• 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)

I have not listened to it in months. When I did, my favorite second generation master tape from rock music of 1970s is superb. It easily outperforms the digital ones which have been remastered to death. It is eye and ear popping how much nicer they sound than digital. I often play that tape when people come over first and their jaw drops on the floor in how good it sounds. Tape hiss is there during gaps between tracks and the highs sound a bit distorted to me but neither takes away from enjoyment of that tape. It makes me grin thinking about it as I type this!
Today I was digging through my collection of tapes and I found two very different tapes. I played them back and experienced extremely different results.

I found a 1:1 dupe that a buddy snuck out of a studio of a commercial recoding from the early 80s. The original studio decks were MCIs and the studio was 100% analog. Today when I played this analog tape back and compared it to the early 80's CD that I bought back then... WOW. The CD has slightly less hiss, but it is simply crushed. The analog tape just pops and the drums, woodwinds and other instruments were in my room! Truly exciting.

The second tape was of a commercial vinyl album that I copied using my Pioneer RT1020L at 7 1/2ips 1/4 track to preserve the record and for convenience. Listening to this was just awful! The recoding was rolled off on top and bottom, the noise floor was poor and the sound was lifeless and in a word just plain bad.
 
Today I was digging through my collection of tapes and I found two very different tapes. I played them back and experienced extremely different results.

I found a 1:1 dupe that a buddy snuck out of a studio of a commercial recoding from the early 80s. The original studio decks were MCIs and the studio was 100% analog. Today when I played this analog tape back and compared it to the early 80's CD that I bought back then... WOW. The CD has slightly less hiss, but it is simply crushed. The analog tape just pops and the drums, woodwinds and other instruments were in my room! Truly exciting.

The second tape was of a commercial vinyl album that I copied using my Pioneer RT1020L at 7 1/2ips 1/4 track to preserve the record and for convenience. Listening to this was just awful! The recoding was rolled off on top and bottom, the noise floor was poor and the sound was lifeless and in a word just plain bad.
Did you play them back on the same deck, and what is it? Is it possible that the alignment is off for the Pioneer tape and correct for the other?
 
Today I was digging through my collection of tapes and I found two very different tapes. I played them back and experienced extremely different results.
Not uncommon. It's what to expect with with various open reel formulations and differing decks. Throw in possible effects from years of storage, and then flip a coin.

I've been through most formats and am pretty liberal and accepting. Open reel, cassette, 4 channel, VHS hi-fi, CD, FM (with and without Dolby), various dbx processing schemes, and of course records. Missed out on Mini-Disc and DAT. And I never bought a Pono (couldn't stand Neil's nannyish whining).

But of all the formats, the only one I will never miss is open reel. Teac, Akai, Pioneer, ReVox--various models within the group--X10 and X1000, 646, 701 and 909, A77 and B77.

Ampex, TDK, Maxell, Quantegy, BASF, Scotch, down to a few boxes of lowly Radio Shack Supertape, and the ad in the back pages of Audio for the cheap 'used once' white box bulk packaged tape.

The happiest moment in my hi-fi life was sometime in the mid '90s. I think that's when it was. Packing it all up, and waiting for the guy who answered the newspaper ad to show up with some cash, and haul it away. I still smile when I think of it. One of you here might have been that guy. Hope you got your money's worth. I sold it cheap, for sure.

In the living room an old deck looks cool. So it's got that going for it. If I had one, I'd probably just connect it to the preamp's tape output, with no output from the deck, simply so the meters moved around with the music, and then set my source to streaming CD digits. Turn it on, just to watch the reels go around and around. Something other than a black box.

Then, whenever anyone came over, I'd say, "Yep, it's hard to beat that old analog tape sound!"
 
Final (I guess) thoughts. When you think of Otari, or PR99, Stellavox and such, you are really moving away from the living room into the higher-end --> semi to studio pro. It's a completely different game than most of us have played--i.e., those who have owned (or still own) consumer decks. Then, it was just buy some tape, set some levels and hope for the best. Did anyone ever bias or other wise adjust their consumer deck?

A few years later, the real fun began. When it needed servicing (and they all need servicing), you found out that the cost of repair (to include new heads) was almost as much as a new machine. Or what you had was too long out of production, and you couldn't get the part you needed.

Now you're older, the nostalgia bug hits, and you find a machine that works. Take it home and dig through the basement or attic in order to find that taped up box; the one you've stored all your hi-fi memories in. Getting ready to relive the experience, you discover that your tapes squeak and squeal, or have totally disintegrated into a ball of oxide.

To get an idea of what it took/takes to keep a top tier open reel going, at the pro level, I'll post the following. Author Bill Vermillion (RIP) was a big influence in the Central Florida music and radio scene, back when AM was king. He then moved on to studio work. Definitely one of the 'good guys'.

It's a bit longish, but you can skim and come away with a pretty decent idea of what it was like, and what is required for studio quality open reel sound. This is just the prep work. Nothing about repair or refurbishment: :)

_________________________________________
This is an article on tape alignment that comes from doing this more times than I would care to admit, on 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 32 track machines!

