Sony Canada tells me they cannot repair my Sony WM-2032 Walkman because
the motor drive is no longer available. I solicit opinions on the
validity of this statement and whether there are any other repair
agents who can assist me.

The WM-2032 was Sony's absolutely "top-of-the-line" cassette
Walkman when I purchased it about ten years ago. It has no tuner, but
produces excellent sound and thundering, clean bass from a package that
fits in a shirt pocket and is driven by a single, double AA cell. I
paid a premium price for it, based significantly on expecting Sony to
support it. Also key was the quality of the sound, which is as good as
a CD player when I use my metal tape cassettes.

The unit was used for about 500 to 800 hours, during long flights to /
from Europe and Asia, was treated very carefully and has gone nowhere
for about 6 or 7 years. When I finally took it on another business trip
last month, the motor did not turn, suggesting (to me) that the belt
had gone - not unexpected after ten years.

The Sony dealer told me that both the belt and motor required
replacement (the latter surprised me because of no previous problems,
the low usage and the tender care that this unit has always received).
"Perhaps they are just running up the service bill on me", I
thought.

About a week later, they called to tell me that the motor for this unit
was no longer available and they therefore could not fix it. I am out
my $40.00 for the troubleshooting activity. There are no apologies from
Sony for the lack of support for a unit that, in my opinion, is not
that old, was purchased with higher expectations of a well-known brand
name and that is a "top-of-the-line" product.

My main concern now is to identify a potential source of repair for
this unit, as I have a substantial investment in metal cassette tapes
and would prefer to use a repaired WM-2032 rather than be forced to go
to an MP3 player (it won't be a Sony).

Any comments and suggestions would be very much appreciated.

"Bill Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sony Canada tells me they cannot repair my Sony WM-2032 Walkman because
the motor drive is no longer available. I solicit opinions on the
validity of this statement and whether there are any other repair
agents who can assist me.

The WM-2032 was Sony's absolutely "top-of-the-line" cassette
Walkman when I purchased it about ten years ago. It has no tuner, but
produces excellent sound and thundering, clean bass from a package that
fits in a shirt pocket and is driven by a single, double AA cell. I
paid a premium price for it, based significantly on expecting Sony to
support it. Also key was the quality of the sound, which is as good as
a CD player when I use my metal tape cassettes.

The unit was used for about 500 to 800 hours, during long flights to /
from Europe and Asia, was treated very carefully and has gone nowhere
for about 6 or 7 years. When I finally took it on another business trip
last month, the motor did not turn, suggesting (to me) that the belt
had gone - not unexpected after ten years.

Actually, if the belt had gone, I'd still expect the motor to turn.

The Sony dealer told me that both the belt and motor required
replacement (the latter surprised me because of no previous problems,
the low usage and the tender care that this unit has always received).
"Perhaps they are just running up the service bill on me", I
thought.

About a week later, they called to tell me that the motor for this unit
was no longer available and they therefore could not fix it. I am out
my $40.00 for the troubleshooting activity. There are no apologies from
Sony for the lack of support for a unit that, in my opinion, is not
that old, was purchased with higher expectations of a well-known brand
name and that is a "top-of-the-line" product.

Welcome to the age of disposable electronics. Ten years is considered a long
time for such devices and few are considered repairable any more.
Typically, if it's warranty work, they just send you a "refurbished" unit
which may have ben simply returned for no reason by the original purchaser.

My main concern now is to identify a potential source of repair for
this unit, as I have a substantial investment in metal cassette tapes
and would prefer to use a repaired WM-2032 rather than be forced to go
to an MP3 player (it won't be a Sony).

Any comments and suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more practical
IMHO.

Sorry, got the Model Number wrong. It is a WM-2091. If the advice is to go
MP3, I'd prefer Flash (too many hard drive crash experiences) - and nobody
says anything about audio quality. Nothing ever touched my WM-2091 for
deep, clean bass and I'm worried that all anyone cares about with Portable
Audio Players now is features and capacity - not sound quality.

What 512 MB or 1 GB Flash Player has really good sound?

Bill

Can't take a "known" casette in and test the player, like you can do with
tape or CD. A step forward, but maybe also one back?

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical
IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better. It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

The only exception to this is that I'm aware of is the Archos mp3
player, which mounts as a simple removable drive and doesn't require
you to install anything just to copy over files. If I was interested in
low quality sound reproduction, I'd probably get one of them. Since I'm
not, my portable cassette player will do just fine.

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical
IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Really? In what way? Frequency response? S/N? Wow and flutter? Remember
we're talking PORTABLE units here. I think you're be hard-pressed to find
any portable cassette player with better sound quality than a decent MP3
player with songs ripped at 160 kbps.

