I think once the standard mod is done, they're a good deck. I like that pitch control. Pretty much standard cassette EQ, not the unique Nak curve of some earlier series. Truth? For me, when all is said and done, the best cassette deck is the one that performs the best without noise reduction of any sort. I'm fine with a little bit of contour effect, too. Yes, I know, it's practically impossible to get to 60dB S/N with no noise reduction. And that's measured at 1Khz- in the octaves above that, the hiss really kicks in. But it's gentle noise, like a shower on the "mist" setting. No harshness, just a veiling. And it's still possible to hear detail 6-10 dB beneath that noise floor. Record a rock music source a little bit hot, and with a good deck you get perhaps just over 60dB, a bit of extra midbass from the contour effect, just a touch of compression, some extra dynamic punch, and above all, a recorded signal that doesn't sound like it's been squeezed into a girdle by noise reduction. In other words, just what you want for a recording of high-energy music. That's right, I don't even like Dolby B, much less Dolby C or dbx. I know, I know, "misalignment", etc. that's a dodge. The early outboard "Dolby A" processors could be calibrated more precisely than inboard Dolby, but it's still the same kluge fix. Some have claimed that Ray Dolby finally got his technology right with Dolby S, or semi-right, or something. I've never heard a cassette deck that uses it, but I'm dubious. Cassette with no noise reduction sounds just fine with most electric-based music- rock, upbeat pop, funk, fusion, disco, reggae, etc.- as far as I'm concerned. I'll admit to noticing the mediocre <60dB S/N level with recordings of quieter music, like ballads and acoustic-based music. But it's at least listenable, unlike digital brickwalling, active loudness compression, and low-resolution MP3. AM radio measures even noisier than cassette, for that matter- so why does a strong, coherent AM music signal so often sound better than an FM broadcast source that measures as twice as quiet? It isn't inherently wobbly and ghosty and wavery and edgy and in need of so much IF and RF filtering to choke the signal into shape, that's why. AM is substantial. Those waves have weight. They allow speakers to transduce.
How dare you insult Ray Dolby! Guards...Seize him! LOL LOL Yea AM is great for voice but for full range music it sucks. But yes I see and understand your point. And I am sure a caveman would make a fire quicker than a Boy Scout but who would you invite for dinner. LOL Please note: All my noise figures are 'A' weighted. This is because most people buy consumer equipment. Consumer equipment list signal to noise ratio numbers as 'A' weighted. If I used unweighted figures it would confuse people. For example a good three head cassette deck can only achieve 58 db of signal to noise ratio. See...Confused yet?! Down to business.... Your are not the only one who hates any kind of NR. A few well known audio engineers (boy, I could name a few!) who hate any NR and refused to used it. Back in the early 70's when most engineers were using Dolby A on their 2 inch 16 tracks (that don't really need it at 66 db.) There were some engineers that wouldn't use Dolby A. On a 2 inch 24 track you really don't have a choice. At 64 db it was o.k. but not great. You could run your 24 track machine at 30 ips and get 66 db of signal to noise ratio but then your bottom end would be - 2 db @ 50 hz. This is why the 1973, Studer A800-24 was so popular. This 24 track had the specs of a 16 track! But you could run your 16 track machine at 30 ips to get another 2 db of signal to noise ratio without serious loss to your bottom end. And some engineers did this. Your bottom end response was - 2db @ 30 hz would now be - 2db @ 40 hz. Which was the bottom end response of most 2 inch 24 tracks during the 70's anyway so this was acceptable. But some engineers who didn't like Dolby A had to occassionally give way to progress. For example, Dark Side Of The Moon.. Alan Parsons did not use Dolby A on the first 16 track tape. But when he had to bounce down to a second tape to add all the other effects and junk he used Dolby A. And this record is considered to be an audiophile album. But Dolby A was introduced in May 1966 and was heavily used from 1968 until the late 80's. By 1987, 66 - 68 db became the standard signal to noise ratio for 2 inch 24 tracks. Dolby A is on most of the classic Rock, R&B, Regaae, country, Jazz and Classical music you listen to. I gather you don't hate the sound of your record collection? Can you tell which recordings are Dolby A encoded and that which are not? I am not talking about those Dolby A encoded masters that were played back without decode and vice a versa. That is a separate issue and not what I am talking about. That is stupidly and carelessness on the engineer's part for not writing Dolby A on the tape box. That is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the professional noise reduction circuit. Dolby SR was made for people like yourself who didn't want