Of course be sure to clean the tape path before starting.

De-magnetization (every time) is optional in my opinion. There are some that insist it be done every time, but in our studio we felt that it was easier to introduce problems with it. We also checked the machines with a magnetometer, but typically we thoroughly demag'ed the machines only about once every 1 to 2 months.

Some machines were re-aligned several times in one day. This was because we would be working with source tapes recorded on different media, in different studios at different operating levels.

I had one machine that I did a complete re-alignment on three times in the course of one day. Two different 24 track tapes, one Dolby, and a 16 track setup. After doing this that often we got to be able to set up a 24-track machine in 30-40 minutes, which is about the length of time it took me to do my first alignments on two track machines.

Be sure to use a good monaural alignment tape. (They should all be that way.) There are some multi-track tapes that are recorded monaurally and then have guard bands erased after recording. This will make a difference on low speed playback EQ - but I use a method that eliminates any problem with low-frequency fringing effects.)

The steps used to align are as follows and are to be done is this order:

1. Physical head alignment (azimuth alignment)
2. Playback level
3. High frequency playback response
4. Bias adjustment
5. Record level
6. Record high frequency response
7. Low frequency playback


Standard procedure for record head alignment was to align play head, and then adjust record head while during recording watching the playback head. Most multi-track machines and a good many two-track machines now have the ability to put the record-head into the playback circuit (often called Sel-Sync*). This is a much more accurate and preferred way to do physical head alignment.

The first tones on the alignment tape are HF alignment tones. If you have a scope you can adjust by watching the phase. If not available you watch for maximum output at this frequency. I had the luxury of having phase meters at the studio, this makes it all so much easier.

Playback level is then adjusted. Alignment tapes are manufactured to different recording levels. Assuming you have a tape for the level you wish to record, adjust the playback levels to a 0 reading on your meter. To be precise however you should look at the tables for fringe effect that should be included in the manual with the alignment tape.

Fringe effect is a higher output caused by playing tapes that have a wider record track than the width of the playback head. At our studio we compensated for this as we had standard two-track machines, and we had "stereo" machines. The latter use the European spacing for 1/4" two channel tapes of .75mm. The standard two-track spacing is 2mm. If compensation was not made the tapes will vary in playback when played on a different two-channel format machine. Most studios ignore this, however at the higher speeds it is important. At 30 ips the fringe effect will give a 1db too high a reading at 1000Hz! This will throw your alignment off by 1db at the high end of the spectrum.

Once playback level is adjusted it is important to MAKE SURE that this is not touched during the remainder of the alignment procedure.

At this point you can then make your HF playback adjustments to give you flat(est) response from your alignment tape. These playback calibrations are critical as all the rest of the alignment depends on them.

Now that playback is done the next step is bias, which will affect level and record response.

For bias I ALWAYS adjust for minimum modulation noise as that to my ear is the worst part of mag tape.

To do this pick a nice low frequency tone (I always use about 7Hz) and listen to the noise components when playing back. Cut the bottom end of your playback amps if you must because you only want to hear the noise components.

As you start below the bias point you will heard hf noise pulsed at the 7Hz modulation frequency. As you increase the bias the noise will decrease to a point and then start increase with a change in the "tone" of the noise. Go back to the minimum point. If you do this, you will find that you can set the bias more accurately by ear than you can doing the typical 1-3 dB overbias at 1kHz or 10kHz (depending on your choices).

The only tape I have found that this cannot be done on is the Agfa 468. Minimum modulation noise will overbias the tape 6 to 9 db on this tape. I had a machine shut down as I overloaded the bias amps when trying this.

(*NOTE - Since this article was written, new tapes such as the Ampex 499 have become available. I do not know if this procedure will work properly with them. WJV)

Many recommend 1db overbias at 1kHz. I find that you should use 10kHz for anything less than 15 ips, and for 30 ips use 20kHz. Typically you overbias 3db at these frequencies, but if you have the chart for your particular brand of tape you can find the exact point. However, except for 468 I always use minimum modulation noise. Agfa recommends a 14Khz audio signal for 468, and I don't remember the exact amount of overbias. They will furnish to you if needed.

After the bias is set, the next step is record level. All you do at this point is set the output to be 0 vu by matching the output level to the level you had previously set on playback of the alignment tape.

At this point you can calibrate the record meters if your machine has record calibration controls. Since the PB level has been matched you go to the record metering side (up to this point you have been watching playback metering).

You then adjust the record CALIBRATION (not level) so that the input levels read 0.

Now that you have the record level set you can adjust the HF record response. The standard that many use is to set 10kHz to be at the same playback level of the 1000Hz tone. I personally disagree with this. I try to make the 20kHz level 0 IF the 10Khz region does NOT increase too drastically at this point. In other words, if I can get 20hKz to zero and keep 10Khz no higher than 1.5 to 2db I'll go that way. I would much rather have SMOOTH wide response, than FLAT response that falls off at the high end.

