Hi, this is my first post, here.

 

I looked at the specs and found out that BC 9000 has actually wider frequency response (at least for metal) than any of the Beo CD players!

Does this mean metal tapes played at BC 9000 will have better sound quality than CD players?

Also, BC 9000 has wider frequency spectrum than BM 8000, does this mean then if I use BC 9000 through BM 8000, it will have poorer sound quality than if I use BC 9000 directly?   (I have a small room, so I'll be using at low sound level.)

 

 

p.s. Originally, I wasn't looking for tape decks, too 70' or 80's!   But a trading course material that I'm planning to use only has tapes for instruction, so I started looking for tape players, and since I heard that BC 9000 was the best tape player ever made, I started looking for one.

 

 

Couple of pointa - you cannot really hear above about 15kHz - there are sites where you can test yourself - and the S/N ratio will be inferior to CD.

The figures you are looking at also will be difficult to reproduce and a copy cannot be any better than the original so you will need to find a source to get to 22kHz. So CD is out, as is FM radio and most cartridges won't track particularly well even if there is anything to track to!

Having said that, the BC9000 is very good - though the 8004 is probably just about as good and the 1980s Beocord 5000 is also excellent and can be set up to probably get equal results. Getting decent tape will also be a challenge - TDK SA will probably be the best and that will not reach the heights of frequency response you desire. It will however probably sound better!

Welcome to Beoworld ! 

Let me see if I get this right;
You don't care much for cassettedecks, they are old fashioned. Still you would like to get the worlds best
ever cassettedeck for playing your course tapes and on top of that you worry about the sound quality and
frequency response of the Beomaster 8000, the best amplifier yet made by Bang & Olufsen ?

No, the problem is the tapes.
They won't be recorded to anywhere near the specs of the Beocord 9000 and Beomaster 8000.
They won't be of a top brand and they won't have a computer calibrated equalization or Bias and
would probably sound the same if played on a 1970's SONY TC-something cassettedeck.

Martin

Peter :

Couple of pointa - you cannot really hear above about 15kHz

 

 

Okay, then why BC 9000 and other Beo Audio equipments have wider frequencies than humans can hear?

 

 

Peter :

....and the S/N ratio will be inferior to CD.

 

 

 

Personally, I think people in general make too much of supposedly superior sound quality of CD due to S/N ratio.

People made big deal of dolby b and c, I've heard them, flat, and lifeless, and I prefer the sound of tape without the noise reduction.   Without noise reduction,  tape sounded more life like and spacious, and actually easier to listen to, (yes, even with hiss, within reason)

 

Peter :

The figures you are looking at also will be difficult to reproduce and a copy cannot be any better than the original so you will need to find a source to get to 22kHz.

 

 

Actually, I am planning to edit the instruction tape.    It was originally recorded in early 70's, and much of the instruction would be inapplicable in today's trading technology environment.

If I use a high quality Metal blank tape and record/edit it myself, would it make a difference?

 

 

Peter :

Having said that, the BC9000 is very good - though the 8004 is probably just about as good and the 1980s Beocord 5000 is also excellent and can be set up to probably get equal results.

 

With due respect, I heard different views.   This, from, not just any internet poster, but from several reputable publishers, reviews dating from 80's, that BC 9000 is quite a bit better, both in playback, even crappy, cheap, pre-recorded tapes, and especially in recording using high quality source.

 

Dillen:

 

Let me see if I get this right;
You don't care much for cassettedecks, they are old fashioned.

 

Based on what I knew till very recently, no.

 

 

 

Dillen:

Still you would like to get the worlds best
ever cassettedeck for playing your course tapes...

 

Indeed, yes, and I intend to edit/record the tape myself for today's environment.

 

 Besides I like the retro-futuristic design, which would have fit right in Stromberg's Atlantis from "The Spy who loved me"

 

Dillen:

 ...and on top of that you worry about the sound quality and
frequency response of the Beomaster 8000, the best amplifier yet made by Bang & Olufsen ?

