TEAC Monster.....
- Thread starter Miracle Mile
- Start date
Ohhhh this is an old thread but here goes;
I have the Z6000, mines been refurbished by a good technician, pretty much everything works as it should records and plays back very well. Here's my thoughts;
I agree with the OP's review, and regular recordings may sound better on my A&D GX-X9100 deck and that may be because of the HX pro.
Where the Teac shines IMO is it's recording and playing back of DBX, and I know that the DBX technology gets a lot of non-love across the Internet. But that doesn't bother me because everybody has an opinion, and I think the pumping sound that many people hear only happens when there's something wrong (something faulty or out of spec) within the DBX chain . I hear none of that on my deck and DBX sounds really really good. Maybe some with DBX will comment.
Techmoan did a DBX review on YouTube, and his results were just like mine.
edit;
From what I can hear although I have no measurements to back it up on my Z 6000 it sounds like a very flat frequency response, where my Nakamichi is definitely boosted in the mid band, and my A&D (Akai) shines in the upper band. Fortunately I have very good tone controls on my Pioneer receiver and I can adjust as needed to suit my taste.
I have the Z6000, mines been refurbished by a good technician, pretty much everything works as it should records and plays back very well. Here's my thoughts;
I agree with the OP's review, and regular recordings may sound better on my A&D GX-X9100 deck and that may be because of the HX pro.
Where the Teac shines IMO is it's recording and playing back of DBX, and I know that the DBX technology gets a lot of non-love across the Internet. But that doesn't bother me because everybody has an opinion, and I think the pumping sound that many people hear only happens when there's something wrong (something faulty or out of spec) within the DBX chain . I hear none of that on my deck and DBX sounds really really good. Maybe some with DBX will comment.
Techmoan did a DBX review on YouTube, and his results were just like mine.
edit;
From what I can hear although I have no measurements to back it up on my Z 6000 it sounds like a very flat frequency response, where my Nakamichi is definitely boosted in the mid band, and my A&D (Akai) shines in the upper band. Fortunately I have very good tone controls on my Pioneer receiver and I can adjust as needed to suit my taste.
I just did a comparison between my two main decks.
Both of these have been restored according to the technicians to factory specs, the Teac has been extensively gone over and has had most of the capacitors changed out, and possibly all of them.
Since my receiver has tape number one and tape number two it was easy to level match things and compare them instantaneously on two separately recorded tapes. Both recordings were native to their own machines.
A&D GX-Z9100 recorded HX pro on
Teac Z6000 recorded with no noise reduction, no Dolby or DBX engaged.
The A&D definitely shined on the top end, probably because of the HX pro, and this really does do a life like recording, very natural, but may be a little bass shy.
The Teac as you and I both suggested probably recorded a little flatter, not as extended in the highs, but pretty much a perfect balance between everything. Also it probably has a couple DB more base than the A&D deck.
each one had its strengths, and with tone controls I could get them both to pretty much sound like one another without introducing much noise.
Interesting.
Both of these have been restored according to the technicians to factory specs, the Teac has been extensively gone over and has had most of the capacitors changed out, and possibly all of them.
Since my receiver has tape number one and tape number two it was easy to level match things and compare them instantaneously on two separately recorded tapes. Both recordings were native to their own machines.
A&D GX-Z9100 recorded HX pro on
Teac Z6000 recorded with no noise reduction, no Dolby or DBX engaged.
The A&D definitely shined on the top end, probably because of the HX pro, and this really does do a life like recording, very natural, but may be a little bass shy.
The Teac as you and I both suggested probably recorded a little flatter, not as extended in the highs, but pretty much a perfect balance between everything. Also it probably has a couple DB more base than the A&D deck.
each one had its strengths, and with tone controls I could get them both to pretty much sound like one another without introducing much noise.
Interesting.
Are you able to dial in the fine bias for each tape on both decks? With a pair of tones?
