what's the big deal
JoshParsons84
Posts: 565
What's the big deal about Nakamichi? Only thing I can tell is it's very expensive Japanese car audio. I was looking in particular at the Nakamichi CD-700 II in general and for $1,500 I just do not see the point in paying ungodly amount of money for something that looks so retro? Could somebody please educate me on this 
Post edited by JoshParsons84 on
Comments
-
IS Nak still as good as it was years ago? havent heard much about it lately
-
Nak made its name with the best cassette deck, the Dragon ZX1000 back in the 70's. The model number reflected the price. A thousand bucks was a lot of money back then. It was however the most advanced deck of its time with three heads, dolby B, azimuth alignment and an auto reverse mechanism where the entire assembly holding the cassette came out and flipped around.
Once Cd's replaced tapes Nak dabbled with DAT but that never took off. It's now a company that sells plasma tv's, home theatre a.k.a Bose lifestyle and car audio equipment and i-pod like docking stations.
The Nak 700II is the successor to the 700 which was beset with issues of engine whine and jamming of the eject mechanism. As a dead head, I'm sure its a great source but it has no dsp. So, if you're going to hook it up with a processor and $$ is little value, or if you're one of the 'run it flat, no dsp, purest source' crowd this is a good hu.
I'm sure its a good source, but heck we are talking about a car. Without running a processor I would not consider it. As a 1 din I'd take my pio p-880 any day. Even with a processor, I may not consider it cause I'd rather spend the extra cash on speakers, damping etc etc.
The price of the 700II is just the company casing in on its old time name. -
Good point
-
No, DAT took off just fine. It freaked out the RIAA because DAT was probably the best audio recording medium ever released to consumer levels. You could make a perfect copy of a master recording with a DAT tape. That freaked out the RIAA because if I had a DAT player/recorder, I could make copies of recordings that were indistinguishable from the master copy and potentially sell bootlegs that were studio quality. So the legislated it out of the hands of consumers. As far as I know you can still get it but recording devices are licensed and registered and stuff.From Wikipedia:
In the late 1980s, the Recording Industry Association of America unsuccessfully lobbied against the introduction of DAT devices into the U.S. Initially, the organization threatened legal action against any manufacturer attempting to sell DAT machines in the country. It later sought to impose restrictions on DAT recorders to prevent them from being used to copy LPs, CDs, and prerecorded cassettes. One of these efforts, the Digital Audio Recorder Copycode Act of 1987 (introduced by Sen. Al Gore and Rep. Waxman), instigated by CBS Records president Walter Yetnikoff, involved a technology called CopyCode and required DAT machines to include a chip to detect attempts to copy material recorded with a notch filter,[clarification needed] meaning that copyrighted prerecorded music, whether analog or digital, would have distorted sound. A National Bureau of Standards study showed that not only were the effects plainly audible, but that it was not even effective at preventing copying.
This opposition by CBS softened after Sony, a DAT manufacturer, bought CBS Records in January 1988. By June 1989, an agreement was reached, and the only concession the RIAA would receive was a more practical recommendation from manufacturers to Congress that legislation be enacted to require that recorders have a Serial Copy Management System to prevent digital copying for more than a single generation.[3] This requirement was enacted as part of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which also imposed taxes on DAT recorders and blank media.
Even though the legislation let up later on, that act from 1987 killed the technology here. It was popular but expensive so not that many people caught on. The act in 1987 killed off any early adopters for fear of legal issues and, lack of market support for the same legal issues. No early adopters, no early profits and the machines and media remained expensive and unattainable for a large chunk of the intended customer demographic. It never had the chance to come down in price.
