• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Otari MX-5050 Review (Reel to Reel Tape Deck)

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
No doubt. I had Paniatoff's adaptation of Telefunken's works and especially, the video recorder in mind. The 350 series machines are just a bit before my time, and to be honest, they were being replaced everywhere and were available cheap. I didn't pay much attention to them, they were more a curiosity to me. The ATR100 had been released by the time I was at Otari. I don't know what they were like to own but I thought they were a pretty slick transport.

The 350s were before my time too and were gone by the time I gave any thought to audio. My interest in them now is because the 354 I have became available for a good price. A 350 in almost any condition goes for an arm and a leg on eBay now. It was the AG440-B which was current when I got into the tape machines, and it was the AG440B-8 that I originally looked at when I was opening my studio. It cost way too much though and the MX7300 came out just in time. I jumped on it.
 

Siwel

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
128
Likes
200
Location
Nashville
You were the market! I enjoyed my time with them as a learning experience and my time here for the same reason.
 

Piatnik

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
89
Location
Montréal
824F804C-BD9A-4631-9E4B-B327D0DFF788.jpeg


My father gave me his Revox that was in a closet for decades. A specialized workshop completely recapped it and calibrated everything. This works incredibly well and sounds very good. But of course, it’s mainly for the look that I keep it. I ordered some reels to test and enjoy the different mastering. I would say that Waltz from Debby from the Tape Project sounds better than all versions I heard on Tidal. And it his really close to the vinyl mastering. I recorded some album on tape and it’s hard to believe how close the recording is to the source.
 
Last edited:

Piatnik

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
89
Location
Montréal
When I did, my favorite second generation master tape from rock music of 1970s is superb.
Do you have an idea how to get some rock tape like yours? I only have jazz and would love hearing some rock!
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Do you have an idea how to get some rock tape like yours? I only have jazz and would love hearing some rock!
You can make tape copies from CDs or digital files. These are closer to the original studio master than tapes sold through online dealers which have to use a tape copy to make consumer copies of what is frequently the same master digital file. That's two tape generations. If you make a tape copy of the original digital file yourself, that's a first generation copy.
 

Piatnik

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
89
Location
Montréal
You can make tape copies from CDs or digital files. These are closer to the original studio master than tapes sold through online dealers which have to use a tape copy to make consumer copies of what is frequently the same master digital file. That's two tape generations. If you make a tape copy of the original digital file yourself, that's a first generation copy.
I thought that a copy of a master tape would give better dynamics. I don't see the interest in tape copying CDs or digital files. I would fear that this source would have been mastered to fit the media or be compressed to participate in the loudness war? Maybe I am completely wrong...
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
I thought that a copy of a master tape would give better dynamics. I don't see the interest in tape copying CDs or digital files. I would fear that this source would have been mastered to fit the media or be compressed to participate in the loudness war? Maybe I am completely wrong...
It depends on the music and how it was mastered. Commercially released 'master tape' copies always have to be 2nd generation by the time you get them because no record company in their right mind is going to let a precious original master tape be played dozens of times just to make commercial copies - they'll let it be played once or twice to allow the duplicating company to make running masters, or they will supply a digital master. If the original master they got their first copy from was crap, then your copy will be crap and if it was great, then your copy will be (2nd generation) great.

Truthfully, reel to reel has little real utility these days other than being a very, very nice plaything. Tape is never going to sound as good as, or 'better' than a digital master. Today, I use my reel to reel machines to make what is essentially very nice sounding 'mix tapes' like was commonly done with cassettes back in the day.

Its unfortunate that excessive use of dynamics-limiting brick wall compression is so commonly done in mastering. Sometimes you can get lucky when the mastering house makes a super compressed copy for general distribution and a less compressed version for vinyl release and potentially tape release, but I wouldn't count on it.

Digital is better sounding, but analog tape and vinyl are better looking and more interesting. ;)
 

Moulin

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
12
Likes
4
I have the opportunity to buy an Otari 5050. I’ve noticed that it only has Ballanced o/p’s. Of course my stereo is all phono i/p’s. What’s the scoop, do I just solder up a cable using one of the hot pins on the XLR’s or do I need balancing transformers etc etc. (Hope not! It would get too complex I think)
Cheers
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
I have the opportunity to buy an Otari 5050. I’ve noticed that it only has Ballanced o/p’s. Of course my stereo is all phono i/p’s. What’s the scoop, do I just solder up a cable using one of the hot pins on the XLR’s or do I need balancing transformers etc etc. (Hope not! It would get too complex I think)
Cheers
Unbalanced cables wired to XLR plugs is fine. Inputs are wired to pin 2, with pins 1&3 connected together and to the cable screen.

