etl@cbscc.UUCP (Eugene T. Levine) (02/21/85)
I'm looking to buy a cassette deck ($300 - $400) range, possible local
(Columbus, OH) or mail order (ie: Illinois Audio, or Direct Sight and Sound
of Alanta). Several choices I've had recommended are:
1) JVC KD-V6 local ~$299 mail ~$229
2) Nakamichi LX-3 local ~$599 mail ~$399
3) Onkyo TA-2056 local ~$369
4) Sony TC-K555 local ~$399 mail ~$329
As of right now I`m leaning towards the Nak and planning on buying
it mail order. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated
especially from owners of the above decks, or people who have bought
from Direct Sight and Sound (they have a smallish add in the back of
Stereo Review Mar 85).
A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns
the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this
true? Isn`t there some kind of standard?
Please reply directly to me unless of interest to all.
Gene Levine (614) 860-4337
ATT Bell Labs Columbuswagner@uw-june (Dave Wagner) (02/22/85)
> (From etl@cbscc.UUCP (Eugene T. Levine) Sat Feb 5 22:28:16 206)_ > I'm looking to buy a cassette deck ($300 - $400) range, possible local > (Columbus, OH) or mail order (ie: Illinois Audio, or Direct Sight and Sound > of Alanta). Several choices I've had recommended are: > 1) JVC KD-V6 local ~$299 mail ~$229 > 2) Nakamichi LX-3 local ~$599 mail ~$399 > 3) Onkyo TA-2056 local ~$369 > 4) Sony TC-K555 local ~$399 mail ~$329 > > A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns > the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this > true? Isn`t there some kind of standard? Your salesman may be correct. I used to own a Nak BX-2, which made superb recordings. It was stolen, and I now own the JVC KD-V6. Unfortunately, most of my old tapes, when played on the JVC, have no high frequencies! I was sure that the JVC was at fault, so I took it to an authorized repair center to have the heads aligned. NO CHANGE. (By the way, the JVC's record/playback performance is fine; only the playback of old tapes is bad. Also, commercially pre-recorded tapes sound OK on the JVC.) The NAKs are superb performers, well worth the money; but if you have a large investment in non-NAK recorded tapes, you really ought to try to listen to one before you buy it. I sure wish I had listened to the JVC before I bought it! On the other hand, if you don't own any tapes already, you will be able to make good tapes with any of the decks above. (I've not heard the ONKYO, however.) By the way, the SONY strikes me as a deck in which you are paying a lot of extra money for convenience features instead of extra performance. Dave Wagner University of Washington Comp Sci Department wagner@{uw-june.arpa|washington.arpa} {ihnp4|decvax}!uw-beaver!uw-june!wagner "Oh no! I've got . . . . . HAPPY FEET!"
pearse@hound.UUCP (S.PEARSE) (02/24/85)
Someone recently replied to this question saying Nak recorded tapes sound poor on other decks (namely, JVC). Well, I won't say that is wrong, but that point may not be important unless you plan to play Nak recorded tapes on other equipment. A few points: 1) If I were to be recording on equipment as good as a Nak, I might hesitate to play that tape on other inferior equipment. 2) Every article I have read indicates a Nak (LX-3/5) has a perfectly flat response to test tapes, 20 to 20. That means other recorded tapes will sound excellent, as my non-Nak tapes sound. 3) Even if the person's suggestion that Nak recorded tapes do not play well on other equipment is correct ( I have not read about or done any tests on this subject), it may imply that any library built up will "lock you in" to buying Naks in the future... but to be honest with you, I think all tapes record in their own quirky manner. I do know that Naks are consistent, at least. -- Steve Pearse ihnp4!hound!pearse
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (02/24/85)
In article <90@uw-june> wagner@uw-june (Dave Wagner) writes: >> A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns >> the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this >> true? Isn`t there some kind of standard? > >Your salesman may be correct. I used to own a Nak BX-2, which made superb >recordings. It was stolen, and I now own the JVC KD-V6. Unfortunately, >most of my old tapes, when played on the JVC, have no high frequencies! >I was sure that the JVC was at fault, so I took it to an authorized repair >center to have the heads aligned. NO CHANGE. (By the way, the JVC's >record/playback performance is fine; only the playback of old tapes is >bad. Also, commercially pre-recorded tapes sound OK on the JVC.) > >The NAKs are superb performers, well worth the money; but if you have a >large investment in non-NAK recorded tapes, you really ought to try to listen >to one before you buy it. I sure wish I had listened to >the JVC before I bought it! > Dave Wagner there is a reason for the difference and it is not head alignment. nakimichi uses nonstandard playback equalization to get the best possible performance from a tape. they feel that the industry standard is designed for the technology as it existed at the time of that standard, which they felt was inadequate, so they went their own way. you cannot change the playback equalization on your current tape deck without affecting Dolby tracking and frequency response unless you change record equalization too. so, unless you want to continue buying nakimichi decks forever, go with someone elses deck. but i'd still rather have a nak. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
shauns@vice.UUCP (Shaun Simpkins) (02/25/85)
