Measurements of Nakamichi Dragon Cassette Deck

[anmpr1]

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.

Yeah. Probably just bought the name, at a fire sale. Anyhow, I certainly have respect for the old company. Even though I never bouight an expensive cassette deck, and never liked the format, particularly--at least outside of my car. Think about it, trying to take the physics of cassette tape and making it into an almost viable hi fidelity medium. Relentless in their precision. The engineering that went into those products (i.e., their higher end stuff) was deserving of respect, but in the end kind of pointless. But in the end, what isn't kind of pointless?

 

[L5730]

We used to use a 1994 Sony TCK-611s and a collection of various Type IV (Metal) cassettes, ranging from some Fuji to mostly Maxell, with a handful of TDK MAXG, those were things of engineering beauty. Some tests we did comparing CD vs. Cassette recorded from same CD left us to prefer the cassette at the time - likely due to some pleasing distortions, certainly not accuracy!
Years later I picked up a Tascam 414MkII 4-track recorder for messing about making my own music. Primarily used Type II (Chrome) TDK-SA cassettes, it didn't facilitate Type IV. I think I have some Type I (Normal) TDK-AR cassettes too which might as well have been Type II looking at their frequency response graphs.
Even later, we picked up a used Yamaha KX-580se just to see what we had recorded on the old cassettes from the Sony. I still have this deck just knocking around. It gets used from time to time as a gain control as I don't yet have a decent ADC.

It's funny, back in the 90s cassettes were utterly fine and CD seemed somewhat a strange format. Vinyl felt dated.
For us now, it seems odd to not play music from a computer, we just can't be bothered with slow and time-limited physical devices. Having to get up after ~20/45/80 minutes and do something with the device, no thanks, make a playlist and let it play for hours on end in perfectly clean digital with ReplayGain fixing volume differences between tracks.

It's certainly interesting to see this older tech. and how it measures.

 

[anmpr1]

We used to use a 1994 Sony TCK-611s and a collection of various Type IV (Metal) cassettes, ranging from some Fuji to mostly Maxell, with a handful of TDK MAXG, those were things of engineering beauty. Some tests we did comparing CD vs. Cassette recorded from same CD left us to prefer the cassette at the time...

Some early CDs were evidently not equalized properly. The engineers were still thinking analog, and some CDs had HF EQ applied. Or at least that's what I've read. Analog tape, especially open reel, can have a pleasing sound. No question about it. My home built tube amp probably has about 3% distortion at 1KHz rated power (40 or so watts--EL34), and I've never had any complaints about the sound. I think ears can be forgiving. The thing for me is to listen to the music. Too many gear heads listen to their gear. Practically speaking, I'm happy with either records, CDs, or downloads, if they are done OK.

 

[L5730]

Some early CDs were evidently not equalized properly. The engineers were still thinking analog, and some CDs had HF EQ applied. Or at least that's what I've read. Analog tape, especially open reel, can have a pleasing sound. No question about it. My home built tube amp probably has about 3% distortion at 1KHz rated power (40 or so watts--EL34), and I've never had any complaints about the sound. I think ears can be forgiving. The thing for me is to listen to the music. Too many gear heads listen to their gear. Practically speaking, I'm happy with either records, CDs, or downloads, if they are done OK.

Are you talking about Pre-Emphasis? I'm well aware of what that is, or it's practical implication. The big obvious release that might come to mind immediately would be the early Japanese CD of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. If correctly stated in the CD table of contents (TOC), the the CD player should have De-Empahsised this EQ in playback using a simple analogue, and later sometimes digital, circuit.
I wasn't walking about this issue, I was simply saying a normal CD, that sounded fine, when played through the integrated amplifier CD input, then routed out of the Tape Record outputs of the amplifier to the Sony cassette deck, and recorded on cassette (TDK MAXG in this case) and using Dolby-S. When played back in a non-blind and unscientific A/B listening test against the CD player, we preferred the sound of the cassette copy. I can find a number of reasons for it, a simple level shift of 1/3 dB could be enough, the distortion imparted by the the whole cassette system as well as the Dolby processing, the possible colouration of the actual cassette deck's own circuitry (how far off of measured perfect frequency response was it?). Not to mention the fact that the test wasn't blind, and there may have been some kind of bias toward wanting the cassette to sound better.

Sure, I am not a hater of any media in itself, just that I am very contented with the ability of relatively low-cost digital converters to interface a computer with an amplifier and allow the humble Hi-Fi and break completely free of any time limitations of playback media. The measurements tell us that digital can sound good too without breaking the bank. What I hear I am happy with now, and would really only go to older technology for the fun of playing with it, certainly not to integrate it into my music playback for real - too much faff.
...but, if folks want to enjoy the physical interaction, I am happy for them to do that. I'd probably be quite happy being a brain in a jar with ears attached, I don't need the physical, tactile and nasal experiences.

I fear I am derailing this thread.

 

[anmpr1]

Are you talking about Pre-Emphasis?