Depending on the ability of your machine, you MAY have to make the high frequency record alignment adjustments at a lower level. Because of the high frequency pre-emphasis some machine's record amps may not take too kindly at 0db at 20Khz before being overdriven. On the other hand, some pro machines, Studer in my experience, have absolutely NO problems at recording at 6db over standard level at 20kHz and above when running at 30ips. The slower the tape speed the more critical this becomes.

Since we have now calibrated the record level against the play level, if your machine has problems in this area, we can now change the levels. Turn the record level down about 10db. Turn the playback up so that your output at 1kHz is zero, and then proceed to do the HF record EQ as this level. If your machine requires this you should also make sure that you are careful not to "go into the red" when recording on this machine.

One point I disagree with in most the procedures I have seen, is that many say to touch up the alignment (mechanically) after this you have completed these steps.

I have seen that you can change the physical alignment of the playback head or record head at this point and further peak the output (or bring the phase close if monitoring phase).

However, since you have aligned with a stock tape originally I disagree with this. (And this is my own method that we used at the studio - and it seems to work. However I have not had the time or opportunity to test this theory of mine so I may be way off base).

After all this check the phase response at 20kHz, and carefully adjust the bias on one of the record channels to bring the phase to as close to 0 deviation as possible. You may have to touch up rec eq just a bit because of the bias change, and you may have to do this once or twice.

I attribute this phenomenon (In my head at least) to the "bias bubble". The signal is recorded on the trailing edge of the record gap, and the amount of bias will affect just exactly where the trailing edge "seems" to be. This varies with the frequency being recorded. Changing the bias while watching the HF phase will show that this does affect the phase response.

EQ doesn't enter into it. Changing bias will affect the HF record response however, but this should only be level sensitive. The only thing I can think of that would account for this is the slight displacement in the track caused by bias. (As I say - this is my own "theory" and I have never had the time/resources to check it thoroughly - so I may be way off base, but record/play sounds really great done that way. I guess all of us a permitted to have at least one eccentricity :) ).

After you have done the final HF rec eq, you do the LF pb eq. Never set the LF playback eq from the alignment tape. Except for a very few machines, you have NO control over the low frequency record characteristics of your machine and you want to align your LF playback to your LF record.

Doing the above on an ATR 102 - I could get the machine flat within +- 1db from about 30Hz to 20kHz. Tweaking the bias, as I mentioned above, I could typically pull in the 20Khz with less than 5 degrees phase shift. I really loved having a phase meter, as opposed to trying to interpolate on a scope. On a Studer A-800 at 30ips, I could get within about +- 1db from 30Hz to well past 20kHz. The Studer 3db down point was at 33kHz. (One hell of a machine!)

If you align your machine very carefully you will hear great differences between tape brands/types.

I have not had a chance to hear the new Scotch high output tapes, but of the rest of the tapes these would be my choices.

For such things as strings, but without any high level peaks, Scotch 250. Wonderfully quiet. Has more print than I'd like. That's why I stay away from this tape on music with large peaks or big endings. You will get echo on the first playback. There is very little modulation noise on this tape.

For voices, horns, acoustically generated music, Scotch 226. Doesn't print like 250, very low modulation noise, minimal asperity noise. Good tape.

For pop/rock. (Things that don't have big gaping holes (rest) or low level vocal tracks) Ampex 456. Seem a bit "brighter" or "harder" than the Scotch tapes. Great rock'n'roll tape. But tends to have more asperity noise (but only noticeable in quiet passages).

All the tapes measure the same (in frequency response on a given machine) but all have slightly different sound characteristics.

(For those who are not familiar with the term "asperity noise", this is a low frequency noise component. We called it "rocks" in the studio because it is what you would imagine large -really large- boulders to sound like hitting one another. This is cause by slight uneven-ness in the oxide coating. You hear it when you have such things as a soft vocal group - or soft horns. Virtually inaudible unless the music has pauses. More noticeable the higher the recording speed).

And to explode one "myth" here. Worn tape head don't ALWAYS show up by having a degraded HF response. In pro machines the heads have a very deep gap. As the head wears the depth of the metal is less while the gap is the same width. The tip-off here is that you INCREASED HF output.

I found this out when fighting a problem on an Ampex MR-70 and Ampex tech support pointed this out to me. (The MR-70 has to be my favorite all time tape recorder - followed by the AT 102 for 1/4" and the Studer A-800 and Stevens 821-B for 2". The latter is a true 'hackers' machine. You have to KNOW the machine to love it, otherwise you'll hate it.)

So while the above procedures may not always follow the book, they are the ones we adopted in the studio and the machines always sounded good.

A lot of this information came from trial and error, but to give credit where it is due, some of the best information I have received working in the business came from conversations with John Stevens, who built an amazing tape recorder, John French, of JRF in New Jersey, who remanufactures and builds magnetic tape heads, and Gordon McKnight, of Magnetic Reference Laboratories, who make MRL alignment tapes.

* Sel-Sync is a Trademark of Ampex

(Copyright 1991 & 1995 by W.J. Vermillion.)
 
Nice. I remember as a kid my best friends older brothet had a very cool Technics reel and it sounded absolutely awesome on his homebuilt speakers with two 15" and bullit tweeters. Can't recall which amp though. A Yamaha AX something. -Memories..
 
