Dangerous topic, so I'd like to be very specific...DCS Rossini vs. Otari (or any) Reel-to-Reel...real comparisons?

[Parsons]

I desperately do NOT want to stroll anywhere near the dreaded Digital vs. Analog debate, but here is my reason for the post...

For the first time in 15 years I finally feel like I have my digital to a level that probably even exceeds what I had hoped was possible in digital--and even very specifically, streaming. And I'm sure that there are better digital front-ends than mine, but I'm sure mine is very good by standards that most of us on this forum would agree to. This forum was a big influence on WHAT I invested in.

I have wanted to get a reel-to-reel for years, and so I recently bought a fairly-refurbished and very clean Otari MX5050BII2. It was not inexpensive but I feel it was a fair value for what I got, and I was happy to pay what I paid for the seller interaction alone. I bought it from an extremely knowledgeable resource and I heard a number of machines including his personal Studer while there at his shop, with the same tapes on each. I am very confident in the quality of the machine I have and it's condition, and from what I heard and what he told me, I'm not sure I could have paid a LOT more and had grossly better playback, although I'm sure it's out there somewhere. But the recording and playback I'm getting I suspect to be a respectable level all things considered. It sounds outstanding, especially with fresh tape and good source.

Here's the rub. I don't love it as much as I love the sound of my digital. In short, I find myself wanting it to sound like my digital, and I had hoped it would be the other way around.

For those who have a top-level digital system AND a reel-to-reel, does this finding clearly disturb you enough that I should double back and triple back on my RTR setup and make sure everything is perfectly set up and adjusted? I have cleaned the crap out of it numerous times and as regularly as instructed. I have tried pre-recorded commercial releases, a master recording (albeit from the 90s), and fresh new-tape recordings I have made. I have listened TO MY ACTUAL DIGITAL running through the Otari, so I know the Otari electronics are not at issue.

I have a DCS Rossini with clock and Antipodes CX/EX server with a ton of externally clocked and isolated network gear, so I know the digital investment is easily 20x what I have the the RTR dollar-wise. Does that perhaps make it not a fair comparison?

Thoughts? I realize this is dangerous to open up, and this is the only forum I feel comfortable posting this on. I just want to know if my findings match the findings of others, or if I need to deep-dive my RTR situation further (or make a similarly large $ investment)?

 

[thedudeabides]

For those who have a top-level digital system AND a reel-to-reel, does this finding clearly disturb you enough that I should double back and triple back on my RTR setup and make sure everything is perfectly set up and adjusted?

I don't know why you are apparently looking for self affirmation. It should not disturb anyone and the only opinion that matters, in the end, is yours.

 

[Parsons]

I am simply asking if folks with real experience think I am missing something. Its not a quest for self-affirmation. This forum has people that have owned and enjoyed a lot of different equipment, and I respect the opinions of many on here. I don't have audio friends with reel-to-reel experience so I'm asking the greater community. If you don't have an opinion, it's fine. I don't have an agenda, I'm looking for feedback.

 

[BlueFox]

I sold my reel-to-reel back in the 70s. While they are great for hours of background music they are terrible for listening to preferred songs, especially in a random order. Digital gives you everything a reel-to-reel can do, and so much more.

 

[thedudeabides]

I am simply asking if folks with real experience think I am missing something. Its not a quest for self-affirmation.

Hi Parsons,

Was not trying to be cynical. I was simply trying to say that no one knows your system, your room or your biases except you. Best.

 

[Parsons]

All good, I don't take this stuff personally, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything personal.

I started this post in hopes of finding folks floating around this forum who are passionate about tape and simultaneously passionate about digital that might be able to coach me a bit.

 

[Parsons]

I sold my reel-to-reel back in the 70s. While they are great for hours of background music they are terrible for listening to preferred songs, especially in a random order. Digital gives you everything a reel-to-reel can do, and so much more.

Yeah, that may be part of my struggle for sure. There's a lot of work involved with tape, which I'm generally ok with, but I am hoping the sound quality will move me too.

 

[dcc]

I am afraid that you cannot compare your Otari tape deck with a fully up to spec master recorder (ATR 102, Studer A80, Studer A820) which IMHO would be the reference against state of the art digital.

I am not referring to a master recorder that has been somewhat refurbished but a tape deck that has been brought to its pristine status or even better.

I have heard many A80's and I can tell that differences were huge between the decks in a fair shape and those that had been fully overhauled by highly qualified techs. This comes at a steep price but the reward is there providing that you also have the software that goes with it. Some tapes suck and some are true gems.

Once you have this combo, it easily competes with state of the art digital. This my experience but YMMV.

 

[Rensselaer]

I desperately do NOT want to stroll anywhere near the dreaded Digital vs. Analog debate, but here is my reason for the post...