I've read, FWIW, that, in the early days of CD, some engineers were used to accentuating treble response in their mixes, in order to compensate for HF limitations found in plastic records and/or FM broadcasts. When CD came along, these "remastered" analog recordings preserved this built in HF boost, making the respective CDs sound bright and unnatural. Your guess is as good as mine. It's just what I read. I do know from experience that some early CDs sounded brittle and bright on the high end, making them unlistenable.

 

[L5730]

With the risk of going off of the title topic, I'll continue
Early CDs are a mess, but some are good and some are the best there has been on CD or other digital format.
Some CDs were taken from LP cutting tapes meant to go to the RIAA pre-emphasis for vinyl cutting - was it too much trouble to go and find the proper 2-track master tape and use that? I think ABBA's early CDs have this problem.
A lot of stuff just came from whatever tapes were lying around, so a dub or a dub of a dub, definitely not the actual master tape.
Sure, some CDs could have been engineered, mistakenly, by someone who didn't understand the medium and have all kinds of strange adjustments on them.

Mastering, by definition, means that the engineer should be trying to adjust and compensate for each medium to try and get the very best, or should that be smallest compromise when translating the master recording to that medium for the consumer. Vinyl and cassette have more noise in their playback, especially when factoring for the lower cost masses, not the super expensive finely tuned 'audiophile' grade equipment, and so these analogue media should have a more dynamically altered (read squashed) version to get above the noise floor. Sadly, we all know that digital meant one could basically squish everything with a couple of cleaver algorithms and shove it into what is now about the top 6dB of a CDs 96dB (or more if we include noise-shaped dither or HDCD encoding) capability.

Regards to my small cassette recording of CD vs. actual CD: These were of fairly new albums and so by the mid 90's engineers would understand the format, and new-ish albums would have been likely digital throughout. I think a few carried the 'DDD' designation of digital recording, digital mixing, digital mastering. Was a long time ago now, but what I recall was preferring the cassette recording to the original CD, for the few discs we tried. But, also, I am completely aware that the conclusion we reached was massively flawed and not worth a grain of salt

 

[watchnerd]

Maybe I will get into one if someone offers a test vinyl.

What sort of test vinyl are you looking for? I've got Hi Fi new, Acoustic Sounds, and Clearaudio test disks.

 

[amirm]

What sort of test vinyl are you looking for? I've got Hi Fi new, Acoustic Sounds, and Clearaudio test disks.

Ah, that is good to know. Now I need a turntable to go with those.

 

[watchnerd]

Ah, that is good to know. Now I need a turntable to go with those.

I've got an entry level Pro-Ject Debut Carbon with Speed Box sitting in the garage waiting for me to decide what to do with it / give it a hipster teen.

With the Speed Box the speed stability / wow / flutter is pretty shockingly good for the <$500 price, equalling or beating many belt-drives at 5x the price (Avid, VPI). The Technics direct drives scores better in those specs, though.

My Michell Gyro SE (~$2700 USD) is barely better for speed stability / wow / flutter, but does beat it on isolation and rumble.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I wonder how many remember. The Nakamichi gear looks less than impressive now. But back in the day, there were very few cassette machines that didn't pale in comparison with a Nak deck. Pale as in pale imitation. There were a couple Sony's that could compete. A dual speed BIC that also could. At least it could at double speed. JVC made a top of the line model that was in the running. Otherwise, any other cassette deck sounded pitiful next to Nakamichi. I had an Akai which was replaced with a Nakamichi when I got a real job for the first time. I remember the Akai on my speakers with passive radiator didn't move that passive cone at all. The Nakamichi moved it just like whatever you had recorded the music from. I fixed that after a few more paychecks with some panel speakers.

 

[Wombat]

Nakamichi fixed the Achilles-heel of cassette decks. Accurate low freq. bass.

 

[amirm]

Going back to the review, I found the original specs for the Nakmichi Dragon:

Check out the distortion rating of 0.8%. What did I measure?

0.8% at low frequencies!

Output spec was 1 volt and we are seeing 1.05 volts which is close enough.

So folks who were complaining the deck was not in shape, etc. are clearly wrong.

This is why I said the format never achieved transparency for me. Nearly 1% distortion is clearly audible. There is no getting around it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

@amirm maybe you could test any other run of the mill cassette deck just for proper comparison of what others had to offer.

My old Akai quit working about 7 years ago or I would send it to you.

I would also add, using the Nak it wasn't immediately apparent you weren't listening to the real deal when recording LP or FM album broadcasts. Using other cassettes you had no chance to fool anyone as it was obvious. Many CDs didn't even sound so obviously different when using the metal tapes.

 

[amirm]

I feel bad that I threw out my Akai deck. It was the best cassette deck I could afford before switching to CD.

 

[L5730]

Our current Yamaha KX 580se spec. from manual:

• Wow and Flutter: WRMS 0.05% / W.Peak +/- 0.08%
• SNR: Dolby off-60dB, B-68dB, C-76dB, S-80dB
• FR: Type IV (-20dB) 20 ~ 20k Hz +/-3dB
• Harmonic Distortion: 0.8%
• Channel Separation (1 kHz): 40dB
• Cross Talk (125 Hz): 55dB
• Output Level (Line): 570mV / 1k Ohm

These don't look a million miles different from the spec of the above Nak. deck.
The Yamaha was a 2 head, Playback/Record and Erase.

