Enter the Dragon

[Euan]

Wow! They're so much hotter than any CD player! I'd have one of those on the rack just for the way it looks. The best I ever had was a Nak 1.5.

 

[df_genius]

Very nice deck, they can be upgraded with the ANT4066 too which on this deck switches between tracks for forward/reverse playback. As Werner says you are best off sticking with the original rollers, they should just need a clean up. There are a few trouble spots with these (motor drive transistors etc) but the only belts in the deck are for the counter. I've had two in the past and do regret selling them (I still have a fair few other Naks though, CR-7, 682ZX, 670ZX etc). They need the correct alignment jigs and tapes to get working properly.

 

[AudioAl]

Erm, no.

The absolute top was the 1000ZXL, with its unsurpassed auto-calibration procedure and best-ever heads. It was also available in gold as the 1000ZXL Ltd. The Nak CR-7 is also generally seen as surpassing the Dragon in sound quality. But of course differences generally will be minor, and today the maintenance state of the machine is much more important that how it performed in its youth.

Can't comment on the sound quality as I have not owned either , The visual looks dont't work for
me as they look very studio / rack / commercial and as for the gold one waaaaaaay to Glitsie for my taste

 

[AnilS]

Lovely beast. Still intrigued what you think was a sensible price.

As you know, I owned a BX300E.

In my blind test, there was zero sound difference between it and the Dragon. Conducted in a nice studio at the time.
3 other listeners agreed. I bought the 300E.

I had it serviced by B&W. Nothing major but a bill of £280.

The dragon was also serviced there but the bill was eye watering.

I hope you can get the best out of it @AudioAl

 

[Werner]

As you know, I owned a BX300E. In my blind test, there was zero sound difference between it and the Dragon.

The difference between top-end and mid-end three-head Naks was not in the heads or in the audio electronics, but rather in the transport section (belt <> direct drive, single <> double side) and how tape tuning was done. The Dragon has full bias/level tuning, per channel, whereas the BX-300 only has a shared bias fine. As long as you stick to the tapes the deck was set up for results would be similar. But if you stray from that tape, the Dragon immediately would win.

 

[Werner]

The visual looks dont't work for
me as they look very studio / rack / commercial and as for the gold one waaaaaaay to Glitsie for my taste

Yes. 'elegant' or 'pretty' is not what springs to mind.

For a more modest look there was always the nearly-identical 700ZXL.

 

[AnilS]

The difference between top-end and mid-end three-head Naks was not in the heads or in the audio electronics, but rather in the transport section (belt <> direct drive, single <> double side) and how tape tuning was done. The Dragon has full bias/level tuning, per channel, whereas the BX-300 only has a shared bias fine. As long as you stick to the tapes the deck was set up for results would be similar. But if you stray from that tape, the Dragon immediately would win.

It's odd then that the same tapes sounded the same. The tapes being recorded on the Dragon. Odd but real.