For the first time in 15 years I finally feel like I have my digital to a level that probably even exceeds what I had hoped was possible in digital--and even very specifically, streaming. And I'm sure that there are better digital front-ends than mine, but I'm sure mine is very good by standards that most of us on this forum would agree to. This forum was a big influence on WHAT I invested in.

I have wanted to get a reel-to-reel for years, and so I recently bought a fairly-refurbished and very clean Otari MX5050BII2. It was not inexpensive but I feel it was a fair value for what I got, and I was happy to pay what I paid for the seller interaction alone. I bought it from an extremely knowledgeable resource and I heard a number of machines including his personal Studer while there at his shop, with the same tapes on each. I am very confident in the quality of the machine I have and it's condition, and from what I heard and what he told me, I'm not sure I could have paid a LOT more and had grossly better playback, although I'm sure it's out there somewhere. But the recording and playback I'm getting I suspect to be a respectable level all things considered. It sounds outstanding, especially with fresh tape and good source.

Here's the rub. I don't love it as much as I love the sound of my digital. In short, I find myself wanting it to sound like my digital, and I had hoped it would be the other way around.

For those who have a top-level digital system AND a reel-to-reel, does this finding clearly disturb you enough that I should double back and triple back on my RTR setup and make sure everything is perfectly set up and adjusted? I have cleaned the crap out of it numerous times and as regularly as instructed. I have tried pre-recorded commercial releases, a master recording (albeit from the 90s), and fresh new-tape recordings I have made. I have listened TO MY ACTUAL DIGITAL running through the Otari, so I know the Otari electronics are not at issue.

I have a DCS Rossini with clock and Antipodes CX/EX server with a ton of externally clocked and isolated network gear, so I know the digital investment is easily 20x what I have the the RTR dollar-wise. Does that perhaps make it not a fair comparison?

Thoughts? I realize this is dangerous to open up, and this is the only forum I feel comfortable posting this on. I just want to know if my findings match the findings of others, or if I need to deep-dive my RTR situation further (or make a similarly large $ investment)?

Dear Mr. Parsons, at first I thought; how could a master recording from tape, being converted from analogue to digital, then re-converted from digital to analogue, with all that processing, sound better than the original tape?

But then I recalled reading something the physicist Fritjof Capra wrote in his book "The Tao of Physics" that might apply here. A physicist named Young invented a two slit box to shine light through in order to determine if light was a wave or a particle. If a wave; the wave nature of light will cause the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere and augment so that what one would see on the screen behind would be light and dark bands. If a particle; the screen behind would show clumping in greater concentrations behind the open slits but a little scatter behind the frame of the box. What astounded everyone was that if the experimenter thought the results would prove light to be a wave, then that would be the resulting pattern behind the box, whereas if the experimenter believed light to be made of particles (photons), then clumping as described for particles occurred. The belief of the experimenter determines the outcome.

So, if quantum mechanics apply, If you are convinced that your very expensive digital system will sound better than tape played through a very good reel-to-reel analogue system, then that will be your outcome.

 

[jeff1225]

The comparison cannot be made because the source material is so different. I have many reels and they vary greatly because of the source material of the tape.

Maybe if you were to buy the digital download or CD of an Analog Reproductions remaster and the same tape from them as well could you get close.

 

[Parsons]

I may not have been clear in my questions. First, I'm skeptical of everything, but I am also someone who will have an open mind (as best as I can) and try things, even if I'm skeptical. Of course the conversion process SHOULDN'T change the sound in a materially good way.

I was told by a few people that I should try tape, even if I have great Digital, because I might be surprised. The tapes, both some decent (?) masters I bought plus stuff I recorded myself (from my great digital) on brand new, high-end tape, sounded very, very good on my system.

The did NOT sound better than my digital does straight away.

So I'm asking if there are folks out there who have both great digital and killer tape, where they think I'm either missing something (probable), or I don't have a good enough tape system to compete with the digital system I have (likely MORE probable).

 

[Parsons]

The comparison cannot be made because the source material is so different. I have many reels and they vary greatly because of the source material of the tape.

Maybe if you were to buy the digital download or CD of an Analog Reproductions remaster and the same tape from them as well could you get close.

So you are feeling like your tape is more capable than the same in digital? At least with some tape source?

 

[joel_hifi]

Without wanting to engage in any sort of digital vs analog debate (I'm a fan of both, for different reasons), I feel SQ of Streamers & DACs has become quite outstanding in the past few years. So good that one has to probably spend x times more on a decent analog rig (thinking more TT/arm/cartridge) vs digital one in order to reach similar SQ level...

So I guess you should not be disappointed, you have a state of the art digital rig, costing 20x what you paid for the Otari, so maybe not so fair to expect a similar performance out of both?

Maybe also try to give Studer a listen, A80/A820 as listed by dcc #8, even the lesser A807 which can still be found for a reasonable price (agree that properly serviced/calibrated is a must).

