I had professional Sony Walkman. She was beautiful. A sound like liquid gold. For $300 for a cassette Walkman back in 1988 it should shine my shoes.
If you want more information about their work, ask them. Also, I have no desire or interest in proving to you what tests I’ve done or being told why I may not like what I’m hearing. I can look at graphs and spec sheets all day long, but if it sounds like crap to me, that’s the real end result. Maybe just accept the fact that some people have different tastes to your own. Guild shares my opinion which is why I asked him about his tastes regarding other Naks. I have zero interest in getting into a drawn out debate with someone who wants to adamantly defend something I dislike. It’s a waste of both of our time.
I'm glad that I read this thread, otherwise I would have never known that my Dragon had a rolled off top end, is hard to maintain, no parts are available and not to buy Nakamachi cassette period. I have been enlightened, my life has been changed for the better, and the prices of Nakamachi cassette decks on Ebay will surely drop to nothing. I must sell mine quick before people find out the truth. M~
Hi Kevin, Just got the TP703 myself, boxed, microphone in mint condition. No manual though, would you be able to tell me how do you change the tape speed on it? I've been looking for a while and can't find any info. Thanks.
[CITAÇÃO = "Chris Schoen, post: 17430941, membro: 12150"] É como Mercedes e BMW, na verdade são "máquinas" bonitas - mas se você precisa de um carro agradável e confiável, como a Toyota. Ele apenas faz o que deveria ... [/ CITAÇÕES] Toyota, Lexus e Honda: edthumbs: .: tiphat:
I think my Sharp RT442H of 1972. Still working fine. None can compare with reel to reel. I saw an Ampex multi-channel reel to reel demonstrated in Harrods music department, in the late fifties. Hugely impressive. A lot of classic jazz albums were recorded on one of those.
I owned the Nakamichi Dragon back in the late 70's, early 80's and it was the best I had heard/owned. Back when cassettes were the rage... I had several friends that would buy an album and ask me to record it on a blank cassette for them. Some of them didn't even own a turntable but cassettes were 'bigly' for them to use in their cars and Walkmans. Best part, everyone of them let me keep the album and everyone said they sounded better than buying a commercial version of it.
My vote goes to the venerable Pioneer CT-F1250. Back in the '80s I had a Pioneer CT-F1250 that I used extensively. It is a three head deck with front panel variable adjustments and metering to make fine adjustments for different tapes (bias, level, eq) during the recording process. It is very heavy and built like a tank. That deck can make near perfect copies of albums and CDs. In fact, I could not tell any difference between the original and the tape when I used dbx type II noise reduction. I would usually make two cassette copies of every new vinyl album I purchased. One to listen to in the car and to use for demo tapes in the store. The second copy was the one I used at home (usually dbx encoded). I did not play an album more than a what was required to record it to cassette. Hence the reason all my vinyl is in like-new condition. Everyone that listened to a tape made on that machine commented on how good it sounded. What was really impressive, is that the tapes sounded good on any deck it was played in, not just the 1250. If you remember cassettes, you probably recall playback quality consistency between different decks was always a problem. It was reliable too. I never had a major problem with it when I was using it. Its still around, but I have not used it for years.
No argument there but hate for Naks is wide and deep my fellow member. Even on Gearslust (audio engineering site) they will tear you a new one if you try to even suggest that Naks are better than most other decks. I remember my Nak 582. Didn't even sound like cassette. Have you heard the question, "What makes Nackamichi better than the rest?" - automatic playback height azuimth - a pin that moves the flimsy cassette pad out of the way during recording and playback - audiophile level preamps. I could go on but.....
Sony TC-K950ES, from the company that knows more about magnetic tape recorders than any others who have the credentials to profess upon the subject.
Sony 808ES and 909ES were very impressive. Dolby S and HX Pro. I had a Nak LX-5 (with wired remote) and loved it. No use for cassettes these days.