Find no loss of upper frequencies in my 122 Mk. III decks when I dial in the bias and gain. I did a test with a TDK SM tape (SA in a welded shell “pro” tape) with a CD source and it cannot be distinguished from the source. I used this tape to test my Sony D5 M and Nando now has that particular tape…
Find no loss of upper frequencies in my 122 Mk. III decks when I dial in the bias and gain. I did a test with a TDK SM tape (SA in a welded shell “pro” tape) with a CD source and it cannot be distinguished from the source. I used this tape to test my Sony D5 M and Nando now has that particular tape…
Yes although I have not had the Teac very long I can nail the bias every time on it, also on the A&D.
The only tape that the A & D deck had a problem with was the BASF chrome extra II. I think it was my error on the A & D deck, although from what I understand not every machine can record well on one of those tapes.
like you, I don't think that the Teac misses anything on the top end, and if I took the HX pro off the other deck they would probably sound close to the same on the top end.
The A&D really is a great deck, and I could be happy with either one of them.
The only tape that the A & D deck had a problem with was the BASF chrome extra II. I think it was my error on the A & D deck, although from what I understand not every machine can record well on one of those tapes.
like you, I don't think that the Teac misses anything on the top end, and if I took the HX pro off the other deck they would probably sound close to the same on the top end.
The A&D really is a great deck, and I could be happy with either one of them.
@Elite-ist thanks for that article, and I love independent measurements.
from what I understand if I do things correctly on the Z6000 they will come out the same, the recordings will sound the same as they do on the Z7000 which is automated.
it's fun trying.
from what I understand if I do things correctly on the Z6000 they will come out the same, the recordings will sound the same as they do on the Z7000 which is automated.
it's fun trying.
IMHO, with the Z6000 you might also do better than the Z7000, because of a nice manual calibration where you can tweak not only the usual 2 parameters like bias and rec gain but also the REC EQ.
Very few decks offer manual REC EQ calibration at front panel and not many have it tuneable inside the chassis.
Most decks have fixed REC EQ settings.
So, the Z6000 is a truly versatile deck.
being able to tweak both bias and REC EQ can be a little confusing, since you might find more different settings of both parameters which apparently give you the same result, but the differences between different (but apparently similar) couples of settings would be about getting more or less treble saturation and higher or lower MOL at lows/mid-lows.
Then, calibration can be more tricky to handle on the Z6000 but it's also more versatile.
Out of pure curiousity, i should try and find some manual for the Z6000 because i am curious to see where exactly the REC EQ works in the frequency range.... might be on mid-hi or at treble, which are two different methods related to what they wanted to get and why. (*)
In the decks i own with tweakable REC EQ, it works on treble, though.
(*) : REC EQ on treble is mostly about choosing the desired balance between MOL and treble saturation.
REC EQ on mid-high is, i.e., about being able to get flat response on both the standard and the dual coated tapes, as the latter ones can show a dip on mids, unless you underbias them a bit and get a boost at treble instead.
Very few decks offer manual REC EQ calibration at front panel and not many have it tuneable inside the chassis.
Most decks have fixed REC EQ settings.
So, the Z6000 is a truly versatile deck.
being able to tweak both bias and REC EQ can be a little confusing, since you might find more different settings of both parameters which apparently give you the same result, but the differences between different (but apparently similar) couples of settings would be about getting more or less treble saturation and higher or lower MOL at lows/mid-lows.
Then, calibration can be more tricky to handle on the Z6000 but it's also more versatile.
Out of pure curiousity, i should try and find some manual for the Z6000 because i am curious to see where exactly the REC EQ works in the frequency range.... might be on mid-hi or at treble, which are two different methods related to what they wanted to get and why. (*)
In the decks i own with tweakable REC EQ, it works on treble, though.
(*) : REC EQ on treble is mostly about choosing the desired balance between MOL and treble saturation.
REC EQ on mid-high is, i.e., about being able to get flat response on both the standard and the dual coated tapes, as the latter ones can show a dip on mids, unless you underbias them a bit and get a boost at treble instead.
Last edited:
well, actually i gave a quick look both at owner manual but also at service manual, to try to undestand how the deck handles the manual calibration.