Checking out the latest and greatest arrivals at Sky Fi-- they feature a two track Crown deck. Does anyone have any experience with Crown open reel? I'd be interested in their typical application, and an opinion of Crown's overall QC and fitness (not that I'm interested in purchasing any open reel machine). Just curious. You don't read much about them.

Thinking back, in the '70s, one of our local dealers had the franchise, and I briefly listened to that deck at 7 ips. It sounded great at the time, but I never knew anyone who owned one. Plenty of ReVox and the others. But no Crowns. They looked robust, industrial/military design, were expensive and configurable. That's about the extent of my knowledge of them.

 
How's this for a late response? I have some experience with Crown. Overall I think the transports were less sophisticated than their competitors. If you were a high fi enthusiast they lived at the top end of the spectrum competing with Ampex, maybe Teac or Revox. By the 60's, tape was not Crown's focus as they moved into semi-pro and professional amplification (and later, microphones) and were a smaller player in the home high end of the time. My general impression of Crown recorders is that they are mechanically unsophisticated, built to compete with the smaller pro machines of the time, primarily for radio work. Or generally, that's where I saw them. IMO they were not as commercially successful as other manufacturers respecting tape but made a more meaningful mark in the studio and touring business. Now owned by Harman, it's hard to say what Crown is exactly today. I don't think they have a major manufacturing presence anymore. I'd be more inclined to fancy a Revox, Otari or Teac/Tascam than any particular Crown. There would be more and later models to chose from, parts availability would likely be easier, they have better tape handling, would be quieter assuming equal levels of maintenance had been applied. There are probably still many Crowns running and cherished, kept by enthusiastic owners who like the relatively straight forward midwestern design and think they are the bees knees. They are cool looking in their steampunk way. Therefore I apologize to any owners or fans if I have offended their sensibilities.

Tape is a silly medium in 2023 in almost all its forms if listening to quiet music is on the menu. I will not forget the first time I heard 16 bit digital audio at at an AES convention although I have forgotten if the convention was in LA or NYC. I think it was LA. Anyhoo.... Thomas Stockham presented his Soundstream recorder there. Tape was dead from that moment but this thread proves there is nothing like the good old days......in our minds!
 
Last edited:
I encountered one of these last weekend (stock photo from Phantom Productions*, probably not the one I heard) -- playing first or second generation tapes on it sounded very, very good.

8x78evhjkawi.png


* https://reel2reeltexas.com/vinSaleTapeRec.html
 
Needed a change of pace so decided to go after a project I planned almost five years ago, namely measuring my Otari MX-5050 BIII-2 Reel to Reel take deck! Otari was the last company in the world making Reel to Reel tape recorders and sadly, ceased production a few years ago. I got my sample from the Reel to Reel master, Ki Choi. I think it cost something like $5,000 to $6,000 new. Used ones go from a range of prices from $2K to $4K from what I see. As always, it is a risky thing to buy one online as conditions of these decks is all over the place and service is not cheap. Mine is extremely clean and as the sub-model indicates, is a more recently sample

Here is a shot of the beast as best as I could fit it in my lightbox:

View attachment 155831

What makes this model unique and valuable among tape heads these days is that it comes with both NAB and IEC equalization. The latter is what is used for a lot of tape production today (what little of it there is). A lot of consumer decks don't support it and require a hack or outboard equalization/amplifier. The fancy red spool is aftermarket which I bought at an audio show. Costs a couple hundred dollars just for that! Blank tapes are $60 from what I recall. And pre-recorded ones like the one on it are $290 but go way up to something like $600. Each! For some 30 minutes of music as these are recorded at 15 inches/second. So not a practical format for most people. But for those of us who wished we had such a nice unit when young and poor, it brings bag fond memories and good listening as you watch the spools turn and meters dance.

Being rather old, there is hardly an measurements of them by today's standards. There is also chicken and egg problem of how to get an accurate test tape. The de-factor ruler in that world is MRL and that is the tape I used for my testing. It has just a set of test tones and it too is very expensive. How good it is, I don't know. The measurements in the box come from a chart recorder! Let's say it is a few generations behind my Audio Precision analyzer. :)

Otari MX-5050III-2 Measurements
1 kHz tone has been the standard forever in audio and hence it naturally came on the MRL tape so I used it to run our usual dashboard:

View attachment 155832

Distortion is at -57 dB or so but add a bunch of them and some noise and we land at SINAD of 46 dB. It is strange to see the elevated low frequency noise. Subtracting FFT measurement gain gives us a noise floor that is in the 40s! I wanted to see how much of it was the tape format and how much was the machine so I stopped the playback and measured the noise out of the unit:

View attachment 155833

Yuck. There is that rising low frequency noise floor but also a bunch of solid tones. What on earth is the 1 kHz and its harmonics coming from? No wonder folks get outboard electronics for these decks (although who knows how good they are).

BTW, the convention for measuring these older electronics is a-weighting so I thought I turn on that filter and see if SINAD gets better:

View attachment 155834

It goes up 3 dB so that low frequency noise is hurting it some. BTW, this is why I don't use a-weighting in my measurements. It really hides a lot of sins in equipment performance at lower frequencies.

