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

[Dunc69]

Well I was looking at going into the reel 2 reel rabbit hole, as like you was told its the best thing since sliced bread.
I also have a dCS rossini and clock, plus a well sorted Internet connection and melco N10.
I tried a revox Pr99 that had just been serviced and checked over and apparently in very good shape, tried some expensive pre recorded tapes at 15 ips, these sounded nice but very limited in what you can get and then it's not what I listen too, I also tried recording direct from my rossini, but they didn't sound better, different as in more noisy, especially on quiet moments or between tracks, etc and i certainly wouldn't play it over the ripped track stored in the melco, as it just doesn't sound as good. so for me very little point in owning such a machine, unless you want to buy the expensive master tapes and like what's recorded on them.

But they do look nice and especially when working, but for me I have invested in vinyl and got my turntable up to a level that can compete with my rossini, plus you can get much more music easier and it's much cheaper.

 

[adrianywu]

Well I was looking at going into the reel 2 reel rabbit hole, as like you was told its the best thing since sliced bread.
I also have a dCS rossini and clock, plus a well sorted Internet connection and melco N10.
I tried a revox Pr99 that had just been serviced and checked over and apparently in very good shape, tried some expensive pre recorded tapes at 15 ips, these sounded nice but very limited in what you can get and then it's not what I listen too, I also tried recording direct from my rossini, but they didn't sound better, different as in more noisy, especially on quiet moments or between tracks, etc and i certainly wouldn't play it over the ripped track stored in the melco, as it just doesn't sound as good. so for me very little point in owning such a machine, unless you want to buy the expensive master tapes and like what's recorded on them.

But they do look nice and especially when working, but for me I have invested in vinyl and got my turntable up to a level that can compete with my rossini, plus you can get much more music easier and it's much cheaper.

Recording with tape is definitely not plug and play. It is quite different to record on R2R vs. a cassette tape. You need to make sure the bias is correct for the tape you are using, the record head is aligned, and most importantly, the signal level. Pros know how to set the level to achieve what they want, because the level makes a lot of difference in how the recording sound, and not just the volume.

 

[morricab]

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).

For recordings you have made from your own digital the best you should hope for is that they sound identical. If they don’t then your deck is audibly editorializing the sound.

I have a friend who got into cassette tape decks...particularly Nakamichis . We did a lot of recording from vinyl and digital and only one, the ZX-9, got close to sounding like the source. The others tended to warm up the sound slightly and smear the resolution slightly...making a more “vintage” sound if you will. I preferred the ZX-9 but my friend leaned towards the ones “enhancing “ the sound.

 

[Dunc69]

Recording with tape is definitely not plug and play. It is quite different to record on R2R vs. a cassette tape. You need to make sure the bias is correct for the tape you are using, the record head is aligned, and most importantly, the signal level. Pros know how to set the level to achieve what they want, because the level makes a lot of difference in how the recording sound, and not just the volume.

I know it's not plug and play that's why I borrowed a very nice and well set up machine, as I didn't want to jump in on it and find the results not to my liking.
As I said if the very expensive master tapes you can buy these days rock your boat, then I can see a purpose for owning a good quality reel 2 reel, but if you already have a top end digital source like the rossini then I feel its going to be impossible to beat it, as the rossini has it beat on every angle apart from cost.

The only thing I can think off, is so I could record streamed music and make a copy with out having to buy it, but even then the cost of good quality tape and the loss of quality, plus the hassle of using the tape, it's probably cheaper to buy and download the music to my melco N10 in the first place.

For reel to reel to take off like vinyl has, then much more music needs to be available and I mean much more, plus the costs need to come down hugely and I don't think that's ever going to happen is it.

 

[bryans]

For reel to reel to take off like vinyl has, then much more music needs to be available and I mean much more, plus the costs need to come down hugely and I don't think that's ever going to happen is it.

I agree with you here. Growing up I always wanted a R2R and couldn't wait for the day when I could purchase one. But given the lack of music (I'm not a classical orchestra guy) it doesn't make sense for me personally. Even in audiophile groups R2R are very limited in numbers.