For Outputs, it does depend on how the outputs are wired, but for 'normal' electronically balanced outputs, wire between pin 2 and screen to pin 1 only, leaving pin 3 unconnected.

S
 

Moulin

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
12
Likes
4
Unbalanced cables wired to XLR plugs is fine. Inputs are wired to pin 2, with pins 1&3 connected together and to the cable screen.

For Outputs, it does depend on how the outputs are wired, but for 'normal' electronically balanced outputs, wire between pin 2 and screen to pin 1 only, leaving pin 3 unconnected.

S
Thanks very much for this. It was a little bit obscure for me before. I ended up buying both the ones he had, one has some kind of echo and it was very cheap. Spares or repairs :)
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
I was pleased to read your measurements on the Otari R2R deck, some months ago.
I date back to the days when this Otari would have been manna from heaven (after years of dealing with Ampex 350 series studio recorders, but before digital tape).

Your measurements relate strongly to what I heard back then. Tape harmonic distortion was pretty bad, especially high and odd harmonics. We all knew it, but nobody said it in public because we all suffered from it. The public didn't need to know. And in most recording situations, you had to keep a close eye on levels -- no sleeping on the job, ever. With an effective s/n of <50dB, signals were forever either banging the meters or falling below the noise level. Listen carefully on the resulting vinyl and you can hear the tape hiss appear just before the downbeat. One of the duties of the mastering engineer (to vinyl) was to open the tape channel -just- before the music started. Isn't analog audio wonderful?

Back in the Ampex days, bias was an issue. Because Ampex used rather wide gap heads, the bias frequency had to be fairly low -- and it could heterodyne against some of the very high-frequency signals. The results were odd heterodyne (sum and difference) frequencies in the audible range that appeared as spurious distortions. As tape techniques improved into the 1970s, these were reduced by higher bias frequencies and better low pass signal filters.

We had to make bias setup adjustments before each use of a tape recording deck at a session. We had an oscilloscope and signal generator mounted in the rack just for this. We bought stock tape in batches, so there would be some consistency from reel to reel.

In the days of tape masters to vinyl master cutting, the mastering engineer had to use quite a few analog tricks to get the most 'listenable' result. But also, the character of vinyl cutters in some ways masked the undesirable character of tape. Slew rates of cutters were relatively slow, which would tend to filter out high harmonic distortion and sharp transients. Sometimes I think this is a key reason that some people find they like vinyl better -- disturbances to their beloved hearing have not been trespassed upon.

But, I digress.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
View attachment 162460

My father gave me his Revox that was in a closet for decades. A specialized workshop completely recapped it and calibrated everything. This works incredibly well and sounds very good. But of course, it’s mainly for the look that I keep it. I ordered some reels to test and enjoy the different mastering. I would say that Waltz from Debby from the Tape Project sounds better than all versions I heard on Tidal. And it his really close to the vinyl mastering. I recorded some album on tape and it’s hard to believe how close the recording is to the source.

I just hooked up my Revox PR-99 Mk II to my new amp and gave it my first reel to reel spin using Tape Project's "Nojima Plays Liszt".

As an aside:

My deck is NAB, like most sold in USA, and the Tape Project tapes are EQ'ed to CCIR.

But you can implement a CCIR->NAB EQ in DSP using the Parks Audio Puffin!
 

Siwel

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
128
Likes
200
Location
Nashville
I have the opportunity to buy an Otari 5050. I’ve noticed that it only has Ballanced o/p’s. Of course my stereo is all phono i/p’s. What’s the scoop, do I just solder up a cable using one of the hot pins on the XLR’s or do I need balancing transformers etc etc. (Hope not! It would get too complex I think)
Cheers
It's likely that the inputs of the machine in question are unbalanced as (you may already be aware) this is the standard configuration.

On most 5050s, balancing transformers (which were optional but can be retrofitted after purchase) are required to provide balanced inputs. Any 5050 can be made to be fully balanced by the addition of optional transformers on the inputs or conversely, can operate in unbalanced configuration without them. Outputs are typically balanced with switchable levels, -10 or +4.
 
Last edited:

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
In the days of tape masters to vinyl master cutting, the mastering engineer had to use quite a few analog tricks to get the most 'listenable' result. But also, the character of vinyl cutters in some ways masked the undesirable character of tape. Slew rates of cutters were relatively slow, which would tend to filter out high harmonic distortion and sharp transients. Sometimes I think this is a key reason that some people find they like vinyl better -- disturbances to their beloved hearing have not been trespassed upon.
Before there were CDs, consumer digital recordings were all records. The only folks having access to digital tapes were people in the mixing booth. From a consumer standpoint, one criticism of those early 'digital' records was their 'unusual' HF balance, often described as sounding harsh, overly aggressive and possessing an unnatural high-end. But remember, they were LPs, so obviously the cutterhead was picking up the HF material captured on the original digital tape; either that, or, in the booth, the balance was adjusted in order to accentuate the highs. I don't think we can necessarily claim that highs (including all the 'bad' harmonics) were somehow 'filtered out' by the cutterhead carving the lacquer.

Most audiophiles, the ones complaining about it, probably didn't have much HF hearing to begin with, since they were older. So my guess is that it was not harmonic distortion and sharp transients that were the source of the 'problem', but simply the overall FR balance of the recording, which they found unpleasant.

My guess is also that record companies were guilty of accentuating the highs in an effort to 'push' the new technology--by showing everyone that they were giving consumers what they had always been missing. Not unlike when stereo LPs first made the scene. Some of the most weird and outrageous mixes were released, simply in order to 'highlight' the stereo effect.

As far as 'sharp transients' go? Toward the end of commercial analog (that is, after CDs took off and no one wanted to buy records), boutique outfits were releasing Direct to Disc LPs on special, imported low-noise vinyl. Some of these had remarkable fidelity, with extremely clear and detailed transient attacks, and lovely highs. Half speed mastering..., 45 RPM,... and all that. So we can't necessarily blame the cutterhead for filtering out highs and transients.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the 'undesirable character' of tape'? Certainly analog tape was/is not as 'transparent' as digital. Few would argue that, today. But analog tape was never considered undesirable per se. It got to the point that it was too expensive to use, and too cumbersome, and too time consuming; an overall major hassle to keep the machines going, etc.--so it was undesirable from that standpoint, certainly. Also, for archival purposes, analog tape is not very good. I would more argue that it is 'second best' to digits, but I would not say it is undesirable, from a strictly sonic standpoint. A lot of great recordings were made on analog tape. Much variation was/is machine and tape dependent. Obviously none of that matters with digits.

Two anecdotes:

1) Peter Aczel owned one of Mark Levinson's modified Studer A80 decks. Master tapes (and early generation tapes) played on the Studer were claimed to be better than records. I remember him discussing Peter McGrath's tapes, made and auditioned on McGrath's Stellavox. No one complained about undesirable characteristics.

2) Max Wilcox once gave Peter a DAT copy of one of his upcoming DGG releases. Peter was highly taken with the recording's overall sound quality. After the CD came out, he was sure that the engineers at Deutsche Grammophon had mucked up the recording, because he didn't remember it as sounding the way it did. Max told Peter to dig out the DAT, and conduct a level matched A/B, which he did. He then could not tell any difference between the two.

Whatever and however is was, back then, after a while folks became used to digital recording, preferring it to analog. Surely the overall product became better. I'd like to think that upstream, producers and engineers simply figured out how to adapt to their new machines, without exaggerating the sonic product in ways not helpful. Digital recording also has been a godsend to the amateur recordist. So for that, we are grateful.

Merry Christmas to all.
 

iraweiss

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
110
Likes
95
View attachment 162460

My father gave me his Revox that was in a closet for decades. A specialized workshop completely recapped it and calibrated everything. This works incredibly well and sounds very good. But of course, it’s mainly for the look that I keep it. I ordered some reels to test and enjoy the different mastering. I would say that Waltz from Debby from the Tape Project sounds better than all versions I heard on Tidal. And it his really close to the vinyl mastering. I recorded some album on tape and it’s hard to believe how close the recording is to the source.
My voice teacher had a first generation A77 and it made immaculate copies of LP and FM sources. I used it to record my senior voice recital. The Revox made an excellent recording that I have yet to listen to. Half a century later.