Mmm....Yea. No argument three. I have hundreds of cassettes. Mostly band demos I did with my Tascam 4 track, Tascam 8 track, and Sony mini disk 8 track. Talking about the actual stereo mixdowns. Most have no N/R. This was standard practice for music demos not to encode with Dolby B. I always made two mixdowns. One with no Dolby to give to the band and then either a Dolby B /C mix for myself as a high quality back up. Recently I have been going back to the original 4 and 8 track tapes to remix. There is a company that can transfer 4 and 8 track cassttes and 8 track minidisk to Pro Tools 24/96 files. Your files are either put on a Flash drive or on a DVD. To transfer all my 4 and 8 track recordings will be $2600. Maybe one day. A lot of people don't know that Dolby HX Professional was created for the pro world. For example: The Otari MX-80 (2 inch 24/ 32 track recorder, 1987) features Dolby HX-PRO. But I though HX Pro was for crappy cassettes. Surely not John. Yep. Check the manual on line. If you can find it. Not the easiest thing to do. Bias is an ultra sonic frequency added to the recording to prevent distortion at high frequencies. Dolby HX-PRO varies the bias with the high frequency content of the music. The idea here is that the high frequency content of the music being recorded becomes part of the overall bias. HX-Pro takes this into consideration. And this also stops engineers who like to inflict their "Secret sauce bias recipes" on their poor defensive multitracks. And then sit there and complain that the Dolby A doesn't track as per spec. * And Dolby HX-Pro doesn't require any decoding. So the tapes can be played on any multitrack. * A personal gripe of mine.
Ex-unempoyed-Professional engineer here. That is quite an assertion. But I share you fondness for Sony. Naks may have sounded better but a Sony will still be working 10 years later. Their DASH 3324, 3324A, 3348, 3348HR and 3302 are famous. And many are still in use in professional studios all over the world. Big name engineers TLA and CLA still record on DASH 3348HR. These machine are now more than 25 years old. And recently on a Utube video I saw an engineer transcribing a 1/2 inch DASH tape to Pro Tools with a old DASH 3324A. This is a 35 year old digital multitrack! Wait......Digital?! Oh yea Sony was a big leader in digital multitracks. That was where they had the market. Which is where my point is here. Yes, Sony made analog multitracks but they were not too popular. Good, just not really wanted. Studer, 3M, Ampex and Otari were the leaders in the analog world not Sony. For example the greatest multitrack ever made was the Ampex ATR124 and it's sister the ATR116. And if you want impressive analog take a look a Stephens. In 1973 ex-areospace engineer, John Stephens built the world's first and only 2 inch 40 track. What made this incredible was that the 40 track had the same specs as the leading 2 inch 24 tracks of the day. John Stephens also built the world's first 2 inch 32 track recorder. Sony never built any analog 32 or 40 track recorder. They did build the super cool DASH 3348 which recorded 48 tracks of 16/48 on one inch DASH tape. Those machines were built like tanks and were made to last! The most sought after analog 2 inch 24 track today is the Studer 827. Of all the most sought after analog multitracks or quarter inch half track mixdown decks you will not find Sony on the list. They made great pro machines but the competition just blew them away. But in Sony's defense by 1982 they were putting all their chips down on digital. Ampex is generally regarded as the leaders in analog tape machines. All those first custom built 8 tracks for Les Paul and Atantic were built by Ampex. Hell, in 1969 I don't believe Sony even had a half inch three track model. Could be wrong here. The first 1 inch 8 tracks that you could order and buy off the shelf was the Scully 284 (Later called the 284-8) in June of 1966 and a year later the world's first 1 inch 12 track (284-12.) Both had identical specs. One expection, the Scully 284-12 was one DB noisy than the Scully 284-8. If Sony were the leaders where was their addition to the growing multitrack market? Studer on the other hand put everything they knew about professional analog tape machines and put that knowledge into their casstte decks. Revox is the consumer division of Studer. And yet no one here had mentioned Revox. You guys hurt Revox's feelings. Don't you care? For portables through no competion; Sony kicked some serious butt. Minidisk a magnetic / optical format was pure genius. And anyone here who ever owned a professional Sony walkman (I did back in 1988) knows what I mean. Sony made the best cassette walkmans and portable recorders in the world. I had a portable Sony reel to reel quarter inch full track (mono) built in 1969. Still working in 1988. Even had still sealed RCA reel to reel tapes. Even at 3.75 inches per second this portable machine was pretty good for the day 60 - 14 000 hz +-3db @ 3 3/4 ips. It took 10 C cells! So Sony was great but by no means were they anywhere near the best at making analog tape machines. Or did you mean the consumer cassette deck market? Their decks were pretty good. Top notch.