It's a shining example of what greed can do. Thanks Al Gore, Henry Waxman and the RIAA, you guys are real pals! :rolleyes:Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
It's a shining example of what greed can do. Thanks Al Gore, Henry Waxman and the RIAA, you guys are real douchebags! :rolleyes:
Sarcasm noted, but I fixed it for ya.-Kevin
HT: Philips 52PFL7432D 52" LCD 1080p / Onkyo TX-SR 606 / Oppo BDP-83 SE / Comcast cable. (all HDMI)B&W 801 - Front, Polk CS350 LS - Center, Polk LS90 - Rear
2 Channel:
Oppo BDP-83 SE
Squeezebox Touch
Muscial Fidelity M1 DAC
VTL 2.5
McIntosh 2205 (refurbed)
B&W 801's
Transparent IC's -
If you were to drop that amount of coin, I'll look into Carrozzeria RS-D7XIII.
-
My 99 Lexus Has a Nak system. And it still sounds fantastic... I had to find a Sub Woofer once but thats what eBay is for...Polk Audio SDA 2.3tl Fully Hot Rodded. 😎
SVS SB16 X2
Cary SLP-05/Ultimate Upgrade.
Cary SA-500.1 ES Amps
Cary DMS 800PV Network
OPPO UDP 205/ModWright Modification
VPI Scout TT / Dynavector 20x2
Jolida JD9 Fully Modified
VPI MW-1 Cyclone RCM
MIT Shotgun 3 cables throughout / Except TT, and PC’s -
Even though the legislation let up later on, that act from 1987 killed the technology here.
Yes thats a slip of my memory. Losing memory cells to age.
TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »My 99 Lexus Has a Nak system. And it still sounds fantastic... I had to find a Sub Woofer once but thats what eBay is for...
Toyota tied up with Nak and Pioneer for audio for the Lexus sometime in the late 80's and the tie up ran thru till around 2000, when Lexus switched to Mark Levinson setup's.
'Fantastic', in a car is a relative term.
-
Hey Arun do you like ur Pioneer 880 pretty well? More so over an Alpine 9887 with the Imprint? I've looked at that Pioneer deck and it looks really nice. I especially like how you can set everything by L/R
-
What's the big deal about Nakamichi? Only thing I can tell is it's very expensive Japanese car audio.
Thats pretty much it. Doesnt sound any different than an Alpine but its really cool and expensive so you THINK it sounds better.
Same thing with the Denon's. They are so cool they have to sound great!polkaudio sound quality competitor since 2005
MECA SQ Rookie of the Year 06 ~ MECA State Champ 06,07,08,11 ~ MECA World Finals 2nd place 06,07,08,09
08 Car Audio Nationals 1st ~ 07 N Georgia Nationals 1st ~ 06 Carl Casper Nationals 1st ~ USACi 05 Southeast AutumnFest 1st
polkaudio SR6500 --- polkaudio MM1040 x2 -- Pioneer P99 -- Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D -
JoshParsons84 wrote: »Hey Arun do you like ur Pioneer 880 pretty well? More so over an Alpine 9887 with the Imprint? I've looked at that Pioneer deck and it looks really nice. I especially like how you can set everything by L/R
Yes I really like the pio for the level of dsp it offers. As a stand alone, 1 din hu (i.e. no processor) I would take the p-880 over the 9887, only because I get more dsp. L/R, TA in smaller steps etc.
However if I was going to run a processor like the bit-1, h-700 or the 360.2, I would run the 9887. With the processor, I have all the dsp I want (much more than the p-880). I would now run Alpine because the signature sound on the Alpine hu's is slightly warmer than the pios which tend a bit towards the clinical side. Of course the warm sound bit is subjective and based on my perception.I can speak as an owner of the 860. I love the unit and my one fault with it is that it doesn't have the L/R controls the 880 does. I couldn't see where getting the 880 would disappoint. I do prefer the looks of my 860 over the 880, but if SQ is what you are after, its a good choice.
If you have $1,200, you can look at the Pioneer P99RS they just released. One of the sexiest HU's I've seen, both cosmetically and technically.
The 860 does pretty much everything the 880 does except the L/R. I think you would enjoy the 880 if you went that route.
Honestly, I wouldn't spend $1,200 on the P99. Cause although I get 31 bands i/o 16 bands (big difference here) and some fancier electronics (prob would not hear this difference), I still would not be able to eq each driver independently. The ability to do that is a huge jump.