 

Yes, do you think BC 9000 by itself produce better sound?  (It's going to be set to low volume in a small room.)

 

 

 

Dillen:

No, the problem is the tapes.
They won't be recorded to anywhere near the specs of the Beocord 9000 and Beomaster 8000.
They won't be of a top brand and they won't have a computer calibrated equalization or Bias and
would probably sound the same if played on a 1970's SONY TC-something cassettedeck.

 

Based on review from NYT from 80's, I thin I read that it makes better sound even from cheap, pre-recorded tape.

 

Besides, I read that it can be manually set for optimal sound.

 

Sony didn't have real timer, which would be very useful in both playbacks and edit/recording my own.

 

 

RedGrant:

Peter :

Couple of pointa - you cannot really hear above about 15kHz

 

 

Okay, then why BC 9000 and other Beo Audio equipments have wider frequencies than humans can hear?

 

Because they could! And because it sells stuff to audiophiles! I am getting older but hearing above 13kHz is now impossible for me! Try yourself! Have a look at this site - it plays you a 17kHz tone and a 14kHz tone - I can just hear the 14kHz ! I must be getting better!!

 

Peter :

....and the S/N ratio will be inferior to CD.

 

 

 

Personally, I think people in general make too much of supposedly superior sound quality of CD due to S/N ratio.

I don't disagree though I do like the silence in the background.

People made big deal of dolby b and c, I've heard them, flat, and lifeless, and I prefer the sound of tape without the noise reduction.   Without noise reduction,  tape sounded more life like and spacious, and actually easier to listen to, (yes, even with hiss, within reason)

Completely agree with you here! I never use noise reduction - I too prefer a bit of hiss rather than Dolby pumping.

Peter :

The figures you are looking at also will be difficult to reproduce and a copy cannot be any better than the original so you will need to find a source to get to 22kHz.

 

 

Actually, I am planning to edit the instruction tape.    It was originally recorded in early 70's, and much of the instruction would be inapplicable in today's trading technology environment.

If I use a high quality Metal blank tape and record/edit it myself, would it make a difference?

You will get a good copy - probably impossible to distiguish from the original. No better of course. Getting decent tape is the problem.

 

Peter :

Having said that, the BC9000 is very good - though the 8004 is probably just about as good and the 1980s Beocord 5000 is also excellent and can be set up to probably get equal results.

 

With due respect, I heard different views.   This, from, not just any internet poster, but from several reputable publishers, reviews dating from 80's, that BC 9000 is quite a bit better, both in playback, even crappy, cheap, pre-recorded tapes, and especially in recording using high quality source.

I have had all three of these and a good friend of mine is a cassette expert widely quoted in the press. He reckons the BC9000 was made obsolete when the strict IEC tape standards came in. Ally that to the fact that the CCC cannot cope with certain tape types and a manually set up machine can be better, The heads on a 9000 are smaller than the 8004 simply to fit in the third head which is only used for the CCC. Apart from the CCC, the 8004 and 9000 are much the same except for the smaller heads. I confess to having kept the 9000 rather than the 8004 though! No good reason except that it was always thought to be the best and was ridiculously expensive!! My friend swears by the 5000 though! The reason cheap tapes sound good is the HX-PRO though that is a recording ciruit and will not make pre-recorded tapes better. Reviews at the time were a little mixed but on the whole were postive and did point out that pre-recorded tapes did sound good. HX-PRO works best on ferric tapes and least on Metal. It means that you get a great recording even on cheap tape. 

 

Don't let me put you off though. The 9000 is a great machine - there are actually two types - the later one being less common - it has a greatly simplified Dolby C circuit - probably better! The Beomaster 8000, when working is a true great as well - you won't find many modern amplifiers to match it.

 

 

Frequency response is not the only thing that affects sound quality, and a certain amount of distortion an make things sound better, but it has to be a certain types, and in a certain relationship to the fundamental waveform from which the distortion is derived.

