specs on a paper- which are important. He'd grab the brochure from me, put it next to my ear, and ask "So how does it sound?"

...He'd grab the brochure from me, put it next to my ear, and ask "So how does it sound?"

Touche'. Well put. I spent all day listening to my Nak 480 and came away very impressed that it was just as good and no better than my Sony 2-head decks. Par.

Of course my old saleman Elliot Cohen of Unrah's TV and Stereo used to pound into my brain that its how a unit sounds and not the specs on a paper- which are important. He'd grab the brochure from me, put it next to my ear, and ask "So how does it sound?"

Brilliant!
Thanks.

My understanding is Naks tech out really well in specs. The Tandbergs don't spec as well, but sound better then Naks. So Naks technically do well in recording, why Tandbergs are slightly more musical.
Well said. Although I would add that the best Naks only slightly out-spec the 3014A, and that the 3014A is capable of some truly amazing recordings too.

Anyways to me specs only provide me with an indication of whether a deck has any major deficiencies or not. Once you're beyond a certain performance level, who cares which measures slightly better. In the end, its the listening that truly counts. And many subjective qualities simply cannot be seen on a spec sheet.

I agree with much of what you have said. The big problem I see with my 3014A is that is it common for one of the two capstan belts to break, and changing these is a serious PITA (I've done it once, but have seen the issue twice). Also spare parts availability is a real issue for these machines if something should break. And why they chose to use belts to drive the hubs in a 4 motor machine is simply beyond me. But despite this theoretical weakness, this has not caused me any problems yet.

The 440A has a much more robust design than does the 3014A. The 440A along with some of ther early Tandbergs is one of the most robustly built machines I've ever seen. It uses direct-drive reel hubs which are really impressive. But I don't think that the W&F performance is nearly as good as it is on the 3014A.

Reason for belt drive is simple, Just as simple as on TT's:
Better sound quality.

"dolph"

I’m sorry, but some of your facts are mixed-up here. Yes, there was a technology called Dolby HX which preceded (by a few months) HX-Pro. And Yes, Bang & Olefson HX-Pro was a far superior technology to Dolby HX (which actually was almost useless).

But what you fail to remember is that Dolby Labs purchased the licensing rights to B&O HX-Pro within a less than a year of the introduction of HX-Pro on B&O machines, and quickly abandoned the obsolete Dolby HX technology forever. From that point forward, B&O HX-Pro became licensed through Dolby Labs right along with Dolby B&C, and was re-named “Dolby HX-Pro” on everything except for B&O machines where the name “HX-Pro” remained, without the Dolby brand association.

So the fact is that, very few machines ever used Dolby HX because it was no more than a year before Dolby labs replaced it forever with Dolby HX-Pro. I remember a Vector Research model in the early 80s, and a handful of others which featured Dolby HX. But less than a year after the release of B&O’s first machine with HX-Pro, almost everybody except for Nakamichi and Tandberg were using HX-Pro in any machine which made any claims to being high quality.

I don't believe the history is that simple to rewrite.
Tech guys from B&O, who was present at the time, have told different stories.
Machines like Lyrec and Studer, still were using HX-Pro way up in the mid and late 80's as R2R production were fading out.
On the machines was labeled "HX-Pro Patented by B&O".

Stickers related to HX-Pro states patented by B&O and stickers related to Dolby HX (-pro) states patented by Dolby labs.

Some machines HX is an on/off function and on some they aren't.
It's not supposed ever to be off. No reason for off with HX-Pro.

I would really like to have heard Actilinear and Dyneq in combo with HX-Pro.

Whatever.
It's not important and a bit OT in this thread.

"dolph"

....yup, I'd have to agree. We were warranty for practically everybody, Luxman included. You should see swept PB response on a Nak with heads in good shape). Even the 2-head machines get out to 18-20kHz so flat and easy. Most other machines (Tandberg and Revox included) get there kicking and screaming. They just struggle more. It can be easily demonstrated.

From brands own data in Service and User manuals:

Nakamichi ZX-9 Frequency response when best:
20 - 21.000 Hz +/- 3dB (at -20dB on ZX tapes)

Nakamichi Dragon Frequency response when best:
20 - 22.000 Hz +/- 3dB (recording level -20dB on ZX tapes)

Nakamichi CR7 E/A Frequency response when best:
18 - 21.000 Hz +/- 3dB (recording level -20dB on ZX tapes)

Tandberg TCD 910 Frequency response when best:
18 - 23.000Hz +/- 1,5 dB (recording level -20dB on type IV tapes rel. 250nWb/m) (+/- 3dB with Dolby C)

Tandberg TCD 3014A Frequency response when best:
18 - 23.000Hz +/- 1,5 dB (recording level -20dB on type IV tapes rel. 250nWb/m) (+/- 3dB with Dolby C)

According to my service papers on my machines this is very close.
AAMOF Tandberg turned out to be more conservative than the rest.
Hmmmmmm

Maybe your Sound Technology 1500 or the Audio Precision System 1 or 2 need service or you should measure on machines that a proper tech has alligned.

"dolph"

It is not how it sounds per say, It is how accurate the tape source comparison is. With a very good deck there is no difference.

Reason for belt drive is simple, Just as simple as on TT's:
Better sound quality.

"dolph"
Dolf, I wasn't refering to the capstan, in which case I'd agree with you. I was referring to the reel-hubs, for which there was no-good reason (other than space considerations) to use belt-drive on a 4-motor machine. The 440A does not have this issue, and it did employ direct-drive hubs (but not capstans).

And I agree that B&O maintained the pattents for the HX-Pro technology. But it was always my understanding that B&O let Dolby Labs license this technology from them, and then let them re-license it to most manufacturers.

But as you stated, it does not matter anymore, so we move on...

..... And why they chose to use belts to drive the hubs in a 4 motor machine is simply beyond me. But despite this theoretical weakness, this has not caused me any problems yet.

The theoritical reason (casette deck's) is that using belt driven dual capstan, you'll acchieve two major things:

1 to eliminate tape travel things, caused by the casette - practice shows very little flutter - Closed loop dual capstan decks usually have reputation for very low W&F (*3)

2: because of the belt running on 2 flywheels, it'll create a very little speed difference between the two capstans, therefore some tension occours, which eliminates the need for preassure pads to keep tape in close contact with the heads (many dual capstan decks have preassure pad lifters, becuase of this)

This was told me by a Danish Tandberg Technician (Jerry Katz) when the now really ancient TCD 300 / 3xx decks appeared on the market, same story (?) came when Bang&Olufsen did market their Beocord 5000 deck


*3 I have a 1976 Akai GXC-760d - just meassured W&F - astonishing low ~0.06% - after all theese years -

Jan_stephens: Are we talking about the same subject here? I was only referring to the belts which drive the cassette-hubs, not the capstans. I completely understand why belt drive would be chosen for the capstans.

If you don't understand what I'm referring-to here, then download a copy of the TDC-3014 service manual from the Tandberg database so that you can see the two belts which go to the two separate reel-motors on this particular machine.

Jan_stephens: Are we talking about the same subject here? I was only referring to the belts which drive the cassette-hubs, not the capstans. I completely understand why belt drive would be chosen for the capstans.

If you don't understand what I'm referring-to here, then download a copy of the TDC-3014 service manual from the Tandberg database so that you can see the two belts which go to the two separate reel-motors on this particular machine.

I do understand.
I still believe that even pulling the hubs will influence on the sound quality due to the motor noise eliminated transplanting anything in to the head bridge or surrounding areas.

"dolph"

Jan_stephens: Are we talking about the same subject here? I was only referring to the belts which drive the cassette-hubs, not the capstans. I completely understand why belt drive would be chosen for the capstans.

If you don't understand what I'm referring-to here, then download a copy of the TDC-3014 service manual from the Tandberg database so that you can see the two belts which go to the two separate reel-motors on this particular machine.

Sorry - my bad, still searching for my brain.

Was misreading the text - did read Dolph's reply, and can only agree. to use belts, to insulate vibrations, is absolutely plausible.

The result? It's akin to listening to two stereos, one set flat at modest volume and one with loudness on and the tone controls tuned up and at greater volume: in short, it wasn't an even comparison. And not because the Nak was so much "better", it was just clear that the Nak equalization was totally different than any of the other decks on my desk.

yes, although many don't seem to be aware of or to agree with this, it's been my understanding, and my own experience with my own cheap nak, that there is something of a smiley curve built into the response of all nak decks. they artificially increase the highs. they do it INCREDIBLY WELL, without really adding noise, so I suppose in a way I can't argue with it being a superior technology. But it deviates dramatically from what I consider flat response. However if you look at it another way, when you record and playback on the same nak deck that smiley face eq isn't there any more, so it's still a great deck like that as well (maybe better than the rest, I don't know yet as I'm still rebuilding my rebranded Lo-D).

But definitely I agree with your general assessment. I think many people will tell you though that naks' aren't necessarily all that accurate eq-wise when playing back tapes that weren't recorded on a nak. It's nak-to-nak that is supposed to be uber-accurate.

cheers,
Don

Hells yeah, you did.

It's true that Nak's did have a "different" eq. curve. Nak's conformed to the IEC (Prague) 1981 standard. If you play a tape recorded on another , non-Nak, machine on a Nakamichi, it's likely to sound dull. This is because the Naks don't need to boost the hell out of their record eq. to get get flat, extended R/P response.

When making comparisons with decks, it must be known what spec the machine is conforming to? and if playback is being evaluated, what machine/spec was the recording made on? I know what question this might raise: "Well if I'm playing back on another machine and being dissapointed, why do I need a Nakamichi?". The answer is, many Nakamichi afficianoado's had Nakamichi's in their cars too. If you had all Nakamichi decks around, there were no better cassette systems. There were interoperability problems with other brands however. For their Pro line, the MR-1'2 and 2's, Nak had a service bulletin where the eq curve could be changed (dumbed down, IMO) so that it would play well with other machines.

Naks are a different breed.

well that explains it better than (and likely much more accurately than) I did :-)

Many confusions are made about HX.

Some cassette decks have Dolby HX.

A few cassette decks have HX-Pro.
Less than those using the cheaper and inferior Dolby HX.
It's not same quality.
HX-Pro is the best technology of the two.

However, even the manufacturers of tape machines sometimes mistook what was what.
It is actually possible to find machines with the writing: Dolby HX-Pro.
That is a non existing thing.

Studer used HX-Pro on a few of their very TOTL machines.
As did Lyrec.

"dolph"

dolby hx-pro (I've never heard of HX before... interesting info..., I have several decks and all but one have hx-pro) is a headroom auto-correction system that fixes biasing issues during recordings where it becomes an issue.

it improves hf extension, but only where it would be flawed in the first place due to the tape::recorder::configuration.

R2R wouldn't really benefit from that as far as I can see.

dolby hx-pro (I've never heard of HX before... interesting info..., I have several decks and all but one have hx-pro) is a headroom auto-correction system that fixes biasing issues during recordings where it becomes an issue.

it improves hf extension, but only where it would be flawed in the first place due to the tape::recorder::configuration.

R2R wouldn't really benefit from that as far as I can see.

Studer and Lyrec, among others, made different conclusions.

"dolph"

Studer and Lyrec, among others, made different conclusions.

"dolph"

So you mean that they found that R2R decks could benefit from hx-pro as well?

that's fine, I didn't make a researched conclusion really, just that the R2R decks I've used have all made it out to 20k just fine and as long as you bias things properly and use the appropriate tape for your deck it will be fine, no need for that. But that's not the result of a lot of research, just experience in recording studios... without a lot of time/money to spend on trying other possibilities.

They could well be right. But hx-pro would, I believe, make the most obvious fix to cassette decks that are otherwise lacking in fine bias control and other related settings (such as dolby-related levels which weren't adjustable on most consumer cassette decks).

as always, just my humble opinion :-)

All of this has been a really interesting thread!