any circuits in the way of the music. Dolby SR was designed as the first professional audiophile noise reduction circuit. Please don't compare it with Dolby A, B or C. It is was on all those 70 mm, 6 track movie soundtracks. And I have never heard anyone complain about the sound quality of 70 mm print. Dolby S is the consumer version of SR. it is similar but it is not the exact same circuit. My Nak 582 back in 1980 had no Dolby error. The Dolby B circuit worked perfect. In record mode I would turn the Dolby B circuit on and off and on again. I never heard any change in tonal balance. Just noise turning on and off. On other machines is another matter. But Dolby B mistracking error is usually 1 to 2 db at most. Dolby C doesn't have the problems Dolby B had. Yes most machines frequency response will not be the same with Dolby B/C. But this is analog not digital. Dolby A had errors as well but you never heard them because you have no reference to go by. And for walkman use Dolby B NR was essential. Although I seem to have turned it off with my Rush tapes. Actually with a Metal tape and a really hot signal 62 db might be possible. I know at $27 each the idea is not workable. Yes, with today's overcompresed music 60 db of signal to noise, ratio is probably enough.
Guys, I might be developing a problem. Found this listed locally and took a flyer. Sounds great! One of the meters isn’t working, but it sure is fun to look at otherwise...
+1 for the Advent 201. It was the first consumer cassette deck with Dolby and capable of using Type II tapes. Mine is almost 50 years and still works! On paper it may not have the specs of later decks but it makes very pleasing recordings that are dynamic and warm.
Great comments. You sound like you know what you're talking about, at the studio end of it. I just have my limited experience of consumer cassette decks, and in my listening, I eventually just concluded that most of the music I like sounded better if the whole Dolby business was simply bypassed. AM radio sound quality underwent a marked decline in 1989: "...To allow room for more stations on the mediumwave broadcast band in the United States, in June 1989 the FCC adopted a National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC) standard that limited maximum transmitted audio bandwidth to 10.2 kHz, limiting occupied bandwidth to 20.4 kHz. The former audio limitation was 15 kHz resulting in bandwidth of 30 kHz. Another common limitation on AM fidelity is the result of receiver design, although some efforts have been made to improve this, notably through the AMAX standards adopted in the United States..." AM broadcasting - Wikipedia There's also the fact that once the digital era of AM/FM tuners and receivers kicked in c.1980, the AM section was typically designed as cheaply as possible, as an afterthought. Often barely usable, much less listenable. You might be able to pick up one or two stations with a S/N ration above 50dB. Or zero. The exceptions are few and far between. All my personal experience of AM music listening was prior to that point. In the 1960s, mostly on a tube table radio. In the 1970s and 1980s, on my car radio while driving. Not all AM stations had good sound quality- the decent-sounding ones required a lot of power. The broadcast was mono, of course, and it sounded a little rolled off in contrast to FM, but otherwise it sounded fine, with the attributes I described in my earlier post. There were times and places where AM provided the best signal on the dial, for the music I enjoyed listening to- sometimes from many miles farther away than the local FM antenna farms. I hate, hate, hate FM multipath distortion! And also overmodulation distortion, which the US FCC was basically allowing the more powerful FM stations to get away with by the late 1970s, shoving less powerful stations out of the way by confining their tuning bandwidth to an impossibly narrow range, particularly when mobile. Out in the boonies in areas where there are even moderate hills or ridges, forget about an FM station if it's between you and a broadcast tower. Whereas high-power AM has the potential to stay fairly listenable at a great distance. That's how Wolfman Jack caught on as a rock'n'roll DJ in the early 1960s, broadcasting from Tijuana on an AM station with a power level forbidden by the FCC- according to the following link, 250,000 watts! XERB Radio 1090 - Wolfman Jack - Southern California Giant - Los Angeles The article goes on to say that the show could be heard all the way to Alaska. I can't say for sure, but I think I might prefer the sound quality of an AM station with that sort of power to Sirius/XM when traveling through the Rockies. Or through the Appalachians, for that matter. But this is a moot point given the current status quo, because both AM and FM music radio stations have downgraded their broadcast equipment to provide a music sound quality level somewhere between mediocre and ghastly, even when they have enough power to supply a strong signal. There may be a few exceptions still around, but none that rise to mind.