There are skirts around the main tone if you look carefully which indicates jitter/speed variations. Watching the dashboard in real time showed a ton of variations. It is a jarring experience coming from today's systems. At 20 kHz, I measured 19.8 kHz frequency so we have about a 1% speed error.

There is not a whole lot more on the tape than a set of fixed frequencies to measure frequency response. My old Audio Precision analyzer could run a sweep against external sources like this by detecting the frequency and then plotting its level. The new APx555 I have now can't do that. It expect you to record its own sequence on the unit and play that to get asynchronous measurements. So I had to resort to the real-time recorder to plot the frequency on the right, and level on the left:

View attachment 155835

The first frequency is 32 Hz and highest is 19.8 kHz. I set reference at 1 kHz to 0 dB. We see a bass boost at 32 Hz by 1.6 dB or so. And a massive droop at 16 and 20 kHz. Not sure if this is a fault of this unit or in general. It might be this unit as the other channel took a nose dive above 1 kHz! I had cleaned the heads and could see nothing obvious that could cause this externally. Worse yet, I don't know if the tape is bad this way (I assume not but it is possible). I loaned out my last blank tape so need to buy another to record and playback and see how that behaves.

Conclusions
I sort of assumed SINAD would land in 40s and it did. I didn't expect the rest of the garbage this deck produces, nor the one bad channel. Need to find the time to tear it open and see what could be done to improve it. I have not listened to it in months. When I did, my favorite second generation master tape from rock music of 1970s is superb. It easily outperforms the digital ones which have been remastered to death. It is eye and ear popping how much nicer they sound than digital. I often play that tape when people come over first and their jaw drops on the floor in how good it sounds. Tape hiss is there during gaps between tracks and the highs sound a bit distorted to me but neither takes away from enjoyment of that tape. It makes me grin thinking about it as I type this!

Tape gives me the experience of the analog recording without loudness wars and remastering without the limitations and aggravation of LP. I also find the format so much more gorgeous to look at as it plays than anything out there, digital or analog. It is a shame that its popularity has pushed the price of used decks so high.

Anyway, we have first super hard set of measurements of any tape deck now. Gives us some anchoring as far as objective results are concerned.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
I have the first generation of this product with all the original packing and manual. I did add the Ampex profossinal reel hold downs, unduplicted to this day.

When we did the Summer recording and arranging workshops at Eastman School of Music in the 1970s, some equipment makers loaned equipment to expose their brand to students and to give us more remixing positions beyond our main Automated Processes Inc and Quad Eight console rooms. We also had 3 Suburban Sound 8x2 mixers built by Neil Muncy, the predecessor to the API topology. Muncy was very active in the AES. We did get a small Neve console on loan.

Otari loaned some of their just introduced MX5050 and I bought one at their very discounted introductory price which I think was about $1100, that was a lot of money for a self-supporting student. I later purchased a Dolby A 363. I need to digitize some personal reference tapes from that era!

They are solidly built with XLR in and out and all the alignment and calibration controls accessible. Otari's became a common broadcasting station deck and a large number were made. They displaced the Crown at a mid- price point.

A great resource is https://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/.

ASR readers may enjoy this interview:


I would have to agree with Amir's satisfaction with the mechanics or running tape, watching the reels turn and the meters move is very satisfying. At a music school, 99% of our recording was live performance. So we ran 2 machines. You would set up and test all your microphones, load the machines, record the Dolby tone, then start the machines in record before the first notes. It always worked because we were watching the meters!

The only mishaps I remember is that we had a 24 position microphone snake with very large diameter and heavy mil-spec connectors. We had an intermittent pair that took us a while to find - not a tape problem.

The second funny story had to do with the old way of editing with razor blades. I was working in one room editing and needed a new razor blade. We kept the razor blades in a little recess on the deck of the machines. So I went into the adjacent room where another student worker was recording a student recital. I picked up the razor blade off his recording deck and for some reason pressed stop on his machine. I immediately restarted it, realizing my mistake. It was a composition recital, more abstract music. My coworker edited out that section and the composer never noticed.

The third interesting story was in our Summer recording institute. A student edited a jazz ensemble piece and Ed Greene* was evaluating it. He immediately questioned an edit with a drum kit pickup. After listening to the original Greene identified the drummer had slightly advanced or delayed the pickup for artistic reasons, it wasn't an editing error.

*Ed Greene, the recording engineer, not Ed Greene the drummer. Ed Greene's brother Dave Greene, based in Toronto, is a very noted recording engineer too.


The AES History project has some more interview segments:
https://www.youtube.com/@AesOrgPage/search?query=ed greene
 
Last edited:
After few members of local audiophile club got R2R tape machines, I decided to get one too - to get a sense of how good analog recording can be. I never had R2R recorder in the past and still remember how cassette tape recorders sucked in sound quality.

