Adventures in cassette recording 3
Arguably the best Nak ever made. I sold mine many moons ago, but it's really something else!
(This is the 3rd chapter of the series. Cassette Decks Shootout!)
In this article, we re going to discuss a shootout or audio evaluation and comparison between TOL decks I'm actually using in my studios. First of all I want to point out that even though all the care taken while performing these tests, this is for amusement purposes only and in no way are intended as a "buyer's guide" or scientific controlled tests. The results are highly subjective and according to my ancillary equipment, acoustics and personal taste. So, in other words, this is just for fun!
No matter how effective and controlled the tests are conducted, not everyone is going to agree and I don't really care because trying to define "the best" is almost impossible. Not only in audio, but in other fields as well: "My bike this, your bike that", "My Beretta is better than your Colt", "The best embalming fluid is Trinity and not Dodge" and the beat goes on! So, who cares which one is the best as long as you enjoy your hobby and like what you have. Now that we are clear, let the fun begin!
The details: First of all let me tell you guys that I love all my machines in my collection. I do have my favorite ones, but those which I don't like that much I simply sell it, and let me tell you that I have sold the "creme de la creme" because I have no feelings for it. That doesn't means that are not good, just simply that I don't get involved with it while listening music. SO, in this test we are evaluating some of my personal decks. I have choosen a vintage system for it (I have 5 systems in a 6,020' sq/ft home, all working) besides my private collection of decks,etc. The room I choose is big and acoustically prepared. Measures 28 (L) x 18 (W) x 15 (H). No standing waves, all ceiling and walls in red wood and some treatment with RPG acoustics: bass traps, diffusors and other tricks. I decided not to use my Mastering Suite in the basement because I wanted it to be as close as to a domestic application as possible. I mean, if I'm going to spend $1,800 on a cassette deck and the salesman tells me that in order to listen to the "details" of the machine I need to spend $50,000 in ancillary equipment and $10,000 in acoustic treatment I'll certainly send him to "hell",so, let's keep it simple.
The system: this is not a high end rig and I already explained why, but it's a very accurate vintage system modified in many ways. The monitors are my trusted Tannoys System 15 DMT II that I used at my former mastering business during the 90's and 2000. Several Gold, Platinum and Grammys were mastered with these speakers and I know them very well. Bi-amped with a BGW 750B for the bass and a Crown DC 300A II for the highs. Both has been modified with newer transistors, new filter caps and the generic AC cord replaced with a LAT INTL and hospital grade plugs. Well, perhaps it doesn't do crap to the sound but at least it is better than the AC lamp cord that comes from the factory! My pre is the upgraded Spec 1. Wires are Cardas interconnectors (forgot the model) and speaker wires are vintage Monster M 1.5 (yeah, those that looks like a water garden hose).
The machines are going to use the same wire, levels matched (it wasn't that easy, folks!), the same tape type, no dolby, same recording material in the same sequence and time (a reference cd with 4 tracks were prepared for this test) same room, same system and no bull's! No selector used. One deck in, one deck out. Evaluation notes were taken during the tests, no wine, cheese or beers allowed and no pot. Clear head and clear ears. Of course I cheated with a cuban cigar, but don't tell anybody, please. Finally, all decks on my posession are calibrated by the best techs in the world and all are azymuth compatible. All in perfect shape!
The contenders: let's take a look of the contenders. In this test, unfortunately, my Z 7000 was at New Jersey in Russ Bachman hands going through a full overhaul,so, for the next one folks.
NAD 6300
ReVox B 215 S
Nakamichi ZX 9
Teac Z 5000
TEAC Z 5000
This is the order of the test too. Beginning with the NAD and ending with the TEAC. Let's make a closer examination of these "guys":
NAD 6300: a little simple machine. 3 heads, dolby B & C, Dyneq and HX PRO, playtrim to help with azymuth discrepancies, car compression device, bias fine tune, capstan direct drive, dual capstan transport. MSRP: $900.00 (1987-1991) Comments: a surprising little and plain looking cassette deck with a huge sound! You can find it relatively cheap anywhere.
ReVox B 215 S: one of the so called "heavies" in the audio cassette hobby. It comes with the best transport ever made, modular electronics and a darling to service. 3 heads, dolby B & C, HX PRO, auto cal system, dual capstan, double direct drive and you know the rest. MSRP: $2,800.00 (1988). Comments: perhaps the best tape handling and wow& flutter figures. When modified, it's a killer (even without it). Often used to produced standard calibration tapes for other machines. Another triumph for Revox distinctive achievements. The S version is black with gold lettering and green liquid glass display (not so good visibility). Simply a beautiful piece but it comes expensive in the used market.