R2R are still cool to look at. Brings me back to my younger days I guess.

 

[Zeotrope]

I have some theater-era full-range field coils (updated, but quite old nonetheless) and I have to say that playing music that was recorded yesterday and digitally streamed to me through parts of a playback system that is 70 to 80 years old is pretty cool and sometimes mind-blowing.

Reading through this thread for similar reasons (just ordered a R2R (Metaxas Papillon/Merrill Master) and I’m curious to compare it to my Nagra Reference TT and Taiko Extreme/Nagra HD DAC X sources…). I also have the RCA 1443 Theater midrange in my custom horns, with a WVL field coil PSU (I noticed your Thomas Mayer PSU- I almost ordered from him but he was a complete jerk…).
Anyway, share some photos of your speakers; maybe you have the same drivers?

I really am not going to compare the sound on this forum, as a few members ruined that for me. There are some people here who will never believe that new R2R machines are better than vintage - sacrilege! If the audience is not there, there’s no point in sharing. But curious to hear about your speakers.

 

[Zeotrope]

To the original question: Tape vs Digital. I think a world class tape deck and preamp will destroy digital, if ultimate realism is your goal. My vinyl setup certainly does — and my digital source sounds incredible, don’t get me wrong.
I think the real question is how a world-class vinyl setup compares to tape… I’m no so sure tape will win. I hope to answer that later this year!

 

[dminches]

It has been my experience that tape sounds better than LP (assuming the 2 sources are the same and the tape is low generation).

If we are taping about masters on tape we are referring to almost all LPs cut before 1985. These albums were cut from tape so I would expect the tape to sound better than the LP (again, assuming that the tape is close to the master).

I have a good number of tapes and LPs were are from the same mastering. The tape sounds better every time.

Of course, we are getting into fine details here because the LPs sound amazing too. I am happy to be able to enjoy all three formats, including digital.

 

[morricab]

Anyone direct cut an LP and catch it on tape at the same time? The most realistic playback of my own voice was a direct cut lacquer with a tube cutter amp. I have recorded my voice on tape and digital and nothing shocked me like the direct cut.

 

[andromedaaudio]

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

Simple.... if you dont like R2R sell it and buy more digital instead .

 

[gadawg58]

I too have a Rossini (Apex) and also own a Sonorus ATR10MkII R2R. The tapes I own are mostly from Sonorus as well and there is great synergy with their tapes and deck. Wonderful in fact. In my setup the Sonorus R2R does things that my Rossini can’t and I’ll be looking to move on from the Rossini (it will front end my headphone setup) but i have no illusions that any DAC I buy is going to bring the same experience as the R2R most likely because of the Sonorus mastering process that produces some incredible and fun to listen to recordings … I’ll just try to optimize both and enjoy the ride.

George

 

[adrianywu]

It has been my experience that tape sounds better than LP (assuming the 2 sources are the same and the tape is low generation).

If we are taping about masters on tape we are referring to almost all LPs cut before 1985. These albums were cut from tape so I would expect the tape to sound better than the LP (again, assuming that the tape is close to the master).

I have a good number of tapes and LPs were are from the same mastering. The tape sounds better every time.

Of course, we are getting into fine details here because the LPs sound amazing too. I am happy to be able to enjoy all three formats, including digital.

There are many variables here. The problem with LPs usually come from compromises necessary due to the length of a side and the dynamics. If the length of the pieces require the engineer to cut more than 24 minutes onto a side, and the music has a wide dynamic range, it will be necessary to either: 1. lower the transfer level, which will compromise signal to noise ratio 2. Limit the low frequency extension, since longer wavelength needs wider grooves, 3. Use dynamic compression, or a combination of the three. In this situation, the tape will always be better. If the LP can be cut without needing any of the above compromises, it can come very close to the tape. In practice, the end result depends on the condition of the stamper and the quality of the vinyl.

 

[mtemur]

Sonorus mastering process that produces some incredible and fun to listen to recordings

What is Sonorus mastering process, can you share some more detail?

