-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Measurements of Nakamichi Dragon Cassette Deck
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #102
Just did a search and a guy wants $2,000 for a scratched one! Amazing how much they go for.I've a Nak 1000 II for Amir to test. Nah...too much trouble to ship
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Plenty of test records here and plenty of turntables too.
It's easy enough to do a 30second FLAC and post analyze it. Plenty of people have sent (emailed/linked) me W&F tracks to test their TTs and cassette decks.
It's easy enough to do a 30second FLAC and post analyze it. Plenty of people have sent (emailed/linked) me W&F tracks to test their TTs and cassette decks.
Last edited:
Yea but amir likes to get all dressed up in rubber boots and gloves, white coat and suspenders.. i cant see him justifying that just to test a FLAC file.
Its the dressing up he enjoys , the testing is just the enabler. Its a complex ritual.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Yea kinda , no bra for amir though he likes the natural look and feel.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Freudian slip?
Well, he could also add to his vinyls & needles test coupe of subwoofer with 20 Hz, 30 Hz and 40 Hz digging the wall, just to see how much sub's trepidations are affecting the needles; also, changing bottom bumpers/rubbers from the turntable might have some influence too.
That should be "easily" tested within the next...couple of years, sorry Amir...couldn't help myself, but might worth checking how much floor and air vibrations counts when speaking about turntables.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2016
- Messages
- 276
- Likes
- 43
I've had mine since new...purchased in the 70's! Does TDK still make SA? The 90' length was a favorite for recording.
Interesting discussion. Back in the day I used to record a lot of (vinyl) albums (from friends as I was a kid and had no money. While I always preferred to have the original, I still enjoyed listening to cassette, as long as I like the music!
I’m a music producer/recording engineer and worked from the reel to reel multitrack days to now. So I spent a lot of time working on the first generation of affordable digital multitrack, the ADAT and DA88 formats.
There were some weird issues to be dealt with that shocked me. (I mostly recorded rock, but all sorts of music too). The digital decks had extended bandwidth, and this caused issues on both ends.
The early digital decks had a reputation for sounding “harsh” in the high frequencies, and lacked a definite euphonious quality that the analog decks imparted.
To this day, I will sometimes roll of the highs of recordings with painful high frequency content.
On the low frequencies, the extended frequency response and dynamic range would cause out of control bass frequencies, which then had to be dealt with with filters and EQ.
In general, there was way too much dynamic range, and it caused me to tune in to some of the very natural sounding compression tape had. I
Part of the issue was the result of close micing. Most decent mics can generate signal down to 20hz. There is a also a boost in low frequencies when close micing directional mics. This signal would be transmitted down the wire to mic preamps, mixers, and other gear that had roughly 20-20k response. A mic right next to a drum head can produce quite a burst of energy, if the drummer is overly enthusiastic.
The digital decks could actually capture and reproduce these high energy signals intact. This led to a crazy sounding recording with way too much dynamic range in the individual instruments. They were hard to mix. All the extra low energy also caused compressors and speakers to behave differently.
On the other hand, recording multitrack acoustic music was much easier, as you didn’t have to deal with accumulating tape noise.
The amount of dynamic range control that goes on in modern recording is insane. There are multiple reasons for this, IMO, the biggest is that most people listen to music not only on limited systems, but also in noisy environments, which reduces the perceptual dynamic range.
I guess my point is, there is a lot more to effective music reproduction than low distortion, noise, and linearity. Some of this is what allows cassettes to be a viable, if limited (hah hah) playback format.
as I was a kid and had no money. While I always preferred to have the original, I still enjoyed listening to cassette, as long as I like the music!I’m a music producer/recording engineer and worked from the reel to reel multitrack days to now. So I spent a lot of time working on the first generation of affordable digital multitrack, the ADAT and DA88 formats.
There were some weird issues to be dealt with that shocked me. (I mostly recorded rock, but all sorts of music too). The digital decks had extended bandwidth, and this caused issues on both ends.
The early digital decks had a reputation for sounding “harsh” in the high frequencies, and lacked a definite euphonious quality that the analog decks imparted.
To this day, I will sometimes roll of the highs of recordings with painful high frequency content.
On the low frequencies, the extended frequency response and dynamic range would cause out of control bass frequencies, which then had to be dealt with with filters and EQ.
In general, there was way too much dynamic range, and it caused me to tune in to some of the very natural sounding compression tape had. I
Part of the issue was the result of close micing. Most decent mics can generate signal down to 20hz. There is a also a boost in low frequencies when close micing directional mics. This signal would be transmitted down the wire to mic preamps, mixers, and other gear that had roughly 20-20k response. A mic right next to a drum head can produce quite a burst of energy, if the drummer is overly enthusiastic.
The digital decks could actually capture and reproduce these high energy signals intact. This led to a crazy sounding recording with way too much dynamic range in the individual instruments. They were hard to mix. All the extra low energy also caused compressors and speakers to behave differently.
On the other hand, recording multitrack acoustic music was much easier, as you didn’t have to deal with accumulating tape noise.
The amount of dynamic range control that goes on in modern recording is insane. There are multiple reasons for this, IMO, the biggest is that most people listen to music not only on limited systems, but also in noisy environments, which reduces the perceptual dynamic range.