(it also has the standard/fixed calibration settings if you push the "reference" button, and tweakable only inside the deck)
One thing which is evident just from the hints at page 42 (Other Usages) in the owner manual is that the REC EQ works on treble frequency range.
In fact, they give you a couple hints in order to slightly underbias or overbias the tape to get, in change, some better or worse performance while recording music with stronger or weaker treble content.
But now I need to make a short resume about tape recording and calibration parameters in general (maybe you just know this, but it would be useful for those who might not know it):
The bias does influence the recorded signal in many ways, specifically it does influence the overall output level we get from the tape, then its actual sensitivity at the various frequencies, it does (heavily) influence the distortion, also the noisefloor level, the saturation (usually taken into cosideration mostly on treble frequencies) and, as an obvious result/side-effect of influencing tape's sensitivity at the various frequencies, it does influence the recorded frequency response, i.e. a lower bias setting makes the tape more sensitive/capable on treble while a higher bias setting makes the tape more sensitive/capable on low/mid-low frequencies.
The level calibration is simply a rec gain control and it's needed to compensate the overall tape's sensitivity so that the recorded/output level is matched with the input/source level. This is of critical importance to make noise reduction, i.e. dolby, working properly.
But matching input/source and recorded/output level is also useful while simply comparing the source sound with what comes from the tape, so that we aren't misleaded and then judging (by ears) a louder sound as being better and a quieter sound as being worse, even when they happen to be the same, save for a simple level difference.
And, on decks with inbuilt oscillators and the inbuilt meters which go into calibration mode (like this one), to also correctly read the results on the meters.
The Recording Equalization (not to be confused with the general/standard 120us and 70us settings) is needed to just get a flat recorded frequency response, after you've just adjusted the optimum/desired bias setting to the lowest distortion/highest MOL at mid-lows.
IMO, the most tricky part of all of the above is that both the bias and the Recording EQ do influence the recorded frequency response, so that they do overlap in this matter, even if they have substancially different effects on the actual recording.
Going more into details on this, lowering the bias gives a brighter recording (higher sensitivity/output on treble) with higher saturation limits on treble but the distortion on the lows/mid-lows will get higher and, also, the sensitivity/output on lows/mid-lows will drop by a smaller bit.
The exact opposite is true while raising the bias, with sensitivity/output on lows/mid-lows which will reach a maximum and the distortion at the same frequencies which will be very close to its minimum, and giving way too much bias will start worsening the performance (sensitivity/output and distortion) on the lows/mid-lows quite as it happens when you give too little bias.
While the treble performance (sensitivity/output and saturation) , while raising the bias, will keep going worse and worse.
To know in more details how the bias affects the recording, you might wish to give a read to this interesting document:
http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Library/Bias.pdf
Do notice that, regarding low and mid low (and mid) frequencies, I am talking more about distortion while on treble frequencies I am talking more about saturation... the reason for this is that, being the strongest distorted harmonic on tape the third harmonic, if I record, say, a 1Khz sinewave tone at a sufficiently hot level to get noticeable distortion, I will hear a 3Khz added tone (3rd harmonic) which is just hearable.
On the contrary, if I record, say, a 10Khz tone at a too hot level in order to get considerable distortion, the added 3rd harmonic tone will be 30Khz which is not hearable... so, while on lows/mid-lows we are worried to keep the level of the 3rd harmonic below 3% (in fact, the MOL ( @315Hz ) of the tapes is, by definition, the level where the tape reaches 3% third harmonic distortion at 315Hz and it stands for Maximum Output Level) , on treble we are worried not much by going over the 3% on the third harmonic but just on stay reasonably away from saturation, meant as the limit level where the tape won't output any more treble even if we keep pushing them in the source (really, if we push treble on source over the tape's saturation limit, they will start to drop, due to self erasure effect)... the SOL ( @10Khz ) is, by definition, the maximum level of 10Khz the tape can take and it stands for Saturated Output Level.
Then, it's quite clear that the calibration of the recording parameters is the art of compromise where many variables must be taken into consideration at the same time.