The Sony TCK-611s spec. from manual:

• Wow and Flutter: WRMS 0.05% / W.Peak +/- 0.09%
• SNR: Dolby off-61dB, B +5dB@1kHz/10dB@5kHz, C +15dB@500kHz/20dB@1kHz, S +10dB@100Hz/24dB@1kHz
• FR: Type IV 20 - 20k Hz +/-3dB
• Harmonic Distortion: 0.4% Type I / 1.5% Type IV
• Output Level (Line): 0.5V / 47k Ohm Load

The Sony was a 3-Head model, displayed time in actual seconds not some strange cog units of yesteryear (like the Yamaha still does!) and a had a open/close button for the power assisted door - snazzy!
We ditched the Sony some years later when the Sony was chewing the edge off of the tape, so we got one of those (now affordable) Traxdata CD-Recorders. That thing was ugly and did strange things. When set to manual record mode, it would shut down recording if it didn't think it was sound - think the beginning of Pink Floyd's Division Bell album, track Cluster One and the sort of rain/crackly sound. The Traxdata just wouldn't record this - very odd behaviour.
Last CD-Recorder was a Marantz DR6000, which seemed to sound a pinch smoother than it's equivalent CD player on playback. After moving towards computer based work, even burning discs on a DVD-RW drive, these standalone units became surplus to requirements. The Yamaha deck still kicking around for reasons mentioned above.

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Thanks for the test Amir, the Dragon looked so bad ass, back in the day and even today. If I was rich I would have one in my system just for looks. And maybe another one in the expensive Gold finish, I didn't even know they made a gold finished until recently. My tape deck back in the 80s was a black Yamaha unit, with DBX noise reduction.

 

[Pluto]

I've read, FWIW, that, in the early days of CD, some engineers were used to accentuating treble response in their mixes, in order to compensate for HF limitations found in plastic records and/or FM broadcasts. When CD came along, these "remastered" analog recordings preserved this built in HF boost, making the respective CDs sound bright and unnatural. Your guess is as good as mine. It's just what I read. I do know from experience that some early CDs sounded brittle and bright on the high end, making them unlistenable.

The Red Book specification for the CD medium included (and retains to this day) provision for pre-emphasis with the player performing a complementary de-emphasis. The flag telling the player to insert or remove the necessary filter is part of the data within the table of contents (ToC) and/or contained within the data stream. Sometimes, these two approaches were at odds with one another. Who knows what a player might then have done?

On the earliest CD mastering systems, the pre-emph. flag was manipulated independently of the actual audio hence it was possible to set the flag on audio that had not been suitably treated (resulting in dull playback) or, contrariwise, if you failed to set the flag on audio that had had pre-emphasis applied, you got shrill playback and, that, I believe, may have been at the heart of much of CD's early reputation for sounding harsh.

It is also worth bearing in mind that once ripping of CDs had become mainstream, the state of this flag was lost but the ripped digital audio remained whatever it ever was; it was only when the unmodified original CD was played through a Red Book compliant player's analogue output that you could be sure that the state of this flag was correctly complied with (probably). If you used the player's digital output to drive an early external DAC, chances are that this flag was ignored.

What does all this mean? Personally, I rue the day someone decided to include this facility in the Red Book because, indirectly, I believe inappropriately pre-emphasized audio (i.e. audio ripped from some early CD issues that was never correctly de-emphasized) was responsible for much of the early criticism aimed, specifically, at CD but followed-through, with various alterations, to this day.

 

[sergeauckland]

Just to add to Pluto's post, there were a few early CDs that were created erroneously from equalised and limited disc-cutting masters, including all the decisions made to cut an LP with the right result. This by the way doesn't include RIAA eq, as the cutting lathe does that. Put a disc cutting master on a transparent medium like CD, and the result is pretty unpleasant. Fortunately, this error was spotted pretty early on and corrected, but it didn't stop some of the early adopters from finding CD not what they were expecting.

S

 

[Pluto]

This, by the way, doesn't include RIAA eq, as the cutting lathe does that…

You might think that.

One chap who was allocated for a few months in our mastering suite* thought he know it all (“this new digital stuff, it's easy – pah!”). That included the belief that CD pre-emphasis was identical to the RIAA curve. (“Well that's why they put it there”). With hindsight, it might have made some sense had that been the case but even now (some 30 years on) I shudder to think what disasters that caused

* an assignment disliked by many on account of the fact that it was “office” hours without the lucrative overtime opportunities of “proper” work and, thus, resented by some who found themselves so imprisoned.

 

[sergeauckland]

You might think that.

One chap who was allocated for a few months in our mastering suite* thought he know it all (“this new digital stuff, it's easy – pah!”). That included the belief that CD pre-emphasis was identical to the RIAA curve. (“Well that's why they put it there”). Even now (some 30 years on) I shudder to think what disasters that caused

* an assignment disliked by many on account of the fact that it was “office” hours without the lucrative overtime opportunities of “proper” work and, thus, resented by some who found themselves so imprisoned.