> I'm looking to buy a cassette deck ($300 - $400) range, possible local > (Columbus, OH) or mail order (ie: Illinois Audio, or Direct Sight and Sound > of Alanta). Several choices I've had recommended are: > 1) JVC KD-V6 local ~$299 mail ~$229 > 2) Nakamichi LX-3 local ~$599 mail ~$399 > 3) Onkyo TA-2056 local ~$369 > 4) Sony TC-K555 local ~$399 mail ~$329 > > As of right now I`m leaning towards the Nak and planning on buying > it mail order. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated > especially from owners of the above decks, or people who have bought > from Direct Sight and Sound (they have a smallish add in the back of > Stereo Review Mar 85). > > A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns > the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this > true? Isn`t there some kind of standard? > 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). Nak aligns their heads BETTER than most manufacturers. Nak does use the IEC standard, which standardizes recorded flux, rather than the NAB standard, which standardizes playback level. The IEC standard forces you to compensate playback head deficiencies in the playback circuit. The NAB standard allows you to peak the recorded signal to compensate. Thus, transportability of recorded tapes suffers with the NAB standard. A NAB-standard tape may sound slightly hot on a IEC deck, and a IEC-standard tape may sound slightly dull on a NAB deck. With today's decks and head quality this effect is small. However, differences in head alignment of no more than a few MINUTES of arc will wipe out the entire top octave - and a few minutes of arc alignment difference between decks from different manufacturers is a common occurrence. Manufacturers try to keep their head alignment very tight so that tapes recorded on one of their decks can be played on another example of the same model with good fidelity - but as a general rule the manufacturer's spec can only be met for r/p on a single machine. This is the main reason why Auto-Azimuth Alignment decks exist, particularly in automobile installations. 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
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) (02/26/85)
>> A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns >> the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this >> true? Isn`t there some kind of standard? > >Your salesman may be correct. I used to own a Nak BX-2, which made superb >recordings. It was stolen, and I now own the JVC KD-V6. Unfortunately, >most of my old tapes, when played on the JVC, have no high frequencies! >I was sure that the JVC was at fault, so I took it to an authorized repair >center to have the heads aligned. NO CHANGE. (By the way, the JVC's >record/playback performance is fine; only the playback of old tapes is >bad. Also, commercially pre-recorded tapes sound OK on the JVC.) > >The NAKs are superb performers, well worth the money; but if you have a >large investment in non-NAK recorded tapes, you really ought to try to listen >to one before you buy it. I sure wish I had listened to >the JVC before I bought it! I already replied to the original poster on this subject, but since stuff is appearing on the net, thought I'd add my 2 cents' worth... Several years ago I read an article, though I forget where, in which a Nak engineer claimed that Nak used to do something different from most other cassette deck manufacturers -- I don't remember whether it was head alignment, bias, or what -- but that there is now a standard that all mfgrs. adhere to. I have a Nakamichi LX-5. Personally, over about 3 years of trading cassettes with various friends who own machines of diverse manufacture, I've only once encountered compatibility problems. That was with a Harmon-Karden, and I forget exactly what the problem was, but neither my friend nor I could figure it out. No explanation we could come up with made sense. In any case, I have been happier with my Nak than with any other component I own. By switching between the source and the playback head during recording (LX-5 is a 3-head machine) I can hear how much signal degradation I'm getting. With TDK-SA (which I use almost exclusively) it ranges from inaudible to a readily audible but, to me, tolerable loss of brightness in the highs -- things like cymbal crashes and rides. Obviously, how audible this is depends on how much stuff in this frequency range is in the source material, and on how well it is recorded. I accept that it's possible to do better with better tape, or with other media (Beta, reel- to-reel), but I'm happy with what I have, and am reasonably certain that it would be hard to exceed given the medium. Also, the Nak is extremely sturdy and reliable, and even seems to need head demagnetization and cleaning less frequently than other machines. When it comes to Nakamichi, though in few other realms, "I'm a believer"! Peter S. Shenkin, Columbia Univ. Biol. Sci., cubsvax!peters
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/27/85)
> > Several years ago I read an article, though I forget where, in which a Nak > engineer claimed that Nak used to do something different from most other > cassette deck manufacturers -- I don't remember whether it was head alignment, > bias, or what -- but that there is now a standard that all mfgrs. adhere to. > I would expect that it is EQ. Bias affects what is recorded on the tape and shouldn't affect the playback at all (i.e. if the bias is wrong it should sound equally bad on all decks). I have a hard time believing that head alignment would do it either. When you adjust head alignment you go for nice right angles and centered on the track. When you adjust EQ, you have to pick some standard. In many radio stations, they are free to pick whatever they want since they matching record and playback EQ's and never deal with any serious outside tapes. -Ron Recorded at a reference fluxivity of 250 nanowebers per meter.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/01/85)