.So you mean that they found that R2R decks could benefit from hx-pro as we....ll?

There would be no reason for a r2r deck shouldn't benefit from the HX-pro, if one takes a closer look into what HX-pro is - the system compensates for the bias contribution excessive treble levels might add, hence giving more room for "sound"

Would imagine this is why HX is short for "headroom extension"

possibly due to the fact that r2r decks are using bigger heads, and also, besides putting a much bigger track on the tape, in general terms ~ do use a lager footprint on the tape - the amount of treble that can be recorded, before that kind of saturation would take place. Nevertheless it still is a relevant issue.
Studer made add-on boards directly for adding HX-pro to their decks, and i've seen a A-80 with HX-pro - so someone actually did use it.

one thing came to mind - Tandberg had something called actlinear on the td20 deck - i think it might do just about the same thing as HX-pro, but i could be wrong

that's fine, I didn't make a researched conclusion really, just that the R2R decks I've used have all made it out to 20k just fine and as long as you bias things properly and use the appropriate tape for your deck it will be fine, no need for that.

still - not many decks reaches 20Khz @ 0dB - if using HX-pro, and gaining 2 or 3dB - it's worth the effort to get a bit more music on the tape ;)

Guess i'm rambling on now ;)

still - not many decks reaches 20Khz @ 0dB - if using HX-pro, and gaining 2 or 3dB - it's worth the effort to get a bit more music on the tape ;)

Guess i'm rambling on now ;)

rambling but totally correct (says the pot to the kettle, I'm the king of rambling). you're spec is right, at 0db most decks had some compression of the hf. part of that supposedly elusive "tape sound" that engineers love so much.

Good points, I just never really thought about it much since R2R is imho so vastly superior in every single way to cassette.

(Since I know that last statement will get flak from some people LoL, for those who would argue the point please check distortion figures and dynamic range without any noise reduction or hx pro running on even the best cassette deck compared to a pretty good r2r - that's what I'm talking about, not noise and dynamic range with noise reduction in place, and no I have nothing against noise reduction and think cassette with great NR is really good -- but it's not what my point was about).

So you mean that they found that R2R decks could benefit from hx-pro as well?

that's fine, I didn't make a researched conclusion really, just that the R2R decks I've used have all made it out to 20k just fine and as long as you bias things properly and use the appropriate tape for your deck it will be fine, no need for that. But that's not the result of a lot of research, just experience in recording studios... without a lot of time/money to spend on trying other possibilities.

They could well be right. But hx-pro would, I believe, make the most obvious fix to cassette decks that are otherwise lacking in fine bias control and other related settings (such as dolby-related levels which weren't adjustable on most consumer cassette decks).

as always, just my humble opinion :-)

All of this has been a really interesting thread!
R2Rs could certainly benefit from HX-Pro. But it wasn't anywhere near the issue with R2R as it was with cassette. In the case of a good R2R at 7.5 ips, the FR would generally extend to 20kHz at a recording level of 0dB. No cassette could do this without help from technologies such as HX-Pro and/or Dolby C and/or Metal tape (Although some Naks could do this with only Dolby C, and no HX-Pro).

But even on a R2R running at 15ips, its FR is going to drop-off quickly above 8kHz when running at say +10dB. Just as with cassettes it extends HF headroom. Just in the case of R2R, this headroom extention takes place at much higher recording levels.

Of the consumer manufacturers, to the best of my knowlege, only Tandberg ever implemented a techology similar to HX-Pro (called DyneEQ) on some of their R2Rs.

This is not accurate... TOTL Nak decks provide true response well past 20kHz without resorting to artificial equalization to achieve it. Other lesser decks only get to 20kHz through equalization which has a detrimental effect on sound quality.