Nakamichi ZX 9: the black beauty and perhaps the best sounding Nak out there. Discrete 3 heads, dolby B & C, double capstan, direct drive, asymetrical dual capstans, manual azymuth, level and bias cal., pressure pad lifter and slack tape take up. 3 motor mechanism. MSRP: $1,550.00 (1982-1985) Comments: it's no secret that this is one of the best Nakamichi's ever made. For me, it's the best sounding of the top 4, including the CR 7, Dragon and 1000 ZXL. Used for Nakamichi's own real time tape duplication (32 or so units), the sound is amazing.
Teac Z 5000: the smaller of the famous Z series trio. Not as good as the other 2, 6000 & 7000, but also a serious contender. 3 head, dolby B & C, dbx, HX PRO, automatic program search & space, manual cal of bias, level & eq, direct drive, single capstan belt drive transport and 2 motors. MSRP: $1,000.00 (1983). Comments: a nice looking machine with many features. It doesn't come with the bells and whistles of the bigger sisters, but still a nice sounding machine.
My nakamichi ZX 9. Perhaps the best sounding Nak of all!
The material: I choose 4 records for this test. The selections would help us identify sound stage, transparency, punch, focus, details, dynamics, mids, highs and lows. We'll see how the cassette decks could handle what we through at it. The tracks were recorded on a Maxell XL II, no dolby used and each track has a 1.5 minutes of duration. All matched to the same level of +2 with ocassional peaks at +4 maximum. The B 215 & ZX 9 matched easily, but the other 2 required more effort to do it right. I opened with the punchy and very dynamic "Busca" by the group YAYA from the CD Vibraciones Positivas. AJ Records, 1999. # 10337 11202. For those of you who participated in the Nak Marathon Tape 1 project in 2003, this was the second track then. The second one is the direct from the masters recording of James Newton Howard & Friends "L'Daddy". Sheffield Lab, 1984. # CD 23. Third track is "Symphony No. 5" of Ludwig Van Beethoven. Seiji Ozawa conducting the Boston Symphony Orch. Telarc, 1981. # CD-80060. The last number is "Here I Am" from the CD The Second Adventure by Dinasty, Solar Records 1981. A very diversified, high quality recordings of different genres. Now, let's do the test!
TEST: I recorded the same tracks on all 4 decks, direct wire from the Marantz CD Player to the NAD, Revox, Nakamichi and Teac. Once I finished recording on one deck, I left a 30 seconds silence space and then move to the next deck. As I was using the same wires, it was time consuming but I didn't want to add any extra artifacts, leaving the decks singing all by itself. Once the material were recorded on all 4 decks, the evaluation was begin.
I started the playback in all 4 decks while taking notes of my impressions. This really was the best part and full of surprises! The first positive sign was that no matter where you played the tracks, it sounded excellent on all 4 decks. Even for a trained ear could be a little bit tricky to recognize that the material was recorded on 4 different decks! This kind of excellence is to be expected at this level. Only one deck sounded less brilliant in the highs but more neutral than the rest. That was the Z 5000. The other 3 were closely fighting for the best transparent and less annoying highs of all 3. The B 215 was very good as expected and I can say "a hair" better than the 6300 in that department. Recording made on the 6300 sounded good in all decks. The only one of the group who took the first place away from the B 215 "highs" was the ZX 9, but again, not by much. One interesting note I wrote said: "As soon as the ZX 9 recording is played, you'll notice it immediately as the better overall sound in all decks". I then choose the ZX 9 as the best in highs management, followed by the B 215S, the NAD and Z 5000 respectively. The difference between the B 215 and 6300 was mainly due to the giant soundstage of the 6300. I mean, amazingly wide! Very similar to the ZX 9 in this department. There's only one thing where the B 215 clearly excelled over the rest: focus and mids! As soon as the B 215 recording was played, the presence of the voices and snare came forward. You could hear the difference. The Z 5000 has pleasant mids, even better than the ZX 9, but not as centralized and with the same presence as the B 215. Again, the ZX 9 was right on the money with the mids but I found the B 215 mids and focus more impressive. Everything was so close. In the mids I give the 1st price to the B 215, closely followed by the ZX 9, Teac and NAD. For the soundstage presentation, the winner was more difficult to choose but I finally decided that the 6300 was the one! Again, very similar to the ZX 9.
