• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Best sounding/recording consumer cassette deck ever made?

KentTeffeteller said:
Kent's law: The higher performance the cassette deck is, the more finicky it will be to maintain. And thusly the less reliable it is.
Click to expand...
And, more importantly, the less likely the user will be able to set it up correctly to make recordings on par with its capability.
 
Max77 said:
Noise reduction isn't intended to "compensate for a noisy stereo system." It seems you don't understand the purpose.


That someone is wrong. Cassette is 1 7/8 IPS. While I'm sure there are some reel to reels that go that low, 3.75 is the lowest commonly available speed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for adding this as you saved me from doing it :) but maybe here is the appropriate place to obnoxiously also add that track width of cassette is ~half that of r2r too.

Am following this thread with interesting; I need to add a cassette deck to the quiver again. I have a Nakamichi NR-200 which a Nakamichi deck would look good underneath. But I have an RT-707 so Pioneer could also fit. Oh, and I have some Revox gear too so a Revox deck might also fit.... sigh. First world problems. I think my main criteria are looks, serviceability, and 3 heads
 
Djcoolray said:
My buddy thought the same thing, brought it to a good shop to get it checked out and nothing was found to be wrong with it. I do understand the stated concept of what most people think to be better. So what I am doing in most people’s minds just has to be obviously wrong or just a big story. But how can a single head dual-well early nineties cassette deck using an Onkyo C-7030 as a source and a BASF Chrome tape as the final product....ever be played in the factory cassette player of my 2001 ML320 in perfect detail, clarity and soundstage ???? I bought about twenty BASF’s off of duplication.ca, cleaned up the head on the player and popped in a CD....no reduction on the tape deck then hit play then record. The next week I’m driving with my buddy across town and he committed on how good the CD sounded, I told him it was a cassette I recorded and he said.....no freaking way !!!

Just like you.....

So of course I don’t think the quality of a recording has as much to do with the tape deck as it has to do with the system as a whole. I think too many people give too much credit to the contribution of one peice of equipment. Then I’m not saying that every almost top of the line dual-well tape deck will duplicate my experience either. My deck is from the last generation of Pioneer cassette decks and they have been known for their exceptional performance. Sears still sells replacement parts for them....

So I understand your state of disbelief completely......

So I think the best consumer deck is the CT-W84OR !!
Click to expand...
Your evaluation platform is a car radio? No wonder the Pioneer sounded better.
 
jberger said:
Your evaluation platform is a car radio? No wonder the Pioneer sounded better.
Click to expand...

Actually, the sound resulting in the playback from both the system which the cassette was recorded and the sound from my Mercedes car stereo system (and the stereo cassette player in my ML320 ain’t no slouch) sounded exactly the same. Because if you make a good recorded cassette and it sounds the same in all the cassette decks that you have....you made a good recording. Anyone can record a cassette, but most recordings only sound their best in the deck it was recorded. Then of course it’s an assumption to think that they would put a car radio in $54,000 automobile, just like it’s an assumption that only highly regarded decks are capable of high fidelity recordings. Equipment only has to have the potential matched to the potential of the person combined to create a result, the limiting factor is the subjective thinking of the person involved. Social indignation based upon peer acceptance is why people don’t challenge established norms.
 
So, your home system sounds no better than a car system, and subjective listening is the whole of an evaluation.

I'm glad you found something that works for you.
 
I've had an Aiwa AD-F990, a Technics RS-B965, a Nakamichi Cassette Deck Two and a few others. To me, they all sounded like the JVC KD-A33 I'm using now. In fact the JVC sounds nicer in my opinion :-)
 
jberger said:
So, your home system sounds no better than a car system, and subjective listening is the whole of an evaluation.

I'm glad you found something that works for you.
Click to expand...
I've got $15k in the system in my Mustang and it took 6mos to build on weekends as I traveled during the week. It sounds pretty good. I've heard lots of home systems that couldn't touch it so it's not inconceivable ...
 
damacman said:
I've got $15k in the system in my Mustang and it took 6mos to build on weekends as I traveled during the week. It sounds pretty good. I've heard lots of home systems that couldn't touch it so it's not inconceivable ...
Click to expand...

Likewise. I didn't sink quite as much $$$ into my current system in my 370Z, but I can tell you that it trumps quite a few home systems that cost a lot more.

Granted, the poster above is referring to the stock system in his vehicle, so...
 
Every recording I ever made on my Tandberg TCD300 always made my the HK JVC and Teac decks sound better.

RIP you long since retired deck.
 
I love all 3 of my cassette decks - Nakamichi 660ZX, Nakamichi 480Z, and Onkyo TA-2058. The 660ZX and the TA-2058 are 3-head units while both of the Naks are closed loop, dual capstan transports. The Onkyo is likely to be on the sale block soon, it has a ton of great features but the 480z makes better tapes than it does and neither can touch the 660ZX. That said, I have heard and used dual well decks that range from dirt cheap up to more money than they are worth and non of them could make a tape as good as the Onkyo much less either of the Naks.
 
mdbrown said:
That said, I have heard and used dual well decks that range from dirt cheap up to more money than they are worth and non of them could make a tape as good as the Onkyo much less either of the Naks.
Click to expand...