And you sir know your AM radio. So I gather AM doesn't have to sound the way it does? Sad. Do you have any recordings made from AM radio during the 60's or 70's? I heard a tape made from a stereo AM Japanese station. It sounded like FM! Why can't we have that? Instead we our stuck with crappy AM radio of 2020. And where I used to live NO AM reception was possible. Sad!
Oh holy cra*! Don't get me started on DBX. It is great when it works but a super bitchh when it doesn't. And because it is a 2:1 compander any drop out becomes twice as worse. So a 2 db drop out becomes a 4 db drop out ad infinitum. I feel sick just talking about DBX. ( I throw up in a bucket beside me) Did you know there is DBX Type 1 and 2? As if one kind of DBX wasn't bad enough right? Type 1.......For professional use. (Huh?!?!) There was a minimum standard for Type 1 to work properly. 30 - 16 000 hz +- 3db 60 db S/N ratio unweighted. (62 db 'A' weighted) That is the minimum specs a tape machine must meet to use the super duper transcendental dbx type 1. In other words 2 inch 16 / 24 / 32 / 40 * track machines from the early 70's and onward. Or a 1 inch 8 track.. Usually any pro model after 1972 would fit the bill. The early half inch Ampex 3 track wallowed somewhere between 58 and 60 db unweighted. Oh Mary, where is my bucket?! Type 2......Everyone else. The list: 1 inch 16 / 24 tracks. Half inch 16 track Quarter inch 8 track Cassette decks HI-FI sound (AFM) in: BETA, VHS, SUPER VHS, PROFESSIONAL OVER PRICED 3/4 INCH video machines. (Lean over into bucket again...) Did you know during the 90's in Europe Professionals like Sony came out with the Tri-layer VTR. What is that you may ask!? All other consumer half inch, pro 3/4 inch and half inch S-VHS machines were 2 layered. One depth layer of the tape video was recorded (Ahhh, PAL 625!) and another deeper layer of the tape was for the stereo HI-FI sound. The professional Tri-layer VTR records a third deeper layer into the tape, recording a 16/44.1 PCM stereo track. No joke! I have never seen one in person. Not even a picture. Perhaps they are legend. I look at a video tape and it looks flat to me. 2 stereo soundtracks and video on one tape! Wow! That is even more unbelievable than me being celibate for the last 15 years. (Not a joke) All those TV shows of the 1983 - 1993 period are on 3/4 inch videos with DBX Type 2 encoded NR. Many people have these shows on DVD. Anyone heard pumping on them? I purchased a few VHS releases in my day. Plenty of switching noise but no pumping. Made a few experimental VHS HI-FI binaural recordings. Great 360 degree sound! But no pumping. This is when DBX works. But when it doesn't seem to work like 4/8 track cassettes DBX is horrible. Every 4/8 track cassette I ever made and mixed back in the day pumped and pumped. The few DBX Type 1 encoded 2 inch 24 track tapes I transfered to Pro Tools sounded pretty good until that is a drop out rears it's ugly head. * Only one company build a 2 inch 40 track. In 1973 John Stephens designed and built the dreadnought 2 inch 40 track. And at that time it had the same specs as the 2 inch 24 tracks of the day. (Studer A800-24 the one exception) Of course as long as you run it at 30 ips. And for anyone who is wondering, hey what is the story behind such a machine?.... I will sum it up by this one line from Star War Episode 3: "..Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?..."
