prophet@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dennis Gibbs) (03/02/85)
<> From Shaun Simpkins: >I would suggest looking at the Nak BX-300 before you run out and purchase >the LX-3 - I think the BX-300 gives more value for the same list price. >It is a 2-capstan design, hence low flutter, hence much better reproduction of >things like piano, oboe, massed strings, etc. The LX-3 is a single capstan >design 3 to 4 years old and I suspect Nak is clearing them out. To my tastes >the BX-300 is less gaudy than the LX-3. B&O does a better job at high sex >design than Nak (High Sex Design = faceless aluminum sheet with wood trim that >does something audioish). Wrong. The Nakamichi LX-3 is a dual-capstan machine with two heads. Dennis -- Call-Me: Dennis Gibbs, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Center. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!prophet CSNet: prophet@umcp-cs BITNET: GIBBS@UMDB ARPA: prophet@Maryland
shauns@vice.UUCP (Shaun Simpkins) (03/05/85)
> > <> > > From Shaun Simpkins: > > > >I would suggest looking at the Nak BX-300 before you run out and purchase > >the LX-3 - I think the BX-300 gives more value for the same list price. > >It is a 2-capstan design, hence low flutter, hence much better reproduction of > >things like piano, oboe, massed strings, etc. The LX-3 is a single capstan > >design 3 to 4 years old and I suspect Nak is clearing them out. To my tastes > >the BX-300 is less gaudy than the LX-3. B&O does a better job at high sex > >design than Nak (High Sex Design = faceless aluminum sheet with wood trim that > >does something audioish). > > Wrong. The Nakamichi LX-3 is a dual-capstan machine with two heads. > > Dennis > Oops. My mistake. I examined the LX-3 3 years ago when it was new and haven't paid much attention since. That was the time when Nak was bleeding itself dry with, I think, 12 different models in its line all competing with each other for the same market. The BX series was the first attempt to reduce their line to something manageable. What I meant to say is that the BX 300 is the first 2 capstan 3 head design in that series. Its performance is on a par with the LX-5 (also a 2c3h deck) and as such represents excellent value, much more so than the LX-3 at the same price. Indeed, it incorporates the same diffused resonance transport introduced in the LX-3,5 and ZX-7. (Notice that the ZX-7 doesn't appear on dealer's shelves anymore? The ZX-9 is the only one left. The biggest difference between these two models is the direct drive capstans in the ZX-9. The ZX-7 didn't have enough basic performance improvement from the LX to survive even with its fully adjustable bias and EQ. The ZX-9 apparently has enough product differentiation to survive. And now the same thing is happening between the LX and BX series.) The LX-3 is an excellent deck. But save one correction, my comments still stand. The wandering squash, -- Shaun Simpkins uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!vice!shauns CSnet: shauns@tek ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relay
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (03/11/85)
> To my tastes > the BX-300 is less gaudy than the LX-3. B&O does a better job at high sex > design than Nak (High Sex Design = faceless aluminum sheet with wood trim that > does something audioish). > > What I meant to say is that the BX 300 is the first 2 capstan 3 head design > in that series. Its performance is on a par with the LX-5 (also a 2c3h deck) > and as such represents excellent value, much more so than the LX-3 at the > same price. For what is worth I just made the decision between the LX-3 and BX-300, I chose the LX-3 and here is why; 1) much cheaper (closeout price on LX-3, $450 vs $650, a savings of $215 including tax) 2) BX-300 didn't sound enough better, I'll admit I only recorded one tape on each machine and they were hooked up to the store's system (Denon amp w/B&O table) but I couldn't tell the difference between the source and the tape with either recording. 3) BX-300 looks like Tokyo-by-night, how could they do this?! 4) LX-3 had all the necessary features - I do admit that the 'Auto rewind' feature on the BX-300 would be nice but it wasn't worth $200. Obviously the looks are purely personal, and some of can probably tell the difference in sound. I don't do any live recording so after a bit of a break-in period where I learn the deck I don't imagine the third head would be a huge advantage for better recording. It is true that Audio\ tested the BX-300 and found it has the best S/N ratio ever tested for Dolby C. Later, Peter B {any biggie}uw-beaver!fluke!tron