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

But, with the dearth of high quality pre-recorded cassette material these
days, what are you going to use as a source? Record from FM?!! Scratchy old
LPs? No, you're going to use CDs for source material. And how long does it
take to record your cassette? Why the same time it takes to listen to it.
Unlike my MP3 player where I can use CDex to rip a four minute song in
seconds and transfer it to my player in another few seconds. And wind up
with near CD quality to boot.

The only exception to this is that I'm aware of is the Archos mp3
player, which mounts as a simple removable drive and doesn't require
you to install anything just to copy over files.

My Lexar player is the same way - it's like a USB jump drive, plugs into the
USB port and looks just like another drive. Just drag and drop your MP3, wav
or wma files. I think you'll find that many of the new MP3 players are
similar.

If I was interested in
low quality sound reproduction, I'd probably get one of them. Since I'm
not, my portable cassette player will do just fine.

At least until the capstan chews up your tape that you spent an hour and a
half recording.

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Let's expand on this just a little. A number of so-called MP3 players also
work with .wav files. This is true of both the iPod and several competive
players from Creative Labs and iRiver.

So, now we're basically talking CD quality.

Same opinion?

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

Seems like a tiny price to pay.


that I'm aware of is the Archos mp3
player, which mounts as a simple removable drive and doesn't require
you to install anything just to copy over files.

Also true of many competitive players.

If I was interested
in low quality sound reproduction, I'd probably get one of them.

If you compare high bitrate MP3s to cassette, I think you'll find that they
leave the best cassettes in the dust.

Since I'm not, my portable cassette player will do just fine.

I don't think you know what you're missing. I had a high-quality Sony
Walkman, which would record and play Dolby among other things. I didn't use
it a great deal, so it stayed pretty pristene. I'd never unfavorably
high-bitrate MP3 files, let alone CD-quality .wav files to it.

Ian S wrote:
"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical
IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Really? In what way? Frequency response? S/N? Wow and flutter?
Remember
we're talking PORTABLE units here. I think you're be hard-pressed to
find
any portable cassette player with better sound quality than a decent
MP3
player with songs ripped at 160 kbps.

A high quality cassette tape with audio recorded off a good high-end
system with a nice deck can sound very near cd quality. Cassettes can
be very close to indistinguishable from the CDs, other cassettes,
vinyl, etc that they were recorded from. I can definitely tell the
difference between a CD and a 160kbps mp3. I can tell the difference
between 320kbps and CD, even. Personally, anything below 192kbps is
just so bad that it's unacceptable to me. If you are happy with 160kbps
mp3s, great, have fun. They sound like crap to me though.

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

But, with the dearth of high quality pre-recorded cassette material
these
days, what are you going to use as a source? Record from FM?!!
Scratchy old
LPs? No, you're going to use CDs for source material. And how long
does it
take to record your cassette? Why the same time it takes to listen to
it.
Unlike my MP3 player where I can use CDex to rip a four minute song
in
seconds and transfer it to my player in another few seconds. And wind
up
with near CD quality to boot.

Yes, it definitely takes longer to record a tape than flash some memory
with mp3s. This is partly because of the mechanical limits but also
because there's less data being transferred. Copying over 650MB of
..wavs from a CD would take little longer.

I personally don't mind making a mix tape. It takes a simliar amount of
time to make a mix CD on my computer, unless I already happen to have
all the songs on the hard drive.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Let's expand on this just a little. A number of so-called MP3 players
also
work with .wav files. This is true of both the iPod and several
competive
players from Creative Labs and iRiver.

So, now we're basically talking CD quality.

Same opinion?

Considering that most flash players have between 128 and 512MB of
storage, .wav files aren't much of an option, unless you like putting
2-5 songs on your player which you can't change until you get home.
With a portable cassette or cd player, I can carry as many tapes or
cd/cd-rs as I want.

This is less of a problem with HD mp3 players, of course, but they have
other issues, like how their batteries tend to last about 4 hrs.

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

Seems like a tiny price to pay.

I've tried a few. iTunes is unacceptably annoying and bloated. Most
aren't cross-platform. All I want to do is copy over some files, why do
I need to load up a webstore and look at ads to do it?

that I'm aware of is the Archos mp3
player, which mounts as a simple removable drive and doesn't
require
you to install anything just to copy over files.

Also true of many competitive players.

If I was interested
in low quality sound reproduction, I'd probably get one of them.

If you compare high bitrate MP3s to cassette, I think you'll find
that they
leave the best cassettes in the dust.

I can't recall offhand what the max bitrate is, but it's like 640kbps
or something. Even at that rate (which most players can't play) is
dumping a ton of data. You could do the math if you were so inclined.

Cassettes certainly aren't perfect, but they don't throw away the
majority of the info on a CD.

