Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Vintage Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

RE: Nakamichi PA5 and PA7, opinions

67.189.22.145

Posted by solid-state McNut on February 5, 2008 at 17:41:57

In Reply to: RE: Nakamichi PA5 and PA7, opinions posted by solid-state McNut on February 5, 2008 at 03:18:50:

Well, I should try to restrain my irrepressible nature. Still, you did encourage me about the modding! I shall attempt to confine myself to potentially meaningful observations.

Despite shooting off my figurative mouth like an idiot (including the section concerning the Onkyo tuner), I did manage to avoid blithering about things about which I know nothing, such as the Threshold CAS-1.

How Nakamichi fell somewhat short in its execution of the Stasis design is also something about which I have no specific knowledge. I do not think it is as simple as parts quality. I think it is a matter of design. I really have no specific clue in what way.

My general impression is that the Nakamichi engineers were so concerned about addressing minutiae that had previously been considered either insignificant, or insurmountable, or both, that they often missed the forest for the trees.

Hearing that their digital audio gear wasn't good sounding, they seemingly became obsessed with things like digital timing glitches and interference from airborne and structural vibration. They must have read some underground audio rags to try to figure out how to meet the expectations of their potential customers, or something.

They had some hermetically-sealed double-isolated CD players (one was for the car), and so on. Digital sections were put in separate enclosures or compartments, then subdivided and shielded again -- all with individually filtered power. This became bulky, inconvenient, and expensive.

The epitome of the trend was the Model 1000 DAT machine of 1988, a multiple-chassis affair costing $10,000. Seeking to reprise their original technological tour-de-force, the 1000 cassette deck, they threw everything they had at the new DAT machine. Unlike cassettes, DAT wasn't already established, and the astronomical price (combined with delays and problems with the recording industry over the new recordable digital technology) killed the new 1000 DAT.

I heard one for several hours at another dealership with B&W 801Fs and some amp I don't remember. We had the big B&Ws at our store, too. I thought the 1000 DAT was quite good-sounding, though huge and gaudy. The remote looked like a small laptop of today, and all sparkly. It was clearly designed as a glitzy 80s showpiece.

The problem appeared to be bringing the sky-high gee-whiz factor down to earth, as Nak had successfully done with their cassette decks. (They did it with the later receivers, but the reliability issues ate them up.)

There was supposedly a batch of the receivers whose boards went through a defective solder bath. Those were a headache. My boss hated me for selling them over the Denons (which had lost some beef by the early 90's), because the one group of them kept coming back. I thought Nakamichi deserved the support to work through it, which they did. The designed-in heat problem remained, though, slowly baking parts and crystallizing solder. I certainly didn't know about that at the time.

I did learn something when McIntosh adopted the Nakamichi Music Bank mechanism for their MCD7008 CD changer. It was the best changer mechanism they could get (rated by Nak at 5000 hours), but they were concerned, because that was only half that of the Phillips professional single-disc transport they had been using.

It was incredibly traumatic for Mac to go to the Nak MusicBank mechanism, because it wouldn't fit in their standard faceplate. They had to change their beloved traditional appearance to survive, because they were simply being murderd on the sales floor by not having a CD changer with a matching (expletive deleted) remote control. That took them right out of consideration, despite the fact that their products delivered the most music, for the longest time, with the most consistent quality, and the lowest overall service cost, of anything you could get. I know I sound like a shill, but I really believed the shtick. I hope they are keeping it up. I mourn the transition to snobbery in the audio marketplace, but music lovers don't buy stuff once they're satisfied (like my friend with his ancient Tandberg receiver).

The new Mac CD changers strangely (but not, to me, surprisingly) sounded better than the Nakamichi versions with the same transport, chips, and main board! Nakamichi was mystified, flabbergasted, and even a bit crestfallen.

What did Mac know that Nakamichi didn't? What did Nelson Pass know that they didn't? Many people have asked both of these questions over the years.