On most decks out there, to make things easier to handle, they simply take a few "reference" blank tapes of choice and design some not adjustable Rec EQ filters in order to get a flat frequency response when the bias is tuned for best performance in terms of distortion on mid-lows (or a decent balance between MOL and SOL on lesser quality decks) but, this way, they also sort of "lock" the user to certain brands/models of blank tapes.
If you wish to get it simple, Rec EQ is fixed (and it will match some tapes better than others) and bias is adjusted by simply checking the frequency response (the well known two-tones method) which is easier to make and understand even if it's the least proper way of thinking about the effect of the bias!
While, on your Z-6000, you are free to handle the bias and the Rec EQ, which makes it a two variables problem with sort of infinite solutions, any of them with its own advantages and drawbacks.
In fact, what they do say at page 42 (Other Usages) at the owner manual is simply a way to get better SOL (treble saturation) when you are recording music with strong treble at the expense of some MOL (bass distortion) or, the other way around, if you are recording music with more bass and mids but not too strong treble, you get the most about MOL at the expense of some SOL (which would be less needed for such music).
And, while giving a quick look at the service manual of your Z-6000, it seems that the inbuilt oscillators use 14Khz tone to check/set the Rec EQ and a 315Hz tone to check/set level and, maybe, also the bias (actually, the service manual isn't too clear about the frequency coming from the inbuilt oscillator when you push the "bias" button, then a simple way to know if would be to calibrate a tape so that the test tone gets recorded on tape and then capturing the tape to the computer and checking which frequency it actually is or, if it just uses the same 315Hz as when you push the "level" button, you might simply check by ears, by recording the test tones for both "bias" and "level" calibration modes, then rewinding and playing the recorded tones while trying to hear if they are the same frequency tone).
So, now i will return again at what they say at page 42 (Other Usages) on your Z-6000 owner manual in a more detailed and practical way...
As I undestand it, when you must record music with strong treble, after you've just calibrated the tape the normal way, while keeping the Rec EQ oscillator on (14Khz tone) you set the Rec EQ trimmers by reducing the EQ boost by 2-3dB (at 14Khz) and, with the same Rec EQ button pressed (then, again, the 14Khz test tone on), you reduce the bias a small bit in order to recover those same 2-3dB you had reduced with the Rec EQ pots.
This is clearly a way to raise the apparent SOL of the tape, so that it can get more treble before saturating (you raised the SOL at 14Khz by the same amount you reduced the Rec EQ) , this at the expense of a small bit of performance on the bass side.
Also, they suggest the opposite method (overboosting the Rec EQ at 14Khz by 2-3dB and then reducing the extra brightness at that same frequency by raising the bias a small bit) , which gives you some better performance on the bass side and, in change, losing something on treble saturation limits.
And, just below, they show a few frequency response plots with the sweep tones recorded on tape at more different levels, starting from -30dB and up to well over 0dB... it's quite evident how the treble saturation chimes in more and more when the level of treble you try to put on tape gets higher and higher.
I hope this long post isn't too much of a mess, but i've tried to give the most informations I could while being the shorter i could.
But, the truth is that such matters, described in full details, would easily fill a book.
Cheers,
Vince.
(it also has the standard/fixed calibration settings if you push the "reference" button, and tweakable only inside the deck)
One thing which is evident just from the hints at page 42 (Other Usages) in the owner manual is that the REC EQ works on treble frequency range.
In fact, they give you a couple hints in order to slightly underbias or overbias the tape to get, in change, some better or worse performance while recording music with stronger or weaker treble content.
But now I need to make a short resume about tape recording and calibration parameters in general (maybe you just know this, but it would be useful for those who might not know it):
The bias does influence the recorded signal in many ways, specifically it does influence the overall output level we get from the tape, then its actual sensitivity at the various frequencies, it does (heavily) influence the distortion, also the noisefloor level, the saturation (usually taken into cosideration mostly on treble frequencies) and, as an obvious result/side-effect of influencing tape's sensitivity at the various frequencies, it does influence the recorded frequency response, i.e. a lower bias setting makes the tape more sensitive/capable on treble while a higher bias setting makes the tape more sensitive/capable on low/mid-low frequencies.
The level calibration is simply a rec gain control and it's needed to compensate the overall tape's sensitivity so that the recorded/output level is matched with the input/source level. This is of critical importance to make noise reduction, i.e. dolby, working properly.
But matching input/source and recorded/output level is also useful while simply comparing the source sound with what comes from the tape, so that we aren't misleaded and then judging (by ears) a louder sound as being better and a quieter sound as being worse, even when they happen to be the same, save for a simple level difference.
And, on decks with inbuilt oscillators and the inbuilt meters which go into calibration mode (like this one), to also correctly read the results on the meters.
The Recording Equalization (not to be confused with the general/standard 120us and 70us settings) is needed to just get a flat recorded frequency response, after you've just adjusted the optimum/desired bias setting to the lowest distortion/highest MOL at mid-lows.
IMO, the most tricky part of all of the above is that both the bias and the Recording EQ do influence the recorded frequency response, so that they do overlap in this matter, even if they have substancially different effects on the actual recording.
Going more into details on this, lowering the bias gives a brighter recording (higher sensitivity/output on treble) with higher saturation limits on treble but the distortion on the lows/mid-lows will get higher and, also, the sensitivity/output on lows/mid-lows will drop by a smaller bit.
The exact opposite is true while raising the bias, with sensitivity/output on lows/mid-lows which will reach a maximum and the distortion at the same frequencies which will be very close to its minimum, and giving way too much bias will start worsening the performance (sensitivity/output and distortion) on the lows/mid-lows quite as it happens when you give too little bias.
While the treble performance (sensitivity/output and saturation) , while raising the bias, will keep going worse and worse.
To know in more details how the bias affects the recording, you might wish to give a read to this interesting document:
http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Library/Bias.pdf
Do notice that, regarding low and mid low (and mid) frequencies, I am talking more about distortion while on treble frequencies I am talking more about saturation... the reason for this is that, being the strongest distorted harmonic on tape the third harmonic, if I record, say, a 1Khz sinewave tone at a sufficiently hot level to get noticeable distortion, I will hear a 3Khz added tone (3rd harmonic) which is just hearable.
On the contrary, if I record, say, a 10Khz tone at a too hot level in order to get considerable distortion, the added 3rd harmonic tone will be 30Khz which is not hearable... so, while on lows/mid-lows we are worried to keep the level of the 3rd harmonic below 3% (in fact, the MOL ( @315Hz ) of the tapes is, by definition, the level where the tape reaches 3% third harmonic distortion at 315Hz and it stands for Maximum Output Level) , on treble we are worried not much by going over the 3% on the third harmonic but just on stay reasonably away from saturation, meant as the limit level where the tape won't output any more treble even if we keep pushing them in the source (really, if we push treble on source over the tape's saturation limit, they will start to drop, due to self erasure effect)... the SOL ( @10Khz ) is, by definition, the maximum level of 10Khz the tape can take and it stands for Saturated Output Level.
Then, it's quite clear that the calibration of the recording parameters is the art of compromise where many variables must be taken into consideration at the same time.
On most decks out there, to make things easier to handle, they simply take a few "reference" blank tapes of choice and design some not adjustable Rec EQ filters in order to get a flat frequency response when the bias is tuned for best performance in terms of distortion on mid-lows (or a decent balance between MOL and SOL on lesser quality decks) but, this way, they also sort of "lock" the user to certain brands/models of blank tapes.
If you wish to get it simple, Rec EQ is fixed (and it will match some tapes better than others) and bias is adjusted by simply checking the frequency response (the well known two-tones method) which is easier to make and understand even if it's the least proper way of thinking about the effect of the bias!
While, on your Z-6000, you are free to handle the bias and the Rec EQ, which makes it a two variables problem with sort of infinite solutions, any of them with its own advantages and drawbacks.
In fact, what they do say at page 42 (Other Usages) at the owner manual is simply a way to get better SOL (treble saturation) when you are recording music with strong treble at the expense of some MOL (bass distortion) or, the other way around, if you are recording music with more bass and mids but not too strong treble, you get the most about MOL at the expense of some SOL (which would be less needed for such music).