For the record, I think burning .wavs to a mix CD would and playing
them in a portable CD player would probably be the best combination of
portability and quality. However, cassettes aren't far behind. The
majority of mp3 solutions can't compete, at least for now. Maybe a 2GB
flash-based FLAC player, mountable as a generic volume, with a good
integrated OS and long battery life would convince me to buy one.

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com

A high quality cassette tape with audio recorded off a good high-end
system with a nice deck can sound very near cd quality. Cassettes can
be very close to indistinguishable from the CDs, other cassettes,
vinyl, etc that they were recorded from.

Which alternative universe would that be?

I can definitely tell the
difference between a CD and a 160kbps mp3. I can tell the difference
between 320kbps and CD, even.

Could be if these hi bitrate conversions are done badly.

Personally, anything below 192kbps is
just so bad that it's unacceptable to me. If you are happy with
160kbps mp3s, great, have fun. They sound like crap to me though.

Long story short my portable digital music player is loaded, wall-to-wall
with true CD quality .wav files.

Yes, it definitely takes longer to record a tape than flash some
memory with mp3s. This is partly because of the mechanical limits but
also because there's less data being transferred. Copying over 650MB
of .wavs from a CD would take little longer.


..Wav file copies still happens much faster than real time.


I personally don't mind making a mix tape. It takes a simliar amount
of time to make a mix CD on my computer, unless I already happen to
have all the songs on the hard drive.

No way.

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Let's expand on this just a little. A number of so-called MP3
players also work with .wav files. This is true of both the iPod and
several competive players from Creative Labs and iRiver.

So, now we're basically talking CD quality.

Same opinion?

Considering that most flash players have between 128 and 512MB of
storage, .wav files aren't much of an option, unless you like putting
2-5 songs on your player which you can't change until you get home.

You do know that products with far more capacity are readily availble for
reasonable prices, right?

BTW, 512 Meg is on the order of the songs on one or 2 CDs. It's getting to
be hard to find any new players that are much smaller.

With a portable cassette or cd player, I can carry as many tapes or
cd/cd-rs as I want.

With a portable hard drive player with say, 60 GB capacity I can load it
with the equivalent of 1,500 songs or 50 CDs.

This is less of a problem with HD mp3 players, of course, but they
have other issues, like how their batteries tend to last about 4 hrs.

Mine uses user-replacable batteries that run for about 6 hours per set.

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

Seems like a tiny price to pay.

I've tried a few. iTunes is unacceptably annoying and bloated. Most
aren't cross-platform. All I want to do is copy over some files, why
do I need to load up a webstore and look at ads to do it?

The only songs I have on my hard drive player that I didn't copy from CDs I
own, are recordings I made myself.

that I'm aware of is the Archos mp3
player, which mounts as a simple removable drive and doesn't require
you to install anything just to copy over files.

Also true of many competitive players.

If I was interested
in low quality sound reproduction, I'd probably get one of them.

If you compare high bitrate MP3s to cassette, I think you'll find
that they leave the best cassettes in the dust.

I can't recall offhand what the max bitrate is, but it's like 640kbps
or something. Even at that rate (which most players can't play) is
dumping a ton of data. You could do the math if you were so inclined.

I've been here before. A RAO regular named Weil told me a while ago that no
way was a hard-drive jukebox ever going to be a viable alternative to a
living room style CD changer. Now its feasible to duplicate the
functionality of a 50-disc CD changer with something you carry in your
pocket with zero file compression.

Cassettes certainly aren't perfect, but they don't throw away the
majority of the info on a CD.

I've done DBTs of MP3s where it was tough to tell the difference from a CD.
I've done the same thing with cassette tapes and I could instantly and
reliably hear the difference.

For the record, I think burning .wavs to a mix CD would and playing
them in a portable CD player would probably be the best combination of
portability and quality.

Did I mention that I have a MP3-compatible CD player that has ludicrously
long battery life? I use it on backwoods camping trips and the like. 150
plus songs or about 12 CDs per disc.

However, cassettes aren't far behind.

I'm not buying that.

The majority of mp3 solutions can't compete, at least for now.

In which alternative universe?

Maybe a 2GB flash-based FLAC player, mountable as a generic volume, with a
good integrated OS and long battery life would convince me to buy one.

I have to admit that the idea of you spending money to fix a clunker of a
tape player, and then waiting years for the perfect portable digital player
does kinda amuse me.

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ian S wrote:
"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ian S wrote:
Join the 21st century and get an MP3 player - they are far more
practical
IMHO.

Unless you're interested in sound quality, in which case, a high
quality cassette player is much better.

Really? In what way? Frequency response? S/N? Wow and flutter?
Remember
we're talking PORTABLE units here. I think you're be hard-pressed to
find
any portable cassette player with better sound quality than a decent
MP3
player with songs ripped at 160 kbps.

A high quality cassette tape with audio recorded off a good high-end
system with a nice deck can sound very near cd quality.