For $1200, I would rather get a processor for $700 a decent source for $350 and get some additional deadening for $150.Thats pretty much it. Doesn't sound any different than an Alpine but its really cool and expensive so you THINK it sounds better.
Same thing with the Denon's. They are so cool they have to sound great!
lol. How's the gaming going? -
Honestly, I wouldn't spend $1,200 on the P99. Cause although I get 31 bands i/o 16 bands (big difference here) and some fancier electronics (prob would not hear this difference), I still would not be able to eq each driver independently. The ability to do that is a huge jump.
For $1200, I would rather get a processor for $700 a decent source for $350 and get some additional deadening for $150.
Can you explain how 31 bands per channel is better than 31 bands per side? -
31 bands per side is plenty for most people but if you're running active you want control over each driver because they'll all be at different distances at different axes with different obstacles in their way. Having the ability to tune each driver independently is the only way to wring out the best possible SQ.polkaudio sound quality competitor since 2005
MECA SQ Rookie of the Year 06 ~ MECA State Champ 06,07,08,11 ~ MECA World Finals 2nd place 06,07,08,09
08 Car Audio Nationals 1st ~ 07 N Georgia Nationals 1st ~ 06 Carl Casper Nationals 1st ~ USACi 05 Southeast AutumnFest 1st
polkaudio SR6500 --- polkaudio MM1040 x2 -- Pioneer P99 -- Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D -
31 bands per side is plenty for most people but if you're running active you want control over each driver because they'll all be at different distances at different axes with different obstacles in their way. Having the ability to tune each driver independently is the only way to wring out the best possible SQ.
Thanks for you input, MacLeod, and your input overall on this site.
I guess what I don't understand is what the difference is between being able to choose each channel individually vs. just picking the left or right side and using the eq that way.
For example, if I want to change 5khz on my left tweeter, I could just choose the left side and eq 5khz, which would then affect the tweeter. I may not be able to pick the tweeter's channel specifically, but wouldn't choosing the 5khz band on the left same serve the same purpose? -
As an example, I cross my sub and mids at 50hz and the mids and tweets at 2khz. Now 2-3.5khz is the range where all 6.5-6.75" mids will beam. The driver on axis (even if further) will be louder than the one nearer but off axis. In my case the far mid is about 5 db louder than the near mid at 2.5khz and by about 3db at 3.25khz.
The tweeters which are running more on axis and are much smaller cones have a better L/R response in this range, since they are not beaming. But my settings of 1.25-4khz affect both the mids and tweets, which is a compromise at the best.
I have my mids band passed from 50-2khz. Thats about 5.5 octaves.Typically I would like to set each mid independently, a full octave above and below these points. Hence about 7-8 octaves for each mid and 4-5 octaves for the the sub and tweets would be great.
Varying distances, axis and obstructions like Mac mentioned play a big role in how you would set each driver. -
As an example, I cross my sub and mids at 50hz and the mids and tweets at 2khz. Now 2-3.5khz is the range where all 6.5-6.75" mids will beam. The driver on axis (even if further) will be louder than the one nearer but off axis. In my case the far mid is about 5 db louder than the near mid at 2.5khz and by about 3db at 3.25khz.
The tweeters which are running more on axis and are much smaller cones have a better L/R response in this range, since they are not beaming. But my settings of 1.25-4khz affect both the mids and tweets, which is a compromise at the best.
I have my mids band passed from 50-2khz. Thats about 5.5 octaves.Typically I would like to set each mid independently, a full octave above and below these points. Hence about 7-8 octaves for each mid and 4-5 octaves for the the sub and tweets would be great.
Varying distances, axis and obstructions like Mac mentioned play a big role in how you would set each driver.
So, are you saying that there is an overlap at the crossover point between two drivers and it might help to address only one of the drivers without the other?
If this is the only limitation, I probably would never get to the point where I could utilize this kind of tool with my ability to tune.