John

yes, although many don't seem to be aware of or to agree with this, it's been my understanding, and my own experience with my own cheap nak, that there is something of a smiley curve built into the response of all nak decks. they artificially increase the highs. they do it INCREDIBLY WELL, without really adding noise, so I suppose in a way I can't argue with it being a superior technology. But it deviates dramatically from what I consider flat response. However if you look at it another way, when you record and playback on the same nak deck that smiley face eq isn't there any more, so it's still a great deck like that as well (maybe better than the rest, I don't know yet as I'm still rebuilding my rebranded Lo-D).

But definitely I agree with your general assessment. I think many people will tell you though that naks' aren't necessarily all that accurate eq-wise when playing back tapes that weren't recorded on a nak. It's nak-to-nak that is supposed to be uber-accurate.

cheers,
Don

This is not accurate... TOTL Nak decks provide true response well past 20kHz without resorting to artificial equalization to achieve it. Other lesser decks only get to 20kHz through equalization which has a detrimental effect on sound quality.

John

as far as I'm aware, all nak decks, totl or not, include non-defeatable equalization. they have a distinctly smiley-face eq curve at -20db and at 0db the bass is still emphasized a bit while treble evens out.

the only other deck with such great HF response are the nicer hitachi cassette deck lineup with ferrite heads. those decks get similar HF response to the nak decks without eq circuits and at 0db are actually quite flat over the entire spectrum, something you typically only ever see otherwise in R2R decks (or Nak decks if you ignore the artificially increased bass response and unusual track size/spacing setups).

as always, imho and ymmv and only what I personally know which is by no means all encompassing or guaranteed to be correct :-)

It's really just what I've found from research and personal experience with a limited number of examples of the decks mentioned. I do find that the HF performance of my old dolby b hitachi decks (picking up my 3rd one now) far exceeds any other cassette deck I've used other than nicer nak decks which imho match it, although again those nak decks are a little unusual, so I put hitachi at the top of my list for standards compliant decks.

I've never used a tandberg of course :-)

You may well be right, I was citing Nak's own marketing at the time that touted the advantage of their narrow gap playback head and other technologies that resulted in much more natural sonics with extended HF response, vs. the use of extensive equalization by other makers to try and make up for inferior response at the head itself.

So, that was me wearing the marketing hat and not citing any specific engineering results :D

John

cheers. FYI I just (moments ago) drove back here with a mint Nak DR-1 for $50. fully tested (by me), working perfectly.

:-D the one with the variable playback azimuth etc. 3 heads, dual capstan, all the goodies :-)

nice!

John

as far as I'm aware, all nak decks, totl or not, include non-defeatable equalization. they have a distinctly smiley-face eq curve at -20db and at 0db the bass is still emphasized a bit while treble evens out.

It is true that in the treble area Naks have none (or almost none) added EQ on playback. The reason for an HF lift on Naks PB response using "IEC 1981" standard tape is that the actual tape has a lift at HF (about 4 dB at 15 kHz). Same can be said about Hitachi decks with their mono-crystal ferrite "MIG" (Metal In Gap) heads. These heads, same as Nakamichi heads have near-perfect HF response and do not require added HF lift up to at least 18 kHz. Almost all other decks struggle to meet even "compensated" IEC 1981 requirements for HF (i.e. with an HF lift on a test tape). In the bass area Naks heads are very good and flat to as low as 16-20 Hz. An apparent lift on the PB frequency response is due to a full-track recording on test tapes. There were several Nak decks with an error in low-frequency EQ, namely DR series and Cassette Deck series. It is visible on their R/P responses. It is easily fixable thought.

Alex

It is true that in the treble area Naks have none (or almost none) added EQ on playback. The reason for an HF lift on Naks PB response using "IEC 1981" standard tape is that the actual tape has a lift at HF (about 4 dB at 15 kHz). Same can be said about Hitachi decks with their mono-crystal ferrite "MIG" (Metal In Gap) heads. These heads, same as Nakamichi heads have near-perfect HF response and do not require added HF lift up to at least 18 kHz. Almost all other decks struggle to meet even "compensated" IEC 1981 requirements for HF (i.e. with an HF lift on a test tape). In the bass area Naks heads are very good and flat to as low as 16-20 Hz. An apparent lift on the PB frequency response is due to a full-track recording on test tapes. There were several Nak decks with an error in low-frequency EQ, namely DR series and Cassette Deck series. It is visible on their R/P responses. It is easily fixable thought.

Alex

cool! Soooooooooooo, how do I fix it? I just bought a mint dr-1 for $50 working great. I've seen the plot with the unexpected ledge in the lf, how does one "easily" fix that?

cool! Soooooooooooo, how do I fix it? I just bought a mint dr-1 for $50 working great. I've seen the plot with the unexpected ledge in the lf, how does one "easily" fix that?

You need to add a 220 Ohm resistor in series with the emitters of Q203L and Q203R on the playback amp PCB.

Cheers

Alex

You need to add a 220 Ohm resistor in series with the emitters of Q203L and Q203R on the playback amp PCB.

Cheers

Alex

really? that simple? I could do that in my sleep. So is that part of the circuit design that someone simply forgot about when laying out the actual pcb at nak? or what? because if it's in all of the dr (and "cassette deck") series, one would think they'd have noticed right away and made all future board revisions with that fix in place, or at least hand soldered the resistor onto the bottom of the board (in typical "oops, let's fix this before it leaves the factory" style).

I'm perfectly willing to do it, but it seems so wierd that it would be an oversight of such magnitude on nak's part.

I know the response issue you're talking about, does this resistor bring the dr-1 into the same response spec over the low frequency range at both -20db and 0db as something like the dragon (a deck which the dr-1 otherwise seems to match very closely in every way, although of course without as many features)?

cheers,
Don

wait, so I understand the mod perfectly, by in series do you mean between the emitters of those two transistors or do you mean unsoldering the emitter of each of those transistors and adding a 220ohm resistor in series with each into the original emitter holes on the pcb?

wait, so I understand the mod perfectly, by in series do you mean between the emitters of those two transistors or do you mean unsoldering the emitter of each of those transistors and adding a 220ohm resistor in series with each into the original emitter holes on the pcb?

The second option - two resistors added, one in series with each emitter.

Alex

P.S. - I've attached SPICE simulation results for DR1/2 or Cassette Deck 1/1.5 playback amplifier frequency response before and after this mod. The green curve is the original response deviation from a standard, the blue curve - after the mod. You may vary the resistor value to get a different curve, if you wish, to your liking. However 220 Ohm value gives apparently the best response.

ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll have to try to find a schematic and parts layout sheet for this thing I guess to make sure I do it right.

So I guess my other post is really asking this: does this bring up the 20hz level to that of the 50-100Hz level, or does it bring down the 50-100Hz level to that of the 20Hz (and 200+Hz) level to be more flat?

Because from what I've read, this deck has a tiny bit of a smiley face response to it (as do many naks) at -20db. But it appears to also have a sudden drop in the bottom octave like a low shelf filter was added to it (still amazing performance though).

ok, educated guess here: you're fix solves the bump in the very lf area as shown in this chart, and I'm hoping it makes it more like the bx-300 response example.

correct?

http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Graphs/FR/album/index.html

ok, educated guess here: you're fix solves the bump in the very lf area as shown in this chart, and I'm hoping it makes it more like the bx-300 response example.

correct?

http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Graphs/FR/album/index.html

Yes :yes: .

Alex

P.S. - an important update. I've checked the circuit diagrams for Cassette Deck One (which is the base model for DR1) and there is a resistor value change in the PB amp circuit which accounts for the LF response difference between Cassette Deck One (for which I did the mod) and DR1/2 . It is better to replace the resistors (R255R and R255L from 68K in the DR1/2 to 33K as it was in the Cassette Deck One/1.5 - otherwise the mod will not work. It looks like Nakamichi engineers were trying to rectify that problem but did it in a wrong way! There is also another possible option for DR1/2 circuit - to increase the value of C206L and C206R from 220uF to 470uF or even 1000uF - it will also even the frequency response without any other changes to the circuit, according to my SPICE simulations.

dKelley:

I strongly suspect that the only Naks with the "smiley face" that you describe are the very late models like the DR and the Cassette-Deck series. As far as I know, the CR-series, and most of the preceeding Naks do not exhibit this extreme head-bump. For some reason all of the Naks that came after the CR series have never been considered as good as the earlier Naks (let's not get into the argument over the supposed superiority of the ZX-9 vs the CR-7A here, please). So perhaps these large head-bumbs on the latter Naks were part of the reason that they were not considered to be as good as the earlier models.

interesting stuff, could be right goldear :-)

and alex, so would I swap the 255L and R resistors as you say AND add the extra resistors in series with the emitters (as per original instructions), or JUSt swap the 255L & R resistors alone to get the fix? the cap change would be easy too I suppose, as long as nothing else gets messed up by it.

Have you actually tried any of these fixes Alex? Theory is great, but I'm not into being a guinea pig :-)

interesting stuff, could be right goldear :-)

and alex, so would I swap the 255L and R resistors as you say AND add the extra resistors in series with the emitters (as per original instructions), or JUSt swap the 255L & R resistors alone to get the fix? the cap change would be easy too I suppose, as long as nothing else gets messed up by it.

Have you actually tried any of these fixes Alex? Theory is great, but I'm not into being a guinea pig :-)

Hi,

Yes, I did try it a while ago on my Cassette Deck One - with the resistors and (apparently, as I've forgot about it) an output capacitors C205L/C205R polarity change as the output DC voltage there goes from about -8V to +3V with this change. I've looked there now and decided to try a capacitor version on a similar Nak - Cassette Deck 1.5. In case of a capacitor mod there are no other changes required. So I've soldered an IC socket pins in place of C206L/C206R and measured the low frequency response with different capacitors inserted. Results are on the graph. It looks like something between 470 uF to 1000 uF would be a good choice. I've left 1000 uF as it looks better to me than 470 uF. In case with DR1, where 33K resistors already replaced by 68K the frequency response does look like Cassette Deck with 470uF installed. So I suggest you use 330uF or 470uF 6.3V capacitors to replace 220uF on the PCB or just add another 100-220uF in parallel with the existing 220uF. On the PB amp schematics capacitors to change shown in red.

Cheers

Alex

amazing info, thanks so much Alex! Cap replacements will definitely be easiest.

thanks for the pics as well, really appreciated! I noted this morning the hump in the low bass, most audible with my subwoofer enabled (which only goes from about 22Hz to 45Hz in that particular system).

so a Dragon dropped into my life this week....I now have five 3 head decks..and put it up against the yamaha K1000 and teac v900x..and I could absolutely hear the difference, and I don't think the difference was a matter of EQ....the Nak simply made the same tape sound more lush and it wasn't just a bump in the frequency range, it was the soundstage and imaging as well...separation too. So I'm on board with you Nak lovers now. I get it.

I had a bunch of WHO tapes and put in Face Dances and the bass sounded so amazing..I'd never heard it sound that rich...it wasn't boomy either...just fantastic sound.

I had a bunch of WHO tapes and put in Face Dances and the bass sounded so amazing..I'd never heard it sound that rich...it wasn't boomy either...just fantastic sound.

You better-you bet!!!!:D

Was talking to a tech today who has been doing warranty work on Teac decks since forever. Knows the products inside and out. Asked him how it would compare to my Nak 681ZX that is still in sickbay. He said the Nak will eat it up and spit it out. Just no comparison whatsoever. I told him I was very happy with the Teac, and he said it was a fine deck, but the Nak is just on a totally higher level.

Is this possible? Is the difference really THAT big???

Well, I'm far from an expert on the subject and nothing I own would raise many eyebrows. I can say that I have a Teac A-480 that I cleaned, lubed, and put new belt kit on that sounded really good. Then I bought a Nak LX-3 which in my opinion sounded much better. FWIW I still have both, though.

I used to work warranty for the three mentioned manufacturers. IMO there's something wrong with the BX-300 if it didn't wipe the floor of the other decks you've mentioned.

have the BX-300 working and a Dragon now and yes, they are that good.