Can we finally put Reel to Reel out of its misery? Put it to rest people.

Can you say (or spell) STELLAVOX?  STUDER?

Better check it out before you declare R2R deceased.

ALSO, SOME older recording studios (Muscle Shoals, for example) still use analog (Scully 1", Ampex, etc).

SO, yes, not many use R2R today, but it has its place and is still used when needed i specific places.

Sorry to bust your digital ballon, but most digital recording is total garbage as anyone who has an ear or is a real musician will tell you.

Cheers,

Richard

I doubt anyone with a Stellavox or Studer, first, needs parts except possibly heads, and second, would part with it for less than several thousand dollars at least.  Of course, I could have mentioned Nagra if I knew someone wanted to buy one, but you can go to ebay or whatever if you wish to buy an analog R2R.  I don't have the available funds, personally.  You can send it back to Nagra for a complete refresh using original parts as well.

Today they are surviving very well with high-end digital, but that's another story and involves actually producing products that are capable of high quality digital recording AND they have analog inputs as well to use on film sets, etc.  I am certain that Foley people have many historical sounds on analog tape in their libraries that they still use.

When the OP posted that this format was dead--obviously just a troll trying to stir up whatever--I was motivated to remind audiophiles that many of the "live" recordings they love so much and almost all first-tier films were done on these analog machines, to their great credit and sound quality.

Regarding musicians and digital, sure it is easier.  It is also easier to eat at McDonalds than to cook your own food.  Choices, choices...

Cheers!

@glupson As I wrote in the second post, of course some of these R2R manufacturers are making digital products today.  I don't see hundreds of successful buggy whip manufacturers around any more, so keeping up with technology is clearly key to staying in business.

The point I was trying to make is, just like any technology, there is digital and then there is DIGITAL, where the most accurate and highest quality digital equipment can be manufactured at high cost.  Someone has to be the best at this technology; I really don't think your ipod or whatever quite meets that standard, and many here pay huge prices for what are marketed as super-high-quality digital components. 

They get to hear their digital recordings played back on the best possible equipment available, and if the recording was done with an equal level of quality digital equipment and recording engineers who are knowledgeable about that process, you are going to hear digital at its best.

Doesn't mean it is "better" than analog; it is simply different.  A favorite analogy of mine concerns "electronic" drums and "Hammond B-3 Chips."

They are both used in the recording studio and in live concerts.  Do they sound anything like "real" drums or a "real" B-3?  Of course not.  BUT, they imitate those instruments and provide their own unique sound.  If the composer wants that sound, they use those digital instruments.  If they want the original sound, they use the original instruments.  No right or wrong here, just preferences.  Now, if you are thinking that your digital instruments DO sound like the originals, that is where we have an issue.  You need a better education or a better ear, I guess.

Cheers!