I feel one exception to the dual well rule is the Pioneer Elite CT-05D/CT-07D decks. Years ago I sold my finicky, expensive to maintain Nak Dragon after I bought this wonderful example of Pioneer technology. It was Pioneer's last flagship deck with some great digital processing technology in it. I retained an RX-505 because I like it's transport but still prefer the sound of the Pioneer on pre-recorded material (which is all I use cassette for anymore). Recordings were also very impressive, but it has been years since I made one. Dual well, and a very fine sounding deck.
 
Last edited:
THATS EASY a 1000Z Series Nakamichi or a Dragon. The 1000 had the record head that would change alignment to get the best possible recording . The Dragon had the the self aligning playback head to get the best possible response from prerecorded tapes and tapes made on other Nakamichi's. So I would want both. I think a 1000 z or XZL sold for about $3600 in the 70;s and a Dragon sold for about $1800. With S noise reduction you could dub a CD and introduce no noise. They were set up for the latest metal and chrome tapes. They were quite the machines.

As for Kents law I totally disagree my 581Z and 682Z are still going strong only needing to clean switches and controls every 5 years or so and of course the tape path. My Revox B-77 HS never given me a minutes problem. The Ampex Ag 500 only needed belts every two years and a few drops of oil. The Ampex AG 300-2 only needed oil. Now my home built 300-4 needed tubes and speed verification before each use but that was a typical 300-4 Ampex. The Little F-44 Ampex gave me more problems than the rest all put together, and Revox A-77 did have two particular issues that could appear, but with some spare brake bands, replacing the relays with hermetically sealed units and a few transistors for the motor drive circuit, they could be returned to service in a few hours, no sweat. Pioneer RT 707 were pretty good, too. But you can take your Ferro Graphs, Tandbergs, Technics, AKai, Roberts, Aiwa, consumer R2R and throw them in the trash can as far as I'm concerned. Yes Tascam machines were better, And Scully was beyond reproach along with Telefunken pro machines. Even MCI decks were good. Cheap little Ampex 1000 series and 2000 series machines were good if you got decent belts, tires, and capstan rollers. I always found if you wanted good long term performance you had to pay for it. Thats why I AM A MCINTOSH owner. Do you own an amp thats 50 years old that still meets specs only needing to have it controls cleaner every few years. How about two tuners that have been touched just once in 35 years.Or pre-amps over 30 years never being touched. MyMac amps are 10years old and are beginning to feel like part of the family. My thorens and Rabco are so old they are starting to grow whiskers, but run like new with a new belt and battery every 10 years or so. Speakers I have had Altec, Klipsch and Bozak that really start showing their worth till they were over 10 years old. You can still get parts for Altec JBL and Klipsch speakers from factories. How many of you can say that about speakers over 30years old. Where's AR, KLH, EPI, Rectilinear, EV consumer, Jensen, University. Do they perform as well as speakers made today, they shouldn't but some do. Will your speakers even come close to new speakers 30 years from now. See we are all in the same boat. So don't poor boy your systems, they are there for you to enjoy and time is short and getting shorter.
 
Last edited:
phantomrebel said:
I feel one exception to the dual well rule is the Pioneer Elite CT-05D/CT-07D decks. Years ago I sold my finicky, expensive to maintain Nak Dragon after I bought this wonderful example of Pioneer technology. It was Pioneer's last flagship deck with some great digital processing technology in it. I retained an RX-505 because I like it's transport but still prefer the sound of the Pioneer on pre-recorded material (which is all I use cassette for anymore). Recordings were also very impressive, but it has been years since I made one. Dual well, and a very fine sounding deck.
Click to expand...

I've used the CT-07D and I will agree that it is among the top tier dual well decks which means it's almost as good as a decent 2 head single well deck. I certainly would not give up either of my Naks nor even the Onkyo for the Pioneer. If it was truly a flagship deck that is more an indictment of the Pioneer line at that time than any kind of proof that the 07 was a truly top tier cassette deck. All of this is academic of course if you are happy with the 07 that's what matters.
 
The point is that there is no one best sounding consumer deck as it depends on options and required use. If you need auto-reverse, I think you'd be hard pressed to beat the RX-505. If you need dual wells, again, hard pressed to beat a CT-07d in that category. I only use the format nowadays to playback the few nostalgic tapes I occasionally uncover in my storage and digitizing them (the CT-07's digital noise reduction works well so no need to process externally whereas the Nak often required hiss reduction, depending on the tape). I like the dual wells as I use the right hand side to play normal or questionable tapes thus preserving the left side heads exclusively for digitizing. Having invested in the reel format for recordings, and long since sold any cars with tape decks (or CD players for that matter), I have no other use for cassette. Selling the Dragon was an easy decision- It was great for many years then began having issues for which I was quoted $1400 to service. I'll be selling the RX once I move this fall as it is currently buried in a storage locker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom