System Deck

[speakerman1]

I am going to do a poll of which deck should be fixed to go in the new system. I will go by your choice. I have narrowed it down to 2. Matching looks don't matter. I want sound.

Larry

 

[stuwee]

I voted for the Nak, because I think you'll get the most bang for your buck soundwise with it, I know you like your Yammies, but go with the Nak.

 

[speakerman1]

I sort of agree Stuwee till I look at the bag of belts for the Nak. LOL

We shall see. It is 2 to 1 right now.

Larry

 

[Elite-ist]

I chose the Nakamichi 1000. Once it has been gone over, you will be happy with the recording and playback quality.

For fun, I threw in this advertisement from one of my old stereo magazines:

Nando.

 

[speakerman1]

LMBO
Larry

 

[stuwee]

Priceless!! Right On Nando!!!

 

[Elite-ist]

Am I shameless, or what? Would you have expected any less from me? I'm going to have some drinking going on tonight. No work for the next four days!

Larry: I looked over the specifics on the Yamaha and I do like it, but one thing I've come to learn: the frequency response and wow & flutter specs don't tell all the story. If the Nakamichi 1000 has discrete electronics, as I guess it does, some of these older decks lend a great quality to the recording and playback not heard on more modern decks of a decade later. Provided you aren't fussy about the lack of metal tape biasing, eq, level for recording on the Nakamichi, I prefer the manual calibration of it over the auto biasing function of the Yamaha K-2000.

Nando.

 

[stuwee]

Am I shameless, or what? Would you have expected any less from me? I'm going to have some drinking going on tonight. No work for the next four days!

Larry: I looked over the specifics on the Yamaha and I do like it, but one thing I've come to learn: the frequency response and wow & flutter specs don't tell all the story. If the Nakamichi 1000 has discrete electronics, as I guess it does, some of these older decks lend a great quality to the recording and playback not heard on more modern decks of a decade later. Provided you aren't fussy about the lack of metal tape biasing, eq, level for recording on the Nakamichi, I prefer the manual calibration of it over the auto biasing function of the Yamaha K-2000.

Nando.

I'll second that!! The drinking part , no have a great time Nando!! He's right about the manual cali over the auto bias, dial those tapes in, my Denon has auto-bias, but has a fine tune as well, big diff to my ears, the Nak still gets my vote!!

 

[Web Police]

i say use the Nak and Send the Yammie to me.

 

[Fast Forward]

You allready know my Choice

 

[speakerman1]

I'm reading some of the reasoning. I don't use metal tapes so that doesn't bother me. One question about some of the rational here. How if it was a Dragon and the Nak 1000? Just wondering. I like Naks. The 1000 is the most I have ever paid for a deck. It is a very complex deck with all the adjustments. You should see the back panel. LOL You should see the manual on it. LOL

Larry

 

[Elite-ist]

I would love to have a properly working Nakamich Dragon over a Nakamichi 1000. And the key words are "properly working." There just seems to be so much fine tuning to keep the Dragon working as well as it did from the factory. That's only from what I've heard from others who own it. I will not spend over $1K for one, if I know that I have to continually tune it to get the maximum sq out of it. I don't have tools, scopes, and various test tapes to calibrate this machine. So, for a novice like me, a Dragon would be not my first choice over the Nakamichi 1000.

Nando.

 

[speakerman1]

Yes a correctly working one is a cats meow. If one hasn't been maintained properly. It would be a headache. Fast did you figure out yours?

Larry

 

[Elite-ist]

Expect to be doing a lot of this with a Nakamichi Dragon:

And less of this:

Nando.