Nakamichi 700 II against TEAC C-1

Just finished servicing my Nak 700 II. Gave it a good cleaning inside and out and decided to do a side-by-side against my TEAC C-1...well, to be quite honest, I can barely tell any difference - both record to Maxell XL-II superbly, with barely any hiss even without Dolby, both tape and machines are pretty forgiving of 'maxed out' signal levels, but the TEAC very slightly has the edge in that department - the Nak can start to lose the plot once the level on the VU's starts kicking much above 0 dB, whereas I can squeeze up to +3dB out of the TEAC using the Maxell tape - the result, better SN with the TEAC, but really, I'm splitting hairs - the Nak isn't exactly what you'd call noisy! Both offer superb bottom end clarity and solidity across the frequency range, with no sibilance or discernible flutter.

Stylistically, these are such different decks; one the studio unit, all business and no frill, the other a confection of brushed aluminum which needs treating with great care!

I love the head adjustment on the Nak, plus the built-in calibration tone, neither of which the TEAC offers. Adjusting azimuth on the C-1 is the small screwdriver affair, no big deal, but nowhere near as convenient. However, my Nak has the playback head pre-adjusted, so you just adjust the record head until, you get a pristine sound on tape monitor setting.

The TEAC has a more rack-friendly shape, but the Nak is definitely a show-off piece! Heck, I love them both to bits. Nak lovers...I take back all my cheap shots at Nakamichi decks - they are pretty cool, just not quite as cool as a TEAC C-1

A great comparison! They are both very nice looking decks.

Nak ZX-7

I'm not so much into cassette tapes anymore but I do have a Nak ZX-7 which the former owner had given it the moniker of "The Dragon Slayer". Referring of course to the Nak Dragon. Anyway, I'm just curious how the ZX-7 compares with the two machines in your thread. Is the ZX older or newer than your two machines?

bottlehead66 said:

I'm not so much into cassette tapes anymore but I do have a Nak ZX-7 which the former owner had given it the moniker of "The Dragon Slayer". Referring of course to the Nak Dragon. Anyway, I'm just curious how the ZX-7 compares with the two machines in your thread. Is the ZX older or newer than your two machines?

Click to expand...

First of all, the ZX-7 is not a Dragon slayer. At best, it is about equal in overall performance, but lacks the Dragon's Auto Azimuth adjust feature.

The ZX-7 is newer than the 700 II, and almost certainly has the edge in performance.

The ZX-7 is a great machine, built later than the 700 II, it offered Metal Type IV and gizmos like auto fader. Sound-wise, I have heard both ZX-7, 9 and Dragon, and to my ears there is no difference; the Dragon and even the 1000 offered pretty much as good a reproduction of tape as it is possible to get, even now. So all this 'Dragon-slayer' nonsense is just that! If you know how to look after your deck's key parts, know how to set your levels and biases, calibrations and so on, and use good tapes, you won't be able to tell the difference between any of those decks. I have also owned a Studer and a Dragon - the 700 II is capable of recordings every bit as good as these other decks. What you were paying extra for was the 'convenience technology' - by late 1970's Nakamichi was getting about as much out of their heads and electronics as they could ever get...I don't think anything happened in the next few years to change that. You have a fabulous deck; the ZX-9 would not give you better sound, trust me! Neither would a Dragon or 1000 ZXL. I would pit the C-1 against any deck using ferric or chrome tapes. As I say, it has no frills, but it has a fantastic head, great dual capstan 3-motor mechanism and excellent reliability - remember that the C-1 is appreciably older than the ZX-7! See http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAULT/C1/C1.html# and http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAULT/DRAGON/DRAGON.html#

Cheers

goldear said:

First of all, the ZX-7 is not a Dragon slayer. At best, it is about equal in overall performance, but lacks the Dragon's Auto Azimuth adjust feature.

The ZX-7 is newer than the 700 II, and almost certainly has the edge in performance.

Click to expand...

bottlehead66 said:

I'm not so much into cassette tapes anymore but I do have a Nak ZX-7 which the former owner had given it the moniker of "The Dragon Slayer". Referring of course to the Nak Dragon. Anyway, I'm just curious how the ZX-7 compares with the two machines in your thread. Is the ZX older or newer than your two machines?

Click to expand...

OscarEmmy said:

The ZX-7 is a great machine, built later than the 700 II, it offered Metal Type IV and gizmos like auto fader. Sound-wise, I have heard both ZX-7, 9 and Dragon, and to my ears there is no difference; the Dragon and even the 1000 offered pretty much as good a reproduction of tape as it is possible to get, even now. So all this 'Dragon-slayer' nonsense is just that! If you know how to look after your deck's key parts, know how to set your levels and biases, calibrations and so on, and use good tapes, you won't be able to tell the difference between any of those decks. I have also owned a Studer and a Dragon - the 700 II is capable of recordings every bit as good as these other decks. What you were paying extra for was the 'convenience technology' - by late 1970's Nakamichi was getting about as much out of their heads and electronics as they could ever get...I don't think anything happened in the next few years to change that. You have a fabulous deck; the ZX-9 would not give you better sound, trust me! Neither would a Dragon or 1000 ZXL. I would pit the C-1 against any deck using ferric or chrome tapes. As I say, it has no frills, but it has a fantastic head, great dual capstan 3-motor mechanism and excellent reliability - remember that the C-1 is appreciably older than the ZX-7! See http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAULT/C1/C1.html# and http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAULT/DRAGON/DRAGON.html#

Cheers

Click to expand...

I have a ZX-7 as well as the 700. No ZX-9 and no Dragon, but have heard both. I agree with goldear and bottlehead; the ZX-7 has the edge sonically over my 700, but that may be because it is newer and in better shape. You would have to do extensive A/B testing to discern even small differences between the ZX_9 and the Dragon, and to be honest, I don't have any sense of missing anything at all when listening to my ZX-7. If I find a ZX-9 or Dragon at a good price, I'll get them, but if I never do, I'm perfectly happy with the ZX-7. The background appears about as quiet as CDs at normal listening levels on well-recorded tapes, and the dynamics are almost vinyl-like. Not quite vinyl and not quite reel-to-reel, but so darned good you'll only note the differences when you A/B them. At these levels, any of the decks sound really good.

One other deck seldom talked about but worth mentioning is the Akai GX-97 MkII "Reference Master". Wonderful sound quality, just a teensy smidge short of the ZX-7, but darned close. And, of course, the Tascam studio decks: also very good.

UPDATE: It's a year or so later, and I just got a ZX-9. Haven't had a chance yet to compare it with the ZX-7, but a quick initial listening tells me they are probably pretty similar. The ZX-9 has lower wow and flutter and one or two other improvements, so it should sound better, but I just popped a random tape in and did quick on-the-fly adjustments for it, so I can't say yet that it actually sounds any better.

On the difference in record levels...the Dd dolby symbol on the meter is called the reference dolby level. Compare the Teac and Nak and you will see the Nak is at 0Vu, and the Teac at +2 or+3. That is the difference in headroom you hear. Teac has 2 dB more "headroom, while the Nak is 2 dB better in signal/noise. This actually is apples to apples.

Nakamichi 700/700 II

Is there much of a difference between these two decks?
In terms of playback and recording quality