Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Cowboy Kim, Feb 3, 2017.
440A is a better deck
I think I saw this many pages back ...
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, there were pages devoted to it I think.
Who would have a problem with analog Beatles?
Time to ignore Pinknik...for going on a cassette thread asking what the best cassette deck is...and making this an analog vs. digital thread...plus for posting disturbing images...
This is a recording.
Looks like the one I had in '75, but had an F.M. tuner also. Was a portable stereo with the same layout.
Thanks for sharing.
I own a NAK "Cassette Deck One" that in my experience is the best i have heard. I think they were made around 1989 - 1991 , not sure of the cost back then i read somewhere is was around $1200. But every pre-recorded cassette i tried sounded just amazing !
I love my Naks. I have a Dragon and an RX-505. I had a CR-7 but (stupidly) sold it a few years ago...a decision I regretted enough to buy another one recently, which arrived today (cosmetically gorgeous as advertised) but unfortunately non-functional (not as advertised, but I got into Willy Hermann's queue before I'd even hit 'buy it now').
I don't know that Nakamichi ever truly did an end-all-be-all tape deck, but if I was forced to pick a "desert island Nakamichi", it'd be the Dragon. The NAAC is brilliant, and while it lacks the fully automatic tape calibration, it has an excellent and easy-to-use built-in "semi-manual" tape calibration process that is easy to use and works well and quickly.
The best *combination* of Naks to have, IMHO, is the CR-7 for recording (the auto tape calibration is brilliant) and the Dragon (with its NAAC) for playback. Tapes recorded on other decks (and other brands) sound brilliant on the Dragon.
Is playing a "pre-recorded cassette" a good indication of a great tape deck? Funny, in all the years I have owned tape decks, I never bought a pre-recorded tape.
A good deck (imo) should be able to make a recording and when played back, the tape sounds exactly like what was recorded. That has been my standard, and some decks
have been able to this. My current (and probably last) deck is a Denon DRS-810. Makes perfect recordings. No Dolby bull****, just high quality tapes and well adjusted bias.
Strongly with the No Dolby bull**** argument. The capability of the deck should be judged solely on its native capability to record and playback ...
To me Playback is the most important, the quality of many cassettes for what ever reason was dodgy . If a deck can make a good recording sound great and a so-so recording sound good that is most important to me. I have owned and heard many Cassette players which sounded pretty good (for what the Technology is) but for great playback the Nak decks i have heard sound the best to me, that's not to say other companies don't have good decks, i have a Pioneer deck that can play 6 cassettes (like a CD player) that actually has very good sound quality, it's the only one i have heard with its capabilities but it pales in comparison to my Nak.
That 6 tape Pioneer should pale to a Nak, it's one of Pioneer's worst ever sounding cassette decks. The CT 91 and CT 93 Elite are killer Pioneer decks that can easily run with the best Naks ever made.
I'm sure Naks are great, they should be for the cost. I have also heard they require (expensive) service, and do not always produce great sounding tapes when played on other decks. Doubt I will ever own one.
My Denon DRS-810 is a very good deck, some might call it a "giant killer". I just was given a Pioneer CT-10 deck (1980's vintage) that was lightly used. May need a new belt. Wonder if I can do this myself,
never changed one before.
here's an Alpine home deck in action
Separate names with a comma.