McIntosh finally released a page of scoop to their dealer network, describing the changes they had made. One of them was to test the low-level linearity in the D-to-A converters, and then to reject about 40% of the finished CD player main boards. That's right, 40%! This was consistent with the McIntosh policy of testing every incoming part and subassembly (as well as the finished product), and rejecting anything they didn't think was good enough.

They also added gain to the laser RF amp, and added their own digital outputs. They put in additional digital logic to allow full functionality from the front-panel control buttons (a commitment I respect utterly to this day).

I really don't remember for sure, but I think that McIntosh added their own audio output ciruit with associated power supply section, and a nice solid headphone output driven by that, too. Reference to the service manual ought to answer that.

It is my concrete supposition that the combination of the selected Nakamichi main boards with improved low-level linearity, better data integrity from the additional RF gain at the laser, and a McIntosh-designed power supply and audio output stage, was in fact responsible for the notable superiority of the McIntosh MCD7008 over the Nakamichi MusicBank1.

There, I finally spat it out!

The B&W 801Fs were the power-suckingest speakers I ever did see, and sort of inert or overdamped sounding, too. There was hardly an amp or an AC outlet that could feed them. OK, there really wasn't an amp that could feed them adequately, in my concerted whatever, everyone's got one.

The later Matrix series was more lively, and more efficient, and more expensive. The 808s -- them are some dandy lautsprechers, yes siree! They were 91 dB efficient vs. 86 dB for the old 801Fs, if memory serves. 5 dB is almost 6 dB, or 4 times less power needed to run the 808s. They had twice the woofer area, and lots of cabinet. And they were sweet! My second favorite speakers ever when tri-wired with McPower, despite some admitted diffraction from the large front baffle.

They had dynamic delivery second to nothing I have ever heard, including Dead concerts. Jimi Hendrix playing "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock from the OMR CD boxed set was indelibly seared into my CNS by the B&W 808s, powered by an MC2500 on the bass, an MC7270 on the midranges, and the power amp section of a MAC4300V on the tweeters!

I used Kyung-Wha Chung playing the Tschaikovsky Violin Concerto to sell tthem to a doctor. I wanted some, too.

I also liked the Matrix 3 Series 2 tower speakers, which had nice real walnut finish. Bi-wired to a Mac 4300 receiver with a Denon CD player, the Matrix 3 Series 2s made a real system for music lovers. In 1993 or so, for $7250 retail plus wiring, that was heaven for me. They were a little bright on top if the room was live.

Though I do like B&W speakers in general, I still don't generally prefer metal domes, given the ultimate choice. Even when assured that all of the resonance and breakup modes are outside the operating frequency range, I still think soft domes sound better.

Too bad Dr. Godehard Guenther of ADS (truly a great genius) was reputedly such a difficult guy to work for. He was said to have lost his best people to Canton in Germany, Boston Acoustics in America, and (according to scuttlebutt) had his tooling repeatedly sabotaged by some who remained. Supposedly, this was responsible for the wildly oscillating quality of the original M9 - M10 - M12 - M15 series. That -- along with heavy R&D and Product Development speculation in consumer video equipment -- about did him in at a/d/s/, which has been under new ownership since the early 90's.

Enough already!

The Fortes were the smoothest-sounding speakers ever in the historic Klipsch line. I've nver heard the big Klipschorns properly set up and fed, it's also true. With a problem room setup and my friend's unclean vinyl, his mid-level Sony integrated amp was not very kind to them. I have heard active multiway pro JBL gear sound very good. My friend's MC2300 and JBL L300s really do the job.

I loved the B&O cartridges, which were of excellent quality. I got mad when I realized that the new short B&O linear tracking tonearms did not play the tracking test record as well as the B&O pivoting tonearms. I drilled B&O about it, they stonewalled me, and I sold their pivcoting arms thereafter. It's too bad that fads and herd consciousness rule the hifi business, and manufactures live or die by pandering to it.

Ta ta, must run!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---