Why no interest in reel to reel if you're looking for the ultimate sound?


Wondering why more people aren't into reel to reel if they're looking for the ultimate analog experience? I know title selection is limited and tapes are really expensive, but there are more good tapes available now than ever before.
People refer to a recording as having "master tape quality",  well you can actually hear that master tape sound through your own system and the point of entry to reel to reel is so much more affordable than getting into vinyl.  Thoughts? 
scar972

Showing 4 responses by fleschler

I agree that R2R is a great format.  My 1980s recordings are really low noise and have the breath of real life. 
I have dozens of 1950s pre-recorded 2 and 4 track 7.5 ips tapes that are super dynamic and open sounding.  
I also have about 100 1960s 3.5 ips pre-recorded 4 track tapes that are okay, not great.  Especially classical music where all sorts of shenanigans occurred (e.g. Bruckner Sym. 5 with Klemperer-the 4th movement has a sudden lower volume at tuttis versus the LP and CD versions).  I suspect little effort to make the 3.5 ips tapes was done.  Hiss is also prominent.  The 7.5 ips 1960s tapes are pretty good and dynamic but mostly pop music.  With over 500 pre-recorded cassettes, they do not sound wonderful to me on my Nakamichi ZX7, especially classical.  My own non-Dolby recordings made on a Tandberg 310 sound wonderful played back on the ZX7 with very very faint hiss.  Tape quality and live source makes a huge difference.
Wow, first time I've seen a Sony AVR R2R on YouTube.  Very nice, looks professional.  I wonder about why teflon/delrin wasn't use instead of steel along the tape path.  It would be magnetically neutral to the tape and just as smooth.  Steel paths require demagnetization (at least my R2Rs get demagnitized along with the heads).   Any answers?
I perform and record with a symphony, chamber group and choirs at Disney hall, Royce Hall, Gindi auditorium, Ford theater, etc.   I know what live music sounds like.  I chose 100% tube amplification (phono, pre-amp, amps) but SS for a DAC and for my two video systems' audio.  I've heard great SS and tube gear at shows and salons.  As to amplification, if the speaker is a difficult load, I would choose high powered SS.  If it is an easier load, then tube.  That's my preference based on five decades of audiophile experience.   I do not have SOTA equipment but high end affordable gear.
I don't have a problem with digital recordings if recorded using proper techniques.  (In classical music, too many distantly miked recordings have huge ambiance space but insufficient direct sound).  I prefer a more immediate sound, as heard from about the 10th row of a concert hall or jazz club.  I don't have a problem with digital music reproduction with high end DACs.  I am a confirmed analog lover.   I do have all tube pre-amp and amplification stages in both my audio systems for over 40 years.  I tried some higher end SS amps and hybrid tube/SS amps in the past but prefer my all tube gear.