I have no doubt that the high end response of the Nakamichi could be brought up to nearly flat by reducing the bias current, but this will increase distortion, so its a tradeoff. At such slow speeds its impossible to get full spectrum response at maximum recording level at a very low level of distortion and noise (without noise reduction). In the world of analog tape, 15 ips reel to reel is the minimum speed/format which can basically 'have it all' as far as full response range with lack of saturation, with good noise/distortion performance. Its no coincidence that 15 ips was the standard speed used for professional recording studios. Some masters were made at 30 ips, but this was generally viewed at too expensive as far as tape usage. 35mm magnetic film beats all of the tape formats, but it hasn't been used at all in decades.
Usual problem is belts. Hope your parents didn’t ditch it as serviced it would have easily fetch >£180.
It was the first cassette deck I’d tested and was surprised at the relationship and interaction between recording level, frequency response and distortion.
I doubt it was saturated as I adjusted the recording level to get the best response possible.
The other problem is that 30 ips has less bass, believe it or not. What I have heard from 35mm recordings from Mercury, on LP and those excellent CD remasters, was only a little better, and nowhere near the dynamic range and quality of modern digital [when it's done right]. But probably better than anything else in its day. I do recall some of the 355mm Mercury masters did not store well, with dropouts, and that in a few cases had to use the back-up tape, don't remember if it was quarter-inch or half-inch.
I used to work with 35mm magnetic film regularly when I worked in films in Hollyweird. The speed of 90 feet per minute, or 18 ips fits into the sweet spot of high enough to have better HF saturation and frequency extension than 15 ips, but not so fast that bass response suffers. Also, three tracks on about an inch of oxide area makes for very wide tracks. At the time, magnetic film which was just as advanced at open reel mastering tape was available. Other advantages of film is much thicker base material, generally thicker oxide coating, and isolated sprocket drive which used huge flywheels to keep wow/flutter at bay. On one film I worked on they actually had to compress the original magnetic film mix in order to transfer it to digital since the dynamic range of the 35 mm magnetic film was wider than could be accommodated by the 16 bit digital recorders. Magnetic film could be that good. But film stock was absurdly expensive.
FWIW a Stereo Review March 1988 article: "Top 5 Tape Decks". The Nakamichi Dragon ranked No#1 with "the lowest noise level, especially at high frequencies, by a clear margin in source vs tape comparisons." "More accurate and clear sounding even over the Revox 215" (ranked No#2). Both decks virtually flawless, with the Dragon pulling ahead of the 215 -sounding more "musical". A Tandberg 3014A came in at No#3, and Harman/Kardon CD491 and Onkyo TA-2090 (interchangeably) coming in 4th and 5th (note: their retail prices were less than half of the Nak/Revox/Tandberg decks).
It's not so much that the Nakamichi measured worse than digital. That's expected. The problem is that it measured no better than a tape deck that I bought on eBay for $50 and refurbished myself. This makes one suspect that Nakamichi deck isn't fully up to snuff.
At the time I compared Dragon, B215, HK CD491 and 3014A - over a couple of years, in various showrooms, in different combinations - my personal conclusion ranked them as 3014A, B215, Dragon, and HK CD491 last - I ended up with a B215. - But they were all excellent - and when new, well nigh indistinguishable from CD's that the cassette was copied from. (My standard test tape was BASF Chrome).
I got gas from that statement and still haven't been able to digest it.
Yes, you give me gas too.
Ask the audio hardware hoarder himself; he may be able trade your B512 for another!
