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

[sarumbear]

This, however, is neither the best deck ever, nor does it have a compander. The top machines, with companders, could approach CD quality.
That said, analog tape is a relatively short-lived and expensive medium.
Here's a nice "summary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_audio_tape_recording

CD quality means around 100dB SINAD. The best that was achieved with Dolby SR was around 70dB.

The analogue tape was widely used since early 50s till late 80s. So far digital still haven’t over-lived it. I wouldn’t call it a “short-lived” medium.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I seem to remember the surprise in the audio press when it was discovered that the Nixon White House recorder used for the infamous Watergate tapes was a lowly consumer Sony and not at least a Revox (or even better an Ampex, as that was an American brand).

I thought those machines were made by UHER.

 

[respice finem]

CD quality means around 100dB SINAD. The best that was achieved with Dolby SR was around 70dB.

The analogue tape was widely used since early 50s till late 80s. So far digital still haven’t over-lived it. I wouldn’t call it a “short-lived” medium.

I said approach, not equal or surpass. At least S/N with dbx-1 was around 100 dB AFAIR.
Short-lived in the sense of deteriorating with time, even with "counter-measures".

 

[sarumbear]

I said approach, not equal or surpass. At least S/N with dbx-1 was around 100 dB AFAIR.
Short-lived in the sense of deteriorating with time, even with "counter-measures".

30dB shortfall is not exactly approaching is it? And no, dBX never achieved 100dB S/N ratio, not even close. As good as Dolby’s marketing I’m sure studios would have switched to dBX. They didn’t.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

30dB shortfall is not exactly approaching is it? And no, dBX never achieved 100dB S/N ratio, not even close. As good as Dolby’s marketing I’m sure studios would have switched to dBX. They didn’t.

DBX altered the record/playback frequency response more than Dolby due to the nature of their companders.

 

[amirm]

@amirm , How about the multi-tone test? That would be very interesting (to me).

There is no such tone on the test tape. When I make my own recording I can test more stuff.

 

[respice finem]

30dB shortfall is not exactly approaching is it? And no, dBX never achieved 100dB S/N ratio, not even close. As good as Dolby’s marketing I’m sure studios would have switched to dBX. They didn’t.

Indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbx_(noise_reduction)
Probably the 100 dB was a "marketing statement" I've remembered.

 

[sarumbear]

DBX altered the record/playback frequency response more than Dolby due to the nature of their companders.

dBX had a single band compander compared to Dolby’s four. Because of that you could hear it operating. This meant professionals didn’t like it. It used pre-emphasis which meant it sounded harsh when played back without a decoder. This meant consumers didn’t like it either. It was never a success and stayed as a novelty.

 

[dfuller]

Be interesting to see what a pro-level machine would do. Ampex quoted about 20-30dB better THD+N than this on the ATR102, as I recall...

 

[respice finem]

Be interesting to see what a pro-level machine would do. Ampex quoted about 20-30dB better THD+N than this on the ATR102, as I recall...

These perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head

 

[sarumbear]

These perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head

DASH is a digital recorder!

 

[dfuller]

These perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head

Not really the same tech, but those DASH machines are cool nonetheless!

 

[respice finem]

DASH is a digital recorder!

I sure can read. Understanding humour is not your strength is it?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Be interesting to see what a pro-level machine would do. Ampex quoted about 20-30dB better THD+N than this on the ATR102, as I recall...

Not as good as you would imagine. The performance of analog tape is predominantly limited by the abilities of the tape itself. The later tape formulations such as GP9 operated at +9 dB above normal operating level. Most of the signal to noise ratio improvements came from that ability. The ATR series Ampex machines had a higher bias frequency than the 100kHz of the earlier machines and this reduced distortion to a degree.

 

[sarumbear]

I sure can read. Understanding humour is not your strength is it?

I’m not a psychic. I read the words and look at signs. None was there for me see the humour.

 

[dfuller]

Not as good as you would imagine. The performance of analog tape is predominantly limited by the abilities of the tape itself. The later tape formulations such as GP9 operated at +9 dB above normal operating level. Most of the signal to noise ratio improvements came from that ability. The ATR series Ampex machines had a higher bias frequency than the 100kHz of the earlier machines and this reduced distortion to a degree.

I doubt it would be anything close to even mediocre digital without a doubt.

 

[respice finem]

I’m not a psychic. I read the words and look at signs. None was there for me see the humour.

Not even this one?:

 

[sarumbear]

Be interesting to see what a pro-level machine would do. Ampex quoted about 20-30dB better THD+N than this on the ATR102, as I recall...

Ampex spec‘ed their machines at 68dB S/N ratio with 78dB dynamic range. Maybe someone can calculate the SINAD?

https://www.simpatyrecords.com/PDF/24291_98_atr_40907_1_4_metal.pdf

 

[sarumbear]

Not even this one?:

I would if it was on your post.

 

[respice finem]

I would if it was on your post.