I got Otari MX5050BIII-2, the latest version Otari was making. My unit was made in 1991. It required few mechanical adjustments and full electrical tuning. But after that results were quite good. Objective (and subjective too) sound quality is way better than vinyl. I asked few people to compare Otari playing its record which was originally in digital 24/96 format with same digital stream playing directly through DAC. Other than a bit of hiss when music volume is low. there was almost no difference in sound of tape copy vs. direct digital source. Attached are measurements I did while calibrating the machine. I used SM911 tape at 15ips speed.

Here is 1KHz tone at reference level. Noise level is about 10dB lower than what I usually get from vinyl playback. The only thing that sticks out is a raise in noise floor around 1kHz tone (called noise modulation). It is volume dependent - there is almost no this effect when recording level is reduced by 10dB. SNR measure seems not to be really accurate in tool I use (SpectraPLUS), while other numeric results are within expected range. THD is well less than you find in most tube amplifiers.

1khz 0dB flat.png


Here is 10kHz and 20kHz tones. Both were recorded at reference level. To me they still look good. And tape does not complain playing 20kHz signal at full scale.

10lkHz 0dB flat.png
20lkHz 0dB flat.png


At 15ips tape can record bass without much of distortion. Here is 60Hz signal, again at reference level. THD is still good. I am not sure where 1kHz tone leaks from - could be internal calibrator in MX5050.

60Hz 0dB flat.png


And finally SMPE IMD test with 60Hz and 7kHz tones in 4:1 ratio at reference level. IMD components are present (see second zoomed picture), but are all below -60dB.

SMPE IMD flat.png
SMPE IMD flat zoom.png


I do not see any unexpected high frequency tones Amir had in his measurements. Though I found that MX5050 is very sensitive to grounding schema, just like you can expect from low signal analogue device. Calibration is specific for tape formulation, thus when tape type is changed, machine needs to be re-adjusted. I found that method recommended in user manual is only good to get into ballpark, but more precise adjustment using external tone signal generator and spectrum analyzer provides significant improvement. This machine has adjustment trims reached from the front panel, so it will take no more than half an hour for that task.

So overall R2R tape is a good distribution media, which is very much better than vinyl and only high-res digital is better than it.

I would like to get two machines like this together and try to see how sound quality degrades when copy is made from analog tape to another analog tape. I would expect third copy to be the one where sound quality subjectively suffers. But you never know what you find until you try to experiment.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the detailed report!
The harmonics looks amazing! 2nd + loud 3rd. Perfect duo!
 
So overall R2R tape is a good distribution media, which is very much better than vinyl and only high-res digital is better than it.

There is no doubt that analog tape can produce excellent sound. No one has ever denied that. But we ought to keep it in some kind of perspective. You mention 'hi-res' digital by way of comparison. However your Otari will not match standard 16/44 PCM in most important audio related criteria. No need to even talk about hi-res.

I am not sure what you mean by a 'good distribution media'. Certainly it is not and never will be a practical medium in consumer space, nor at the pro level (in all but very limited applications). If for no other reason than cost and upkeep. Let us compare.

The tape you selected, SM911/2500, will give you about 30 minutes of record time at 15ips using half track, which is the only way to achieve maximum performance. At 30ips you are at 15 minutes. A mail order outfit (where else are you going to buy open reel tape, these days?) offers a single 10 inch reel of SM2500 for $100.00 (USD). So one gets at best 30 minutes of application for their Ben Franklin. I don't think we really need to compare cost of that to digital storage media.

Now, one could say that you need a PC and suitable software for digital recording, and this is true. A quick look shows that in 1981 the 5050 sold for $2300.00, which would easily be $8,000.00 today. But probably a lot more. An Orbital (chosen at random) music workstation [Intel i9-14900; 128GB DDR5 memory; RTX470Ti GPU; 4TB SSD and optical drive] will run you less than $5000.00. Pro level recording studio software can be had for free, but for something more involved, like Studio One, you're looking at about twenty dollars a month, or four hundred dollars for a perpetual license. Also, a PC is usually one and done in the setup department. Open reel will require on going maintenance. Parts, if you can find them, will probably mean scavaging another old machine, for better or worse.

I think a reasonable conclusion is that if you have an old open reel machine, and are willing to spend the time and expense to keep it rolling, then it could be a fun hobbyist pastime. But other than that, except for a very few limited applications, it's a non-starter. You also mentioned LP... a non technical enthusiast can buy a record player and a handful of records for less than a thousand dollar, and probably be happy watching the disc spin round and round. All with no additional support or user effort.

Now, I admit that there's not much in hi-fi that is cooler than watching big 10 inch reels spin on your equipment shelf, but other than that...
 
You have to be brave to talk tape on ASR. I enjoyed Amir’s test review but was not surprised with the results. Would be interested to see a test after a talented old school tech tweaked a pro deck to the max. These techs are getting very rare to find! There is no logic to pursue the format these days especially considering the expense and the constant special attention needed. BITD if you had an open reel machine it meant you had made it in life. Today they are simply a lot of fun and a personal challange to get them to work well. I own three open reel machines :)
IMG_0419.jpeg
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt that analog tape can produce excellent sound. No one has ever denied that. But we ought to keep it in some kind of perspective. You mention 'hi-res' digital by way of comparison. However your Otari will not match standard 16/44 PCM in most important audio related criteria. No need to even talk about hi-res.