I guess my point is, there is a lot more to effective music reproduction than low distortion, noise, and linearity. Some of this is what allows cassettes to be a viable, if limited (hah hah) playback format.
Our evolutionary natural environment lacks the HF that musical instruments offer, especially the intensity and levels. Unless one is accustomed to live music exhibiting those characteristics it can sound unnatural. That doesn't mean it is wrong. I think this may be why many listeners find some recordings overpowering in the high frequencies - lack of familiarity.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,741
- Likes
- 6,455
FWIW: 1986 Audio reviewed the Nak CR7, which at the time listed for $1350.00 ($3000.00 inflation adjusted, about half the price of a Dragon). Nakamichi were generally not discounted, but you could often get the dealer to throw in some free tape with your purchase. Like the Dragon, CR7 featured auto azimuth. It is difficult to present a completely coherent picture from measurements, since a lot depended upon type of tape and recording level.
Playback repsonse was said to be within 1dB "at most measured points," with a 3dB rise at the "highest frequencies" using Type 2 tape. Erasure at 100Hz was 67dB. Separation at 1KHz was 60dB. I believe measurements were mostly taken at -20dB/3% THD recording level. S/N (weighted) with Dolby C was 74-79 dB depending upon tape type; 49-52 dB without NR. Flutter was 0.05% (weighted average) and 0.065% peak--this was considered "average" for a high end deck of the day, not as good as they had seen on other decks, but inaudible. At the time the reviewer (Howard Robinson) stated the results were "truly marvelous." High Fidelity magazine tested the deck and reported about a 5dB HF rise from 10KHz to 20KHz using Type IV tape, at -20dB VU. With Type I tape there was about a 3dB FR variation from 20 to 20K @ -20dB, using C NR.
Subjectively, the problem I always experienced with cassette was its "compressed" sound as you approached 0dB recording levels. Never seemed dynamic to me. Nowhere near as good as average level consumer open reel, much less good quality records. But cassette had open reel beat by convenience. It was really a car thing. Today Nakamichi is reduced to selling what appears to be generic soundbars and cheap headphones. I went to their main site to see what they were up to, but it refused to load unless I turned on Flash. Next!
Playback repsonse was said to be within 1dB "at most measured points," with a 3dB rise at the "highest frequencies" using Type 2 tape. Erasure at 100Hz was 67dB. Separation at 1KHz was 60dB. I believe measurements were mostly taken at -20dB/3% THD recording level. S/N (weighted) with Dolby C was 74-79 dB depending upon tape type; 49-52 dB without NR. Flutter was 0.05% (weighted average) and 0.065% peak--this was considered "average" for a high end deck of the day, not as good as they had seen on other decks, but inaudible. At the time the reviewer (Howard Robinson) stated the results were "truly marvelous." High Fidelity magazine tested the deck and reported about a 5dB HF rise from 10KHz to 20KHz using Type IV tape, at -20dB VU. With Type I tape there was about a 3dB FR variation from 20 to 20K @ -20dB, using C NR.
Subjectively, the problem I always experienced with cassette was its "compressed" sound as you approached 0dB recording levels. Never seemed dynamic to me. Nowhere near as good as average level consumer open reel, much less good quality records. But cassette had open reel beat by convenience. It was really a car thing. Today Nakamichi is reduced to selling what appears to be generic soundbars and cheap headphones. I went to their main site to see what they were up to, but it refused to load unless I turned on Flash. Next!
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #115
I experienced the same so bought into Sony's format, Elcaset:
Its performance was well above the cassette players I had at the time. But still not transparent to source.
Purchase price was around $1,500 back in 1976 so huge amount of money.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #116
At the audio meet where I measured the Dragon, another audiophile said he had the CR7 and a Nakamichi engineer had told him that it was the best sounding deck they ever made. True?
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,741
- Likes
- 6,455
You know, if digital had never come along, EL Cassette would have been a viable hi fidelity format. Open reel was problematic in that it never sounded best except at 7ips and higher. For home use, 7ips was good enough. Quarter track was OK, but S/N improved considerably at half track. Plus it was super expensive for both the tape, and keeping machines serviced. Machines always needed service. Studer Nashville at the time (late 80s) quoted me $500.00 less heads (head replacement was additional) to overhaul my ReVox B77. That was just for routine service to get it like new, which was about half the price of a new machine. I could see where it was taking me, so I sold the deck, and abandoned the format altogether. EL Cassette was, if I remember correctly, optimized quarter track open reel tape running at 3 1/4ips. With NR it was supposed to be quite serviceable. I admit to never hearing it.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,771
- Likes
- 37,635
Now you need to measure the self centering turntable. TX1000 from Nakamichi. They made a Dragon TT, and I'm not sure if it was a different model. I've seen two of these in action, and could have purchased one.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,741
- Likes
- 6,455
The Dragon had its own integrated tonearm. That was the problem. At those prices, most people wanted to pick and choose arms. The Dragon arm looked like a Jelco OEM. I'm not saying that is bad. Just saying. I wouldn't trust the worthiness of these electro-optical-mechanical things, 40+ years on. This off-center Nak solution would have not been an issue if record pressing plants had taken a bit more care in their product. The old joke was CBS records: Cost Before Sound. LOL
It's not the Nakamichi company, the name has just become another empty shell name used by companies wanting to apply a still much loved name to their own stuff. The demise of Nakamichi was a tragedy for the world of audio.