FWIW the stereo magazines of the time did extensive measurements of open reel recorders that included distortion as well as frequency response, signal to noise ratio, and mechanical like wow and flutter and speed accuracy. You can read them at worldradiohistory.com/ Lots of reviews of Ampex, Crown, Dokorder, Otari, Pioneer, Revox, Sony, Tandberg, Teac, etc.
 

iraweiss

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
110
Likes
95
It's likely that the inputs of the machine in question are unbalanced as (you may already be aware) this is the standard configuration.

On most 5050s, balancing transformers (which were optional but can be retrofitted after purchase) are required to provide balanced inputs. Any 5050 can be made to be fully balanced by the addition of optional transformers on the inputs or conversely, can operate in unbalanced configuration without them. Outputs are typically balanced with switchable levels, -10 or +4.
You can get RCA to XLR cables from Monoprice. I'm using them to connect a tape deck to the XLR input of my Yamaha receiver. They work just fine.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
FWIW the stereo magazines of the time did extensive measurements of open reel recorders that included distortion as well as frequency response, signal to noise ratio, and mechanical like wow and flutter and speed accuracy. You can read them at worldradiohistory.com/ Lots of reviews of Ampex, Crown, Dokorder, Otari, Pioneer, Revox, Sony, Tandberg, Teac, etc.
The problem with open reel, from both a consumer and pro standpoint, is that it's expensive, requires an inordinate amount of time, energy, and knowledge to work with, you can't get the formulations you used to be able to get (I'm not sure about that exactly, but I would presume it to be the case), and it is generally inflexible, and not suited to field work. On an absolute technical level, analog tape machines will never match digits.

The upside and benefit of open reel, at least from a consumer standpoint, is that there is really nothing that looks cooler in you hi-fi rack than an open reel deck. Maybe a '59 Les Paul hanging on your wall might look cooler.
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
The problem with open reel, from both a consumer and pro standpoint, is that it's expensive, requires an inordinate amount of time, energy, and knowledge to work with, you can't get the formulations you used to be able to get (I'm not sure about that exactly, but I would presume it to be the case), and it is generally inflexible, and not suited to field work. On an absolute technical level, analog tape machines will never match digits.

The upside and benefit of open reel, at least from a consumer standpoint, is that there is really nothing that looks cooler in you hi-fi rack than an open reel deck. Maybe a '59 Les Paul hanging on your wall might look cooler.
As far as availability of the old tape formulations, that is not true. All of them are still available and the quality is as good as or better than the original. Also, sticky shed syndrome no longer exists. You are correct though about expense - they cost a lot.

ATR Tape - Same as old Ampex 456
Recording The Masters - Same as the older European formulations.
Capture Recording Tape - A good tape aimed at consumers.

And yes, nothing looks as cool as reel to reel tape machines. :cool:

PXL_20210314_225913124.jpg
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
The problem with open reel, from both a consumer and pro standpoint, is that it's expensive, requires an inordinate amount of time, energy, and knowledge to work with, you can't get the formulations you used to be able to get (I'm not sure about that exactly, but I would presume it to be the case), and it is generally inflexible, and not suited to field work. On an absolute technical level, analog tape machines will never match digits.

The upside and benefit of open reel, at least from a consumer standpoint, is that there is really nothing that looks cooler in you hi-fi rack than an open reel deck. Maybe a '59 Les Paul hanging on your wall might look cooler.

This is not correct.

Modern Recording the Masters tapes are descendent of the AGFA and BASF line of formulations, and they have modern versions that are marketed as replacements / equivalents for old formulas.

AGFA 468 = RTM SM 468 (+3)

BASF 900 & 911 = STM SM 900 (+9), SM 911 (+6)


These formulas all use standard calibration levels (e.g. 320 nWbm) compatible with standard calibration tapes that are still available.
 
Last edited:

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
As far as availability of the old tape formulations, that is not true. All of them are still available and the quality is as good as or better than the original. Also, sticky shed syndrome no longer exists. You are correct though about expense - they cost a lot.

Yep, I find both the RTM and ATR Magnetics tapes to be excellent.

No need to buy NOS tapes on eBay -- you get a worse product.

I have a slight preference for ATR Magnetics, but both brands are excellent.

Yeah, they're pricey. but nobody gets into open reel recording to save money.
 
Top Bottom