> >> A salesman trying to put down the Nak mentioned that Nak aligns > >> the heads on their decks different from most other decks, is this > >> true? Isn`t there some kind of standard? Isn't anyone else going to come up with the right answer? Here's the way I understand it. There was a spec for the amount of flux put on a tape. However, the only way you can measure the flux is with a read head. Back when this first happened, the read heads weren't too good and in fact lost a significant amount of signal. The Europeans didn't seem to understand this and so cranked up the flux that went in so what they measured appeared to be right. What they measured seemed right but the flux on the tape was above spec. Nakamichi calculated the loss due to imperfect read heads and calibrated according to that method. They equalized for the read head after reading rather than by boosting the write signal above the amount of flux called for by the standard. I happen to believe that Nakamichi did it the right way. What's important is the flux on the tape. That is the only way you can get an interchange standard. If two systems have a difference in the loss of their read heads and are calibrated the European way, their tapes won't interchange. The deck whose read head was more lossy will appear to have too much signal to the other deck because the first one wrote extra flux. If you use the Nakamichi scheme, the write heads all write the same amount of flux and the read heads come out with the same signal too. These days it does not matter as much because the technology is there to make heads with very small gaps and the read loss is much less now. But these nasty rumors that Nakamichi is nonstandard still fly around. I am sure that I will get flamed if I misunderstood this or if I have said anything in an ambiguous way. -- Why, that's more useless than the left thumb of a touch typist! Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
riner@dsd.UUCP (john riner) (03/05/85)
> > > > Several years ago I read an article, though I forget where, in which a Nak > > engineer claimed that Nak used to do something different from most other > > cassette deck manufacturers -- I don't remember whether it was head > > alignment, > > bias, or what -- but that there is now a standard that all mfgrs. adhere to. > > > I would expect that it is EQ. Bias affects what is recorded on the tape > and shouldn't affect the playback at all (i.e. if the bias is wrong it > should sound equally bad on all decks). I have a hard time believing > that head alignment would do it either. When you adjust head alignment > you go for nice right angles and centered on the track. When you adjust > EQ, you have to pick some standard. In many radio stations, they are free > to pick whatever they want since they matching record and playback EQ's and > never deal with any serious outside tapes. Years (many) ago recorders were set up by measuring the record head current and setting the bias and record currents to a set level which (due to the limited performance achievable with the heads and tape then available) was supposed to set the flux level on the tape. The reproduce equalization was then set for the response/noise level desired. When incompatability became a problem (as mfrs and users began to understand more and the heads and tape became better) standards were developed which specified a reproduce response curve which was fixed and the record current, bias and equalization (yes there is record equalization) were adjusted to make the frequency response and distortion meet the system specifications. Several different schemes were developed to meet various system performance requirements. Eventually the NAB developed a set of standards for equalization and these are fairly well adhered to today. The present method used is to reproduce a "standard" tape (a tape made with a known flux level recording) and adjust the azimuth for peak output at the highest frequency on the test tape then adjust the reproduce response for flat output versus frequency. Then the bias is set for peak output of a signal at a mid frequency (rule of thumb is to use the same frequency in KHz as the tape speed in Inches per second up to 7.5 Khz at 7-1/2, 15, and 30 ips) and then set the record level for the distortion level at 1KHz or so. The bias and record level are then "trimmed" to compromise frequency response and distortion. Basically this applies to cassettes as well as reel to reel recorders. I have heard many comments on and off the net about Nak incompatability and I have found no definative answer but here is what I believe is the case. In order to optimize their product they used some record equalization which was meant to operate with their heads (which from what I have been able to deduce are very good) better than "standard" equalization. Since their products are generally used with high performance tape (less distortion at higher record levels), they could reduce the record level slightly at higher frequencies and get wider response at higher record levels which enhanced the signal to noise level and the spec sheet. This would produce a rolloff in the high end when played back on another mfrs tape deck. To my knowledge this is no longer the case and any incompatability is probably due to misalignment in on or the other of the machines. I don't know if this clears up any of the confusion (it probably only creates more) but I remain convinced that the notion of standards is only an illusion anyway (have you ever found a "standard" RS-232 connection to anything) John Riner AMPEX Corp. -- John Riner UUCP: !fortune!dsd!riner AMPEX Corp Redwood City, CA. Nobody knows what I am talking about, so these must be my opinions and not theirs.