shivers@cmu-cs-h.ARPA (Olin Shivers) (03/03/85)
>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).
You've got an error here, Shaun. Both the LX-3 and LX-5 have dual-capstan
drives -- the fancy Nak "asymmetrical diffused-resonance" dual-capstan drive.
The BX-300 is a better deck than the LX-3 because it's got 3 heads; the LX-3
has only 2. Still, the problem with the BX-300 is that, as far as I can tell,
you can't get one for the price of an LX-3. The LX series is being phased out
by Nak and being replaced by their new BX models. So you can get the LX-3
cheap ~$400. If you can find the BX-300 -- which has 3 heads, a few other
small advances, and the cachet of being "the latest thing" -- for anywhere
close to ~400 it would be a miracle, I think. Face it. If you want a 3 head
deck from Nakamichi, you are going to pay in the high 500's, low 600's. If
you look around.
On the other hand, if you drop down to the new BX-150, instead of the LX-3 or
the BX-300, you give up the dual-capstan drive. Which means you give up that
snazzy pressure-pad lifter that's supposed to reduce "scrape noise" in the
dual capstan drives.
So the LX-3 is nicely positioned between the BX-150 and the BX-300 in terms of
features and cost. You choose where you want to be on the price/performance
curve.
In decreasing order of price, we have:
BX-300 dual-capstan direct drive, 3 heads, brand new.
LX-3 dual-capstan, 2 heads, been around for a while.
BX-150 single-capstan, 2 heads, brand new.
It could be that my opinions about prices of the BX-300 are insufficiently
searched out, but I'm dead on about the specs -- I've got the brochures for
the LX-3, LX-5, BX-300, and BX-150 right by the terminal.
By the way, I also think the LX decks are a *lot* less gaudy than the BX
decks. The BX decks have that lab-instrumentation/747-cockpit look -- the
front is a mass of buttons, meters, and switches. The LX decks have a very
simple, plain front. Take a look.
I'm a little skeptical about spending the sorts of bucks you have to spend to
get a good 3 head deck because you're buying into technology I believe will be
obsolete in two years, upper bound. Digital tape decks -- either DASH format
or rotating head types -- should be out by then, and that's not to mention the
promise of writeable CD's.
As far as this "different Nakamichi head calibration" argument goes, I found
this in the BX-100/BX-150 propaganda:
Even though the BX-150 and BX-100 are "basic" recorders, playback gap
loss is compensated in the playback equalizer, and recording loss in the
recording equalizer to ensure complete adherence with international
standards.
That seems to support Phil Ngai's comments about calibration.
Somebody out there was wondering how VCR's get video rate bandwidth without
spinning the tape by at an unholy rate. The answer is that the *heads* spin.
As the tape slowly moves by, a rotating head scans one video frame's worth
of stuff off the tape. This is why you can freeze a frame on a video tape --
even though the tape's stopped, the head can still scan out the frame 30 times
a second. This spinning head hack gives an effective tape rate of about (I'm
only in the ballpark here) 23 feet per second. Compare that to the 1.875
*inches* per second of cassettes!
-Olin Shivers
ARPA: shivers@cmu-cs-a
UUCP: shivers@decwrl