Would appreciate some info on Studio machines...

[rr]

I am interested in playing the Tape Project Tapes and perhaps other 15ips masters if I can find any.  I have an excellent audio system but do not have a RTR.  I am aware of the two machines Tape Project machines and also of the United Home Audio machine.  After looking through this forum and a lot of other Internet posts I am leaning toward a studio type machine and I do see the ATR 102's from ATR Services and I know that there are some excellent modded Studers.  Having said all this I really don't know where to go from here.  I would like to get a studio machine and I would prefer to be able to mount it vertically, without the bridge (or penthouse).  Although it would be nice to be able to record,  I probably never would use it for recording or for anything other than 15ips tapes. 

I question whether the existing RTR electronics would be useful to me, I think that it might be better to use my phono preamp which is a Boulder 2008.  The Boulder is an excellent preamp has the capability to select any of three equalization curves (One being RIAA for LP's) and the other two can be specified by the installation of a small card so I guess I could have Boulder send me an IEC programmed card and I am guessing that this would allow me to go directly from the playback head to the Boulder and thus into my sterio system.  Does this sound right to you?

If the above assumption about going from the playback head to the phono preamp makes sense then I guess the controls and transport stability and durability would be important to the selection of the deck as would the "Cool Factor", and this is where I am stopped.  I suspect that the most attractive prospects are the ATR 102 or a Studer but which Studer would be the candidate; the 810, 820, A80 (I understand the A80 has the best transport).  Of course the Nagra T-Audio is much higher on the "Cool Factor" scale for me but I really don't have information on the transport stability, parts availability, or even practicality given my parameters so I would welcome any comments at all.

I am not too concerned about cost but sonic quality and reliability are pretty important.

I apologize in advance if I am asking dumb questions here but this is all new to me and I am kind of stumbling my way through the maze!

Thanks

Rocco R

[xcortes]

When I was in your situation I decided to go with an ATR-102 from ATR services with a Bottlehead tube repro. The ATR is the same deck the TP tapes are dupped in and the Tube Repro is as good as you'll get in terms of electronics. Just add some nice NOS Telefunken tubes and enjoy your TP tapes.

On the ATR side Mike Spitz is a great guy and will go the extra mile to please you. He built for me his first rack mount machine and he'll fly from NY to Mexico Cit next week to help me fix a problem.

Bottlehead, well, what can I say. They are the coolest guys on earth.

I can't say you cannot get something better. But I'm sure you'll be satisfied with the combo At least I am.

[c1ferrari]

Hi Rocco,

Acquisition of a Studer A820 was not only an acknowledgement of Studer's reputation and achievement in the professional universe, but a realization of personal desire.  There are some great choices available...I hope you're enjoying this aspect of our avocation :-) 

Best regards,
Sam

[High and Outside]

I would like to get a studio machine and I would prefer to be able to mount it vertically, without the bridge (or penthouse). 