Speak of the devil, I just got my CR7A back from him Wednesday. My plan is to send the Dragon in for it's annual 10 yr check up , later on this year or so. I'm so glad that I had that custom shipping case made. It was well worth the $250.00 that I spent, it makes shipping my decks out for repair a heck of a lot less stressful. M~
DBX was not used on Beta or VHS hifi. Another 2:1 compander codec was indeed used, but it was most definitely not any form of dbx. If it were dbx, they would have had to pay dbx licensing fees and display the dbx moniker on every hifi VCR ever made. Yes the use of a 2:1 compander is similar. But this NR was not the identical to dbx II any more than dbx II was identical to dbx I.
Yeah, VHS and Beta hi-fi used companders, but not dbx. However, I wouldn't call them "codecs" since that's a computer term. They were circuits. Curiously, MTS stereo audio for television did use dbx. It allowed them to eek out quite a few decibels more of S/N ratio, sorta like Dolby FM did for FM stereo back in the late '70s.
I replaced the belt today on this Tascam 688. It records 8 tracks on one cassette! It's the best sounding multi-track cassette recorder I've owned.
But does it time travel? Seriously I believe the 688 had that 30 - 16 000 hz +-3db frequency response. Which is unbelievable for a 8 track cassette. That is 8 tracks over 1/8 inch tape running at 3.75 ips. I made some great crappy music with my 4 and 8 Tascam. The model numbers doesn't come to mind..8 is the perfect number. 4 is for simple demos. When I got my digital 24 track Tascam I said to myself, "I will never need any more tracks." In reality the DP-24 gives you 18 mono tracks or 12 mono + 6 stereo tracks with two effect sends. I made a third effect send. Long story. At the studio I had mixed as much as 280 tracks in Pro Tools. Other people's bad music. But at home I had only worked with 16 tops and that was recording local bar bands. Now I had 24 tracks to do my own music. Oh no!! Well, I went insane. One song of mine was 55 tracks squeezed into 24. Two tracks just had me shouting 24 times over, "More!!" It echoed left to right and left to right ad infinitum until it faded to nothing. The song's lyrics were very detailed. For example: THE BELL SOUNDS FIVE I MAY BE ALIVE I AM PROBABLY DEAD I WISH THE PROCELAIN TILES SING THEIR SONG OF DEATH AND DOOM AND DREAD CHORUS: HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE THE CAT AND THE FIDDLE THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON I MAKE NO SENSE CAUSE I'M ON DEFENSE AGAINST NONEXISTENCE Anyway one verse talks about the poor guy's stomach problems in the morning. Utube provided the soundtrack for that. I was shocked at how many sick people they were out there. So one track has the sound effect of let's say, "bathroom sounds" on it. In the end they were 6 tracks of just sound effects. Explosions, kisses, bell (everytime a time was given in the song a bell would sound very loudly), a cat would meow everytime the lyric, "...Cat and the fiddle.." was sung; etc. 12 part harmony over 2 stereo tracks. Even a frog sound. There was often two or three parts jammed into one track. The only bouncing was for the vocals. What a mess. The original SOS 1994 version is better. I may have made 16 bounces but it has more heart. And every part is stereo miked. With my Tascam DP-02 (8 tracks of 16/44.1) the songs never got stupid. 8 tracks kept me from getting silly.. Sure you bounce but only when you have to. When I recorded bands with my Tascam 8 track cassette recorder back in the mid 90's the mixes were always great.
Wow, this is a typically epic SHF thread! There is no small amount of tangents but some great information/ insights contained within. I never owned a Nak nor any of the super high-end decks referenced within this thread but I did get a Yamaha KX-580SE in the mid-late 90s. With good metal cassettes and Dolby S I was very impressed with the quality of the dubs I made from CD. The fall in price of CD burners toward the end of the decade I ended up selling this deck on as I felt I no longer had any use for it. It seems that the corona-induced lockdown has left me with enough time on my hands to develop a bit of a fixation on reel-to-reel decks and also pine for the days of recording to cassette! Alas being self-employed it has also somewhat decimated my income in the immediate term such that spending money on either right now is frankly pie in the sky
Even cheap Type I (TDK D) tapes can sound close to source. Here's an experiment I did recently comparing TDK D tape to source:
I am guilty as charged for pushing every thread I am on off on a tangent. Not done on purpose. Manic Depresive. My apologies.