If you take even a poor flat signal such as one from a 78rpm disc that is worn, you can bring it to some sort of life by splitting the signal into two, heavily distorting one signal using valves or FET devices - something that will produce odd numbered harmonics, rather than the even numbered harmonics that transistors produce.

You then mix this signal at a low level into the undistored path, you'd be amazed how much it seems improved, you could also add a small amount of chorus to the distorted signal too - the effect of altering an original signal to improve human perception is often called pyschoacoustics, there ate plenty of other tricks.

Frequency response only means that you get a fairly fixed gain over a wider range of frequency, but you can get quite large variations within the particular band, and the units you use to specify the bandwidth can make an immense differance, if you select +&- 3dBm then you can get a much wider response than if you choose to compare it against +&_ 2dBm, and then there is your sound source, do you use a pure sinewave for measurement (which might destroy certain amplifiers), do you use pink noise, or white noise? Careful selection of criteria can make even a very average system seem good, and its something for which the Japanses were absolutely notorious for doing - remember those 500W amps that could barely fill a small sitting room with sound ?

 

Another thing you would need to consider, and its the main reason why type IV apes were developed, is dynamic range, which is the ratio of the softest sound against the highest sound. This is what makes music sound more 'alive'. Tapes used to have lousy dynamic range, partly due to the small contact area of the tape agains the tape head and also becuase of the slow speed of the tape itself compared to something like a reel to reel at 32 inch per sec.

Dynamic range and requency response (bandwidth) are often closely associated as they are often affected by similar factors, but they are not the same and ultimately you need large helpings of both, but even a 78rpm record can sound lively if in good condition, just becuase it has good dynamic range and yet the frequency response may well be pretty poor.

Unless you have a good, mathematical and analytical understanding of electroinc measurement you are not likely to benefit much from the quoted figures - because of the tricks that manufacturers use to fool you. Its often why audiophiles make such stupid statements about cables, and mains connectors.

 

Stick to the only true and worthwhile test - how good does it sound to you? Forget the name on the box

RedGrant:

Yes, do you think BC 9000 by itself produce better sound?  (It's going to be set to low volume in a small room.)

Unlikely - it would be very quiet without an amplifier!

Seriously though - assuming you can find one, and then have it serviced, you are unlikely to find a finer amp for the money that a Beomaster 8000 will cost you. I have one and it seriously wipes the floor with any other B&O amp I have heard.

You never mentioned recording in your first post...
That indeed makes it worthwhile to get a good deck.

And I agree with casdave, forget the specs and tech names and get
a deck that sounds good to you.

Martin

I heard that BC 8004 re winds slower than BC 9000.

 

Is it true?

 

 

Peter :

The heads on a 9000 are smaller than the 8004 simply to fit in the third head which is only used for the CCC

Is this really true? So the 9000 isn't a true three head design with separate recording and playback heads, then?

RedGrant:

I heard that BC 8004 re winds slower than BC 9000.

 

Is it true?

 

 

Not sure - both are quick but the 9000 has a clever trick in that it slows down as the tape is about to end to reduce the strain on the tape when it reaches the end. The other big difference is that you can alter the azimuth on a 9000. It comes with a neat TDK MA-R tape with a single tone on it to assist with the setting up. Still have mine!

The three head system is just for the CCC - there is no off tape monitoring. There is a product information manual in the manual section which goes through all the details of the 9000. Actually quite amusing - this and another cassette manual praise the single capstan system whereas the old 5000 cassette manual lists the superiority of the twin capstan method! Having both, the 9000 is much better! The 5000 eats tapes!

 

 

henrik:

Peter :

The heads on a 9000 are smaller than the 8004 simply to fit in the third head which is only used for the CCC

Is this really true? So the 9000 isn't a true three head design with separate recording and playback heads, then?

No it is a three head machine but the record and replay head are in a combined housing - there are advantages to this. However the purpose of this is really to allow the CCC to work - to allow off tape monitoring, you would need two Dolby circuits etc and these are not provided. However to fit the head in the gap provided, the heads have to be quite small. They are a beautiful design though - Sendust for the record and ferrite for the replay. When I said only used for the CCC, I meant as opposed to off tape monitoring.