 

[nirodha]

But maybe digital is all you need? Unless you really love “the quest“

 

[astrotoy]

An Otari MX-5050 BII is a fine starter machine for people getting into Reel to Reel (!5ips 2 track). It is very sturdy and can give you a good sense of the quality of reel to reel tape. I got one for my daughter and son-in-law and bought another for my wife to play in our second system. However, a pro machine with a top quality external tape preamp gives a much better result, at a price that approaches a high end DAC. I have two Ampex ATR-102's which I play through both Merrill and Doshi tape preamps. They are a big step up from my Otari in sound quality. I don't have a Rossini to compare, but do have a Lampizator Pacific which is very fine. With top digital material it is also very fine sounding.

There is a big difference in cost of digital albums (hirez downloads for example) and high quality tapes. A good collection of the latter can easily exceed the cost of the highest end tape or DAC. The rabbit hole can be very deep. I know.

Larry

 

[Parsons]

Thanks to all who have responded--this confirms what I suspected and what others had implied too. I really appreciate it. I don't have any friends with significant tape experience so it's been all forum reading.

And for clarity, I'm NOT disappointed in the Otari, and I'm glad I bought one to try. It's been a fun experience and it was on my "list" for many years.

 

[Rensselaer]

Then again, Mr. Parsons, maybe you just prefer the sound of digital?

When I hear LPs that were recorded from a digital source I know it, and won't play them again. I don't dismiss digital completely however, I stream Hi-deff digital music in our dining room for background music while we have our meals. It is easy to pick a radio station that plays the type of music that complements what we are having to eat.

However, when I want to relax to music, enjoy the experience like fine art in a museum (or a great old movie), I listen to my analogue system.I prefer analogue because it instills in me more emotion, more feeling. As an analogy, I prefer fine-art black and white photos and movies that have been filmed-well, like "My Darling Clementine", to a hyper-realistic video-recorded soap opera.

The Cinematographer of "My Darling Clementine was a true artist with absolute mastery over his camera. This is obvious when you see how he uses natural light photography to show the deep blacks, the textures in the clothing, the smooth and fissured wood rails and fence posts. The beauty of the film exists regardless of the story it portrays. The video, I concede, is much clearer, much more detail, however it lacks soul (and the videographer lacks talent). There is no art in them. They have to keep your attention, not by the beauty of the medium, but by an intense storyline or action sequence, continuously.

It sounds to me as if Parsons has one hell of a digital playback system, and I am happy for him in his finding so much pleasure from it. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Kcin]

This question is for @astrotoy or anyone else with Otari experience. I have a MX5050BII. Heads re-lapped by French, power supplies and such re furbished by me as well as direct out to a de Havilland. So, does the solidity and tape path of the Studer A80, A820 etc. with internal electronics still trump the Otari with the de Havilland every time? I know the answer I'm sure----- but I'd love to hear about the qualitative differences for those with any experience. I am working on a scratch build pre pro that I think is at another level but its still in development.

Overall, I get the tape thing, however, the rabbit hole is far too deep, the software is just not that available and records are just too plentiful I have a significant investment in vinyl . In today's world digital just makes too much sense and is can be far less expensive than a top vinyl rig for outstanding performance and way less fuss than vinyl and certainly tape. One thing is for certain all these machines can be considered an electro mechanical mess after all these years regardless of physical condition. They all need " qualified" professional help at this stage in their lives.

 

[Parsons]

I totally get your points. As a younger me I shot a lot of 6x6 medium format and a bit of 4x5 and even 8x10 black and white film, and printed in my own darkroom for a decade or so. I was a fairly early adopter of digital photography for convenience, but loved the process of the film and the older classic cameras, and the results spoke for themselves, and still do today. Because I love to shoot and I still like to see fine art prints on my walls, I've watched the progression or digital black and white and with post-processing, and now medium format digital, in the 2 decades or so digital photography can produce some truly stunning visual results, especially on a large scale print. As my time became less available (kids, work commitments) I packed up the darkroom and packed away the film cameras and have made my way through about 6 gens of digital cameras.

Your analogy with audio is a good one (we're not the first to discuss it obviously!).

I love the convenience of digital audio, I won't lie. To wake up on Fridays and have a bunch of new albums available on Qobuz and Tidal is incredible, and honestly, with lockdown producing a crazy amount of home-recorded live content, being able to stream from even lower quality YouTube and have it sound incredible, it's almost addictive.

I will always love analog audio. I listened to two albums on vinyl yesterday in their entirety. But for me, personally, the process of analog and the availability and cost of media steers more and more and more of my listening time toward streaming from online sources.

The process of analog is part of the audio experience with it, and that adds to it for some, and detracts from it for others. And it's part of the contribution to the emotion of it too.

 

[jeff1225]

So you are feeling like your tape is more capable than the same in digital? At least with some tape source?

I don't have digital but I've made the comparison at a friends house. It's all about the source material for the tape and the mix.