Whooo! Some of those old Poneers are legendary like Ragnar Lothbrich. FYI: According to the Ragnar Saga (not TV) Ragnar use to wear these really thick woolly pants that looked hairy. So they called him, "Lothbrich" which in Old Norse means, "Hairy pants." So Ragnar Lothbrich literally translates into 'Ragnar with the hairy pants.' (All true. No joke) Now back to audio..... I remember seeing those classic 3 head Pioneer cassette decks from the 1978 - 1982 period were impressive. When I was 9 I used to lust over the literature.
Great post. All members should check out the famous Pioneer CT-F1250....Go now! For those who are asking. What is the difference between DBX TYPE-1 and 2? Good question. DBX Type-1: For professional use. 2 inch 16, 24, 32 and 40 track recorders. And 1 inch 8 and 12 track recorders. As well as quarter inch half track / full track machines. Type 1 had a minimum spec requirement for the system to work properly. 30 - 16 000 hz +-3db 60 db unweighted signal to ratio True, any three head cassette deck with even Type 2 tape can do 60 db. But that is "A" weighted. This would be 58 db unweighted. And the minimum requirements for DBX Type-1 need to work for all tapes types and speeds. All consumer specs are listed as "A" weighted because it looks better. The pros use unweighted because it is more honest and gives you are better impression of the system's true noise levels. The same reason why consumer gear has the frequency response listed as +-3db as opposed to the professional +-2db. DBX Type-2: For use in semi-pro and consumer gear that doesn't meet the bare minimum specifications of Type-1. - All cassettes machines. - semi professional and consumer reel to reel recorders. ie 1 inch 16 and 24 track recorders, quarter inch 8 track, half inch 8 track, half inch 16 track, etc. - VHS /Beta / Super VHS / Professional 3/4 inch HI-FI recordings. (AFM). If anyone was curious.
This has to be headline news! According to Nackamichi haters tapes recorded on a Nak three head deck never sounded good when played on other tape machines. And yet your post doesn't indicate any dissatisfaction with those tapes your made for other people. I don't think the people spreading these Nak uban legends have really thought it through. Let see.....mmmmm...I record my MFSL copy of Air Supply, "The One That You Love" on my Oracle Delphi / MC cartridge with line contact stylus to my Nakamchi 1986 Dragon on a TDK MA-X 90 minute tape. Dolby B. My ex-girlfriend plays the tape back on her two head Sony cassette deck ($190 USD 1983). Nak: 20 - 22 000 +- 3db Wow and flutter 0.03 % weighted. Sony: 30 - 17 000 +-3db Wow and flutter 0.06 % weighted Yep, on the Sony it will sound worse. Why? Because any $1500 cassette deck will sound better than a $190 one. Common sense.
I think that the obvious answer is either the Nak dragon or the 1000zxl. The 1000zxl needed a outboard box for Dolby C if I am not mistaken. But.....I do know that they used them for their “Direct Digital Master” demo tapes that they gave out for a limited time if you bought one of their high-end decks. Another ‘sleeper’ along the lines of the Dragon was the Marantz SD930. This deck, along with the Dragon, were the only two cassette decks that incorporated “Auto-Azumith” technology. Which was really a necessity if you had a large collection of tapes recorded on different machines. I have one and it is fantastic and the auto-azumith works on the fly as opposed to the Dragon which is much slower when trying to adjust the playback azumith. Here is a picture of one and a cassette tape that apparently projects a laser beam!
Good post. There was a Nad deck in the 80's that had a manual adjustment for playback head azuimth height adjustment. It was a knob on the front panel. Much better in my view since it would break down. It was just a knob that manually adjusted playback head height adjustment. You turned it clockwise ir anticlockwise to hear the most treble. A child could do it.
How did auto-azimuth work, anyhow? Did they zero in on the bias frequency and adjust the azimuth until it was loudest?