Not when it's played on a PORTABLE player which is what this whole
discussion is about.

Cassettes can
be very close to indistinguishable from the CDs, other cassettes,
vinyl, etc that they were recorded from. I can definitely tell the
difference between a CD and a 160kbps mp3. I can tell the difference
between 320kbps and CD, even. Personally, anything below 192kbps is
just so bad that it's unacceptable to me. If you are happy with 160kbps
mp3s, great, have fun. They sound like crap to me though.

It also doesn't require you to
own a computer and install poorly written software that grants only
limited access to a otherwise unaccessible filesystem.

But, with the dearth of high quality pre-recorded cassette material
these
days, what are you going to use as a source? Record from FM?!!
Scratchy old
LPs? No, you're going to use CDs for source material. And how long
does it
take to record your cassette? Why the same time it takes to listen to
it.
Unlike my MP3 player where I can use CDex to rip a four minute song
in
seconds and transfer it to my player in another few seconds. And wind
up
with near CD quality to boot.

Yes, it definitely takes longer to record a tape than flash some memory
with mp3s. This is partly because of the mechanical limits but also
because there's less data being transferred. Copying over 650MB of
.wavs from a CD would take little longer.

I personally don't mind making a mix tape. It takes a simliar amount of
time to make a mix CD on my computer, unless I already happen to have
all the songs on the hard drive.

Using CDex, I can extract a wav file from a CD to my hard drive for a four
minute song in about 30 sec. That's about 8 minutes total extraction time
for the typical CD. To make a mix, the only time added is removing and
inserting the CDs that you want to extract from and you have to do this
anyway for mixing cassettes. Then you go to your burning program, pick and
arrange the wav files you want to burn - another couple of minutes - then
burn your CD in another 5 minutes. A total of about 15 minutes. Less than
1/4 the time to do a cassette of the same mix.

As for MP3 player capacity, many have the ability to take memory cards and
those are a lot lighter and smaller than cassettes.

If you're happy with cassettes, fine. The problem for the O.P. is that he's
looking for a replacement for his 10 y.o. Walkman. Check out what's
available in portable cassette players today. Not much and most are at the
low end of the scale. The more expensive ones are often that way because
they include digital FM. Cassette tapes and decks are 1960's technology - I
know because I had one of the first Sony portables then (it still works
barely) - that were pushed pretty much to their limits by the end of the
1980's - they aren't going any farther because they are well past the point
of diminishing returns and digital technology is far better and continues to
improve.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Maybe a 2GB flash-based FLAC player, mountable as a generic volume, with
a
good integrated OS and long battery life would convince me to buy one.

I have to admit that the idea of you spending money to fix a clunker of a
tape player, and then waiting years for the perfect portable digital
player
does kinda amuse me.

heh-heh

FWIW, 2 GB flash-based players are now out although I don't know if they
support FLAC. I suspect 3-4 GB flash players are not far off and in that
event, you'll be as far ahead with wav files as with FLAC in a 2 GB player.

Ian S wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Maybe a 2GB flash-based FLAC player, mountable as a generic
volume, with
a
good integrated OS and long battery life would convince me to
buy one.

I have to admit that the idea of you spending money to fix a
clunker of a
tape player, and then waiting years for the perfect portable
digital
player
does kinda amuse me.

heh-heh

FWIW, 2 GB flash-based players are now out although I don't know if
they
support FLAC. I suspect 3-4 GB flash players are not far off and in
that
event, you'll be as far ahead with wav files as with FLAC in a 2 GB
player.

I just checked amazon and indeed there are now 2GB flash players,
though none of them support FLAC from what I could see. I'm not sure
FLAC is popular enough for there to be much of a demand for it anyway.
The prices on these players seem to average between $150-300.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that Bill fix his Sony cassette player,
especially since it seems like it might not be possible to find someone
to service it anyway. He could easily jump on Ebay and grab a
replacement for a few bucks since the masses have mostly been lured
away from cassettes by inferior, sampled music. He would have all the
benefits of tapes that I mentioned earlier, but also not have to go
through the effort of redoing his favorite tapes on his computer as
well as save alot of money.

If I had to replace my cassette player right now, I'd probably just
take the plunge and get a portable CD player, since it would be a
improvement in sound quality. But since it's working fine, and I'm not
often on airplanes, trains, buses, or other situations where I use it,
I'll just keep my cassette player for now. It's great for going on
walks and listening to audio-books.

As for the quality of cassette players, it's true that most of them do
suck. They were made to be disposable, just like our "modern" mp3
players. If you want a portable tape player that will last a long time
and can be serviced, check out the Marantz player/recorders, like the
PMD430:

http://www.uaf.edu/library/media/equ...io/marantz.htm

There's also the slightly smaller PMD 221 and 220 if you want to
maximize portability.