My Revox B 215S before changing the hard to see meter to McIntosh Blue!
Let's talk about bass. Here the B 215, ZX 9 and even the 6300 were so close that it was almost impossible to decide, but we know that one of the main strong charasteristics of the ZX 9 is the bottom end. And it shows! The B 215 bass is defined and punchy. The 6300 was also very good but not like these other 2...until the last recording was played. The Z 5000 bass swept the floor with the rest by a definitive margin. The others were punchy. The Z 5000 is visceral! There's the possibility that since its the more "oscure" of the 4, the bass could be easily detected over everything else, but I don't think this was the case because it was consistent with all 4 decks and with all 4 selections. Really impacting bass of the Teac, followed by the ZX 9, B 215 and 6300. Rhytm & pace was good in all 4 and I didn't choose any clear winner in that classification.
Playing the selections I found that the 6300 and ZX 9 were the best for high energy recordings like track 2 and 4. The Nakamichi was the best for Classical music as long as you don't touch the 6300 playtrim control. While playing track #3, I used the playtrim to see how it worked when needed. Very, very effective! It's not as precise and surgical as adjusting the azymuth but with some dull sounding recordings, this feauture could bring some life to your recordings. The strings of the 3rd track were really helped by the 6300 playtrim! Track # 1 revealed the superb mids of the B 215 and it was even easier to detect as it came after the 6300 recorded material. The B 215 audio spectrum tends to be fuller and balanced. They sounded amazingly close with wider soundstage for the 6300 and better mids for the B 215 as I already explained. Track # 2 and #4 dynamic bass was dominated by the Z 5000, but the B 215 and ZX 9 bass were not shy either. The 6300 shift to the highs side of the spectrum, while the other 3 presents a punchy bass without loosing the highs transparency.
For this very first test these were my impressions: the ZX 9 was the most complete and overall it was the #1. It has a little bit of all the others in this group: the best highs, the mids of the B 215, the soundstage of the 6300, some bass of the Z 5000 and everything you record there sounds simply amazing on the other 3. Just the same as the 6300 in this consideration.The mids were dominated by the B 215 but also the highs and bass handling were simply excellent too! The looks of the "S" version are atonishing and I just want to hear this machine fully modified by one of the Revox gurus in the USA. Recordings made on the swiss wonder were also consistent with the rest of the group. The soundstage of the 6300 was the clear winner and we also have to take into consideration that from all 4, this is the least expensive one but has nothing to be ashame of. Nice highs even without the help of the playtrim. This machine really surprised me and again: it's a real bargain! The Z 5000 was the most neutral sounding of the 4. Really strong bass and easy to listen to. Bass guitar notes were easier to follow on the Teac. You can also find it considerably cheap in the used market. So, the order could be: ZX 9,B 215S, 6300 and Z 5000. Before you folks start getting ballistic with my findings I want to make a second test, but this time it's a little different.
NAD 6300. Amazing soundstage from a deck costing much less than the others...
SECOND TEST: using the side B of the same tape, this time we are going to record a full selection from the same CD in the same order as side A. 6300, B 215, ZX 9 and Z 5000 to check how well recording and playback works among the different 4 decks. Once the tape is recorded, I'll let some friends come by and listen to the tape without telling them it was recorded on 4 different machines and see if they could hear any differences at all.
Well, I recorded the tape on each deck, this time using the same CD but with different selections. I used the superb recorded production of Luis Miguel "Romance". For the evaluation, this time I played on a neutral cassette deck: the ZX 7. Some of you will say:"But of course the ZX 9 would sound better"...no way José. Wait and see. As soon as I hit the play button the public were just amazed by the sound of the "obsolete" cassette tape. All 3 concluded that they liked the sound even more from the cassette than from the CD itself! Just the night before I listened to it alone and with all honesty this time I couldn't decide which one I liked it better! All sounded simply spectacular with the small differences already noted, but if I forget the order of the recording, I simply liked all of them! The easier to differentiate were the ZX 9 and the Z 5000 for obvious reasons already explained but the more I get into the sound the more I concluded that at this level of perfection there're more similarities than differences. By the way: nobody noticed a thing and couldn't believe the material were recorded on 4 different decks! Once I told them, they knew what to hear for and opinions were divided. The recording engineer choose the B 215S, the musician preferred the heavy bass of the Z 5000 and the acoustics professor choose the 6300 but didn't liked the looks that much. In overall, the final consensus choose, again, the ZX 9 as the clear winner. Excellent highs, strong bass, big soundtstage and clear mids.
Enjoy!