I am not sure what you mean by a 'good distribution media'. Certainly it is not and never will be a practical medium in consumer space, nor at the pro level (in all but very limited applications). If for no other reason than cost and upkeep. Let us compare.

The tape you selected, SM911/2500, will give you about 30 minutes of record time at 15ips using half track, which is the only way to achieve maximum performance. At 30ips you are at 15 minutes. A mail order outfit (where else are you going to buy open reel tape, these days?) offers a single 10 inch reel of SM2500 for $100.00 (USD). So one gets at best 30 minutes of application for their Ben Franklin. I don't think we really need to compare cost of that to digital storage media.

Now, one could say that you need a PC and suitable software for digital recording, and this is true. A quick look shows that in 1981 the 5050 sold for $2300.00, which would easily be $8,000.00 today. But probably a lot more. An Orbital (chosen at random) music workstation [Intel i9-14900; 128GB DDR5 memory; RTX470Ti GPU; 4TB SSD and optical drive] will run you less than $5000.00. Pro level recording studio software can be had for free, but for something more involved, like Studio One, you're looking at about twenty dollars a month, or four hundred dollars for a perpetual license. Also, a PC is usually one and done in the setup department. Open reel will require on going maintenance. Parts, if you can find them, will probably mean scavaging another old machine, for better or worse.

I think a reasonable conclusion is that if you have an old open reel machine, and are willing to spend the time and expense to keep it rolling, then it could be a fun hobbyist pastime. But other than that, except for a very few limited applications, it's a non-starter. You also mentioned LP... a non technical enthusiast can buy a record player and a handful of records for less than a thousand dollar, and probably be happy watching the disc spin round and round. All with no additional support or user effort.

Now, I admit that there's not much in hi-fi that is cooler than watching big 10 inch reels spin on your equipment shelf, but other than that...

As I mentioned above, R2R tape is only surpassed by high-res digital as a distribution media. so no need to tell how good DAW can be and cost way less (hardware wise). I am with you on that.

CD does not exactly match tape. Yes, it has lower noise, but frequency range is limited to 20kHz, while tape machine can get at least up to 30kHz and likely higher if not full volume range is required. In that regard it is similar to what MQA compression developers did.

When I considered tape as distribution media, other option was vinyl. When I said that it is best of all analogue methods, it was on SOUND QUALITY measure only. We have (and had) audiophiles who routinely pay high price for "hot stamper" vinyl releases. If same content was available in 15ips R2R format, cost is not an object here, and they would gladly pay asked price. Price of high quality turntable and phono cartridge which wears just like tape machine heads is comparable to R2R machine, and turntable also needs adjustment and periodic maintenance. For sure R2R is not for mass market. But then cassette was and MP3 is good enough for 90% of music buyers.
 
1) As I mentioned above, R2R tape is only surpassed by high-res digital as a distribution media. so no need to tell how good DAW can be and cost way less (hardware wise). I am with you on that.

2) CD does not exactly match tape. Yes, it has lower noise, but frequency range is limited to 20kHz, while tape machine can get at least up to 30kHz and likely higher if not full volume range is required. .

For you living room 16/44 will beat any open reel. You are correct about the HF extension of analog tape (specific to high-end machines), but that is not an issue for actual listeners. Certainly recording engineers in the studio use higher sampling for their purposes, but again, for the home listener it is not necessary. From my post above about what might be expected on a properly running professional machine:

[After a complete alignment] on an ATR 102 - I could get the machine flat within +- 1db from about 30Hz to 20kHz. Tweaking the bias, as I mentioned above, I could typically pull in the 20Khz with less than 5 degrees phase shift. I really loved having a phase meter, as opposed to trying to interpolate on a scope. On a Studer A-800 at 30ips, I could get within about +- 1db from 30Hz to well past 20kHz. The Studer 3db down point was at 33kHz. (One hell of a machine!).

That kind of FR tweaking was something not attained in a living room setting, with conumer machines.

Your Otari, as I understand it, was marketed/priced at the low end of the pro market, spanning the gap between higher-end consumer oriented machines (ReVox/Tandberg), and even more expensive multitrack machines. I never encountered a 5050 in any domestic hi-fi oriented environment (home or audio store), although I saw a couple in radio stations and AV production facillities. In fact, the only 'consumer' manufacturer offering anything like it (that I recall) was Mark Levinson, who sold a modified (with his own electronics) version of the Studer A80. The only person I ever knew with one was Peter Aczel (along with the machine's LNP-2 preamplifier front end), as he had some second gen 30ips master tapes he sourced from Max Wilcox. I remember reading how Peter McGrath once owned a high-end store in south Florida, and made well received recordings with his Stellavox, but I don't know if he actually sold those machines to customers.

2) Unlike frequencies at or greater than 20KHz, for actual listening at home (or on headphones), low noise is a much more important quality factor. At least from my experience. YMMV.

Anecdote: when CDs first hit the scene, 16/44 demonstrated to me its sonic superiority on one specific track--Starship Troopers by the rock group Yes. CD had just come out, and I had purchased one of the first Yamaha models.

Record companies were all scrambling to re-release all their analog material on the format, and many of the CD in my possession were AAD. Anyhow, at the end of the last track on side 1, the music on one of the channels drops out while an electric guitar plays on the other track. I was shocked at my first listening to this, because I never heard the obvious tape hiss on the 'empty' channel before. You just didn't hear it on LP. At least I didn't. But there it was, plain as day. A real ear-opener for me. I thought, "Where did THAT come from?" Shortly thereafter I sold all my open reel gear/tapes.

Looking back, and out of odd curiosity more than anything else, I do wonder how the last of the Technics closed loop dual capstan Quartz DD decks would fair against something like an Otari, or a well functioning Studer/ReVox PR99. From scanning brochures, I always thought the final Technics open reel decks were very sophisticated, but I never knew anyone that owned one.
 
For you living room 16/44 will beat any open reel. You are correct about the HF extension of analog tape (specific to high-end machines), but that is not an issue for actual listeners. Certainly recording engineers in the studio use higher sampling for their purposes, but again, for the home listener it is not necessary. From my post above about what might be expected on a properly running professional machine:

.......

My dedicated music listening room is well isolated with background noise level at 20dB in the late evening. I do hear very clear difference between CD quality and high-res content and I do not use headphones for critical listening.

Record companies were all scrambling to re-release all their analog material on the format, and many of the CD in my possession were AAD. Anyhow, at the end of the last track on side 1, the music on one of the channels drops out while an electric guitar plays on the other track. I was shocked at my first listening to this, because I never heard the obvious tape hiss on the 'empty' channel before. You just didn't hear it on LP. At least I didn't. But there it was, plain as day. A real ear-opener for me. I thought, "Where did THAT come from?" Shortly thereafter I sold all my open reel gear/tapes.

I routinely find hiss in modern all-digital records. Studio engineers likely add pink noise to mask imperfections in tracking and other processing during mixing and mastering. So having inherent hiss from tape may not be a defect, but rather blessing. Of cause committing to tape should be last step in the mastering process as copying from tape to tape will start loosing sound quality rather quickly (I would say that no more than two generation copies are still good in 15ips two track format). Very simple recording chain where live recording is done in real time without editing will shine with R2R recorder. Though replication of tapes for distribution will be a challenge.
 
My dedicated music listening room is well isolated with background noise level at 20dB in the late evening. I do hear very clear difference between CD quality and high-res content and I do not use headphones for critical listening.
Are you sure? Meaning, are your comparisons level matched of hi-rez and Red Book examples of the same recording and mix in a blind test? In the few tests that I have made I certainly couldn't.

A published AES study showed that in their test of 60 listeners no one could discern an audible difference unless the playback levels were quite elevated. Their listening room had a background noise level similar to yours, 19dBA.
 
Are you sure? Meaning, are your comparisons level matched of hi-rez and Red Book examples of the same recording and mix in a blind test? In the few tests that I have made I certainly couldn't.

A published AES study showed that in their test of 60 listeners no one could discern an audible difference unless the playback levels were quite elevated. Their listening room had a background noise level similar to yours, 19dBA.
Yes, I am sure. I do not even need a direct comparison. In 70% cases I can reliably say if record which is playing is high-res or CD quality, if I never heard it before. To get there you need to know which sound signature to search for. Of cause playback system should be good enough to not introduce its own limitations.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am sure. I do not even need a direct comparison. In 70% cases I can reliably say if record which is playing is high-res or CD quality, if I never heard it before. To get there you need to know which sound signature to search for. Of cause playback system should be good enough to not introduce its own limitations.
If you hear hiss it's far more likely the result of your amplification chain than a Redbook digital source. You mentioned your interest in tape playing between 20kHz and 30kHz. Are you telling us there is musical content there from any source - at all - and that you can hear it?
 
If you hear hiss it's far more likely the result of your amplification chain than a Redbook digital source. You mentioned your interest in tape playing between 20kHz and 30kHz. Are you telling us there is musical content there from any source - at all - and that you can hear it?

In my system there is no hiss heard when input is digital null, nothing at all. Hiss comes when music starts playing. Thus the source of the hiss is content of the record. If you never heard that effect, you need to train your hearing more.

Above 20kHz there are harmonics of audible signals. Also if you learned advanced calculus, you know that there is a dependency between signal raise time and frequency range. Sharp transient cannot be reconstructed if frequency range is limited. The same limit is the source of pre- and post-ringing of filters. I do not know how brain processes audio, but if you are trained, you can hear distortion sourced from brick wall filter. Some music content makes it easier, other harder. But it is always there. 20kHz limit may be good enough if analog source is limited to 10kHz or less above noise level, but if source has content up to 20kHz before brick wall in ADC, you will hear the difference. Ideally to avoid issues with filtering sampling rate should be more than 5 times higher than source content above noise level. In that case physical limitations of filtering will have very little impact on ADC (or digital downsampling) process. But this is NOT a topic of this thread. Let's go back to R2R tape vs. vinyl.
 
Back
Top Bottom