 

[gadawg58]

Here is a link to their website and Arian's explanation of what SHI (Sonorus Holographic Imaging) does for the recording ... I can assure you it works! The recording of The Dark Side of the Moon is unbelievable!

Loading…

sonorusaudio.com

George

 

[adrianywu]

I too have a Rossini (Apex) and also own a Sonorus ATR10MkII R2R. The tapes I own are mostly from Sonorus as well and there is great synergy with their tapes and deck. Wonderful in fact. In my setup the Sonorus R2R does things that my Rossini can’t and I’ll be looking to move on from the Rossini (it will front end my headphone setup) but i have no illusions that any DAC I buy is going to bring the same experience as the R2R most likely because of the Sonorus mastering process that produces some incredible and fun to listen to recordings … I’ll just try to optimize both and enjoy the ride.

George

The ATR10 looks interesting, but it is pricey at US$32K. It is possible to get a pro machine such as an A80 and an external tube tape head preamp with that sum of money. Can the ATR100 get to the level of performance of such a combination ?

 

[gadawg58]

The ATR10 looks interesting, but it is pricey at US$32K. It is possible to get a pro machine such as an A80 and an external tube tape head preamp with that sum of money. Can the ATR100 get to the level of performance of such a combination ?

I believe that it can ... but this unit has no tape head direct out so that would eliminate it for some folks. That said I think the built in tube based analog gain section is very high quality and sounds awesome as a total package which is why I bought it after hearing it. To be clear I had zero intention of getting back into tape again ... was at a dealer listening to the MSB Select DAC and he happened to have a couple demo tapes of the music I was listening to on the Select DAC and I was so blown away with the sound of the ATR10 that I forgot all about the DAC and bought the tape deck and started working on my tape collection from Sonorus. Their tapes with the SHI mastering process have the best stereo imaging I've ever heard from any source and amazingly virtually zero noise or even tape hiss. Not sure how that works as I heard some tapes a few years ago at a friends house on a Studer deck with some great tapes but he kept saying you have to learn to listen through the noise. This deck with their tapes produces some of the best sound of any front end I've ever heard regardless of format ... certainly worth checking out.

Now I'm back to finding a DAC I like but that will be a different story ... LOL

George

 

[Lee]

I can only speak to some observations between my Rossini stack and Revox PR99.

Digital sounds really amazing on the Rossini and in many ways more analog as there is no "etched" sound and music just flows. It feels very natural and open on many great recordings and masterings. Soundstage is deep and wide, bass is very natural. Transients and dynamics are perfect.

Same with the modified Revox. Tapes have more of a flow and smoothness on tape. It's really hard to describe but the midrange is really liquid and realistic. It feels more intimate in a way on acoustic performances.

The only weakness I hear is that at the frequency extremes. But I do believe a Studer or ATR would do better, especially with flux magnetic heads and the latest in electronics.

 

[adrianywu]

I can only speak to some observations between my Rossini stack and Revox PR99.

Digital sounds really amazing on the Rossini and in many ways more analog as there is no "etched" sound and music just flows. It feels very natural and open on many great recordings and masterings. Soundstage is deep and wide, bass is very natural. Transients and dynamics are perfect.

Same with the modified Revox. Tapes have more of a flow and smoothness on tape. It's really hard to describe but the midrange is really liquid and realistic. It feels more intimate in a way on acoustic performances.

The only weakness I hear is that at the frequency extremes. But I do believe a Studer or ATR would do better, especially with flux magnetic heads and the latest in electronics.

I just bought a refurbished B77 with new repro board from Audvance. I am using it to play 4 track tapes. I was pretty impressed with the quality of some tapes, esp. the London recordings made by Ampex. It can come close to what my Nagra TA can do with 15ips master tapes. The 4 track tape just lacks a bit of transparency and the sense of spaciousness and flow of master tapes. I was astonished when I measured the B77 with my MRL reference tape. It is flat all the way to 20kHz, and only about +2dB at 32 Hz.