I have been fortunate to own all three classes of cassette tape deck. Low price....... 2 head $150 - 250. Middle priced....... 2 head $300 - $500 Top........ 3 head $600 - $3000 Back in 1980 my Father got me a Nak 582. Heavy, beautiful and heavenly sounding. $1000 CAN. Dolby B. 20 - 20 000 hz +-3db with Metal tape. On this machine they were no aggressive or brittle highs. I gave the machine a few years later to my brother. I was the favorite child and it seemed wrong at the time. In 1985 I worked many weeks to buy my Hitachi two head cassette deck. $175 CAN. Dolby B. It was only as good as the work and tape you put in to it. Type 1......... 30 - 14 000 hz +-3db Type 2......... 30 - 16 000 hz +-3db Type 4......... 30 - 17 000 hz +-3db With Type 2 tape. S/N ratio 59 db 'A' weighted without NR. S/N ratio 66 db 'A' weighted with Dolby B. So with Metal tape and hot signal you could achieve maybe 68 db. When I would tape a record I borrowed onto Type 2 cassette it always sounded like the record playing back with a little loss of top end. But it wasn't like, "Oh my God! That is horrible. Ahhhh, the tape has killed the records. I wish I had a reel to reel..." The bass, the midrange and the stereo image were all there. Not anywhere you would call a perfect copy. But back in 1985 we never expected that. I got my first Sony Pro Walkman in 1988. 20 - 19 000 hz +-3db. It was a better machine than the cassette recorder I used to make the tapes. The sound quality of my CD's I could now take with me. Assuming I used Dolby B. The ability to hear full range sound with powerful low bass on the road was amazing. What most people don't realize is that all the multitracks in the 1960's had a similar frequency response: 30 - 15 000 hz +-2db (25 - 16 000 hz +-3db.) Most $200 - 250 cassette decks back in the 80's had a close frequency response with Type 2 tape. Because of the way the heads were configured then, 17 - 20 khz frequency response was next to impossible. Uncle Jack remembers the technicians testing the Ampex multitracks back in the late 60's when he worked for Brad's studio. Specifically the test tones. The Ampex 300-8 ran dead after 16khz. Something like - 8 db @ 17 khz. And a 18 khz tone couldn't even be recorded. Back to the cassette deck...... And the Hitachi had great sounding analog preamps. And the mike preamps were also fantastic. Here is a trick all Pros know. You want a real good microphone preamp! Find any cassette deck from the 1982 - 1995 period. Usually they will have 2 mike preamps. These will be better then what you will find in even a $300 ADC USB interface today! Another trick is to buy a cheap 4/8 channel Mackie mixer with the legendary award winning ONYX mike preamps. Back in the 90's Mackie engineers took apart several $1500 -3000 microphone preamps to discover what made them sound soooo good. They took what they learned and built the ONYX Mackie microphone preamp. The ONYX isn't the equal of a $3000 mike preamp but they sound better than a $100 -250 mike preamp. The ONYX mike preamp won an award for best sounding microphone preamp in a mixer. Then in 1992 I purchased a mid priced Kenwood for $300 and in 2003 I picked up a 2 head Denon for $350. That Denon was smooth.. best machine I had heard since the Nak 582.
John Morris said: Yea AM is great for voice but for full range music it sucks. But yes I see and understand your point. And I am sure a caveman would make a fire quicker than a Boy Scout but who would you invite for dinner. LOL Well if they’re serving Boy Scout, pretty sure just about anyone form Hollywood will accept the invite Seriously though wasn’t the three motor Tandberg right up there? I’m thinking about getting one.
I gave my TCD-310MKII away to a fellow co-worker....he may still have it. If you're interested in contact info..pm me. He was a collector of stuff...so he may still have it. Bern