Ah, ok! On the other hand, real-time monitoring is not the only reason (and not even the main one, iirc)to have separate rec and pb heads - by using two heads you can optimise the gap in both heads. A combined re/pb head (as in a two head deck) is always a compromise, as the ideal rec head has a wider gap than the ideal pb head. ...but of course: that he bc9000 has _potential_ to be the better performer doesn't automatically mean that is the better one :-) ...and I know that some people prefer the 8004, and I don't have any really valid reasons to doubt them.

I have never compared a bc9000 with a bc8004 myself. Simply because I've never had a bc8004 :-) I have two 9000s though, and they sound great, but they are not my favourite cassette decks. I'm not good at describing sound, but compared to my Nakamichi deck they sound a bit, ummm, blurry. The requency response seems to be great, but they don't sound as stable as some of my other decks. Hmm, difficult to describe. My amateur conclusion is that the bc9000 has great heads and good electronics, but maybe a more average transport mechanism (I've experienced similar effect swith some other tape machines, then caused by vibrations) that induces vibrations (and thus modulation distortion). I'm only guessing here, and I still find the bc9000 a really good tape deck. Would be nice to try a bc8004 though! I like these models a lot, they are really nice to use. ...and also very beautiul, of course!

Peter :

RedGrant:

I heard that BC 8004 re winds slower than BC 9000.

 

Is it true?

 

 

Not sure - both are quick but the 9000 has a clever trick in that it slows down as the tape is about to end to reduce the strain on the tape when it reaches the end.

 

Well, this is definitely a deal breaker to me.   I still remember ruining many tapes both audio and video in the 80's, due to that.  This is especially germane, considering high quality tapes are very rare to come by.

 

Peter :

 

 The other big difference is that you can alter the azimuth on a 9000.

 

 

Another deal breaker.

 

 

 

 

Peter :

It comes with a neat TDK MA-R tape with a single tone on it to assist with the setting up. Still have mine!

 

 

 

I'm considering either Sony Super Metal Master or Maxell Vertex.   Overall reviews are Sony SMM is the best, with Vertex a distinct second.

 

Many enthusiasts don't seem to have as high opinion for TDK tapes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm considering either Sony Super Metal Master or Maxell Vertex.   Overall reviews are Sony SMM is the best, with Vertex a distinct second.

 

Many enthusiasts don't seem to have as high opinion for TDK tapes.

 

I almost always use TDK SA. Easy to obtain and very quiet. Some Maxell tapes have the reputation for being a bit abrasive. I have a few TDK MA-XG for special occasions! The MA-R is a tape provided by B&O for azimuth testing purposes only.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Peter, TDK SA is a good choice. Metal tapes are a bit over-hyped, in many cases you actually get better results with a type II tape uch as the SA. Before buying _new_ tapes, google - I've heard that some of the tapes available today are of much worse quality than their older counterparts, but i don'r remember any details at the moment.

henrik:

Before buying _new_ tapes, google - I've heard that some of the tapes available today are of much worse quality than their older counterparts, but i don'r remember any details at the moment.

 

I've heard the same.    At least one case, I think might be due to the use of ceramics?   Ceramics are very heat-resistant, ultra durable, and abrasion resistant relative to metals to the extent they are used in rifle-grade body armors and ultra high end brakes for BMW, Porsche.

With tape durability and reliability more of an issue now than ever, I think it's worth coughing a few more bucks.

 

 

Peter :

I almost always use TDK SA. Easy to obtain and very quiet. Some Maxell tapes have the reputation for being a bit abrasive. I have a few TDK MA-XG for special occasions!

I've just bought myself a used Sony Metal Master C-90 with Ceramic guide for $21 total. 

 

Peter :

 The MA-R is a tape provided by B&O for azimuth testing purposes only.

I heard that BC 9000 originally came with calibrating tape and azimuth adusting screws.   One that I just bought doesn't come with either.

Is there a suitable non-BO replacement for that?