And, while giving a quick look at the service manual of your Z-6000, it seems that the inbuilt oscillators use 14Khz tone to check/set the Rec EQ and a 315Hz tone to check/set level and, maybe, also the bias (actually, the service manual isn't too clear about the frequency coming from the inbuilt oscillator when you push the "bias" button, then a simple way to know if would be to calibrate a tape so that the test tone gets recorded on tape and then capturing the tape to the computer and checking which frequency it actually is or, if it just uses the same 315Hz as when you push the "level" button, you might simply check by ears, by recording the test tones for both "bias" and "level" calibration modes, then rewinding and playing the recorded tones while trying to hear if they are the same frequency tone).
So, now i will return again at what they say at page 42 (Other Usages) on your Z-6000 owner manual in a more detailed and practical way...
As I undestand it, when you must record music with strong treble, after you've just calibrated the tape the normal way, while keeping the Rec EQ oscillator on (14Khz tone) you set the Rec EQ trimmers by reducing the EQ boost by 2-3dB (at 14Khz) and, with the same Rec EQ button pressed (then, again, the 14Khz test tone on), you reduce the bias a small bit in order to recover those same 2-3dB you had reduced with the Rec EQ pots.
This is clearly a way to raise the apparent SOL of the tape, so that it can get more treble before saturating (you raised the SOL at 14Khz by the same amount you reduced the Rec EQ) , this at the expense of a small bit of performance on the bass side.
Also, they suggest the opposite method (overboosting the Rec EQ at 14Khz by 2-3dB and then reducing the extra brightness at that same frequency by raising the bias a small bit) , which gives you some better performance on the bass side and, in change, losing something on treble saturation limits.
And, just below, they show a few frequency response plots with the sweep tones recorded on tape at more different levels, starting from -30dB and up to well over 0dB... it's quite evident how the treble saturation chimes in more and more when the level of treble you try to put on tape gets higher and higher.
I hope this long post isn't too much of a mess, but i've tried to give the most informations I could while being the shorter i could.
But, the truth is that such matters, described in full details, would easily fill a book.
Cheers,
Vince.
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed post Vince, there are actually things in there that I did not realize. I do know that it's worth the extra time to go through all of those settings a couple of times.
Most chrome tapes are very simple, but the metal ones get a little difficult, and I had a little bit of a hard time getting a Maxell metal tape biased correctly. I'm recording on a Sony metal tape right now and that was much easier to get all the settings correct on. I like interaction, and I like a challenge so this is definitely right up my alley. It does make a nice recording, and they sound good in other decks also.
Most chrome tapes are very simple, but the metal ones get a little difficult, and I had a little bit of a hard time getting a Maxell metal tape biased correctly. I'm recording on a Sony metal tape right now and that was much easier to get all the settings correct on. I like interaction, and I like a challenge so this is definitely right up my alley. It does make a nice recording, and they sound good in other decks also.
if you mean that the things you do not realize are in my above long post (it might happen) then feel free to ask questions and I will try to give you answers.
and, yes, metal tapes might be a bit difficult to get them right... some of them need a so high bias setting that the deck might not have enough tuning range... who knows if just the maxell metals go a bit out of your tuning range?
Not having any maxell metals, I cannot know how they usually bias.
Among the metals i've tried and measured here, the Sony are maybe the easiest to bias and need some less bias than others, then there are the That's metals which need some more bias and then the TDK (tried the MA from 1990-91 and an Optima IV from late 90's to early 00's) which need even more bias.
What if the maxell metals need even some more bias than the TDK?
and, yes, metal tapes might be a bit difficult to get them right... some of them need a so high bias setting that the deck might not have enough tuning range... who knows if just the maxell metals go a bit out of your tuning range?
Not having any maxell metals, I cannot know how they usually bias.
Among the metals i've tried and measured here, the Sony are maybe the easiest to bias and need some less bias than others, then there are the That's metals which need some more bias and then the TDK (tried the MA from 1990-91 and an Optima IV from late 90's to early 00's) which need even more bias.
What if the maxell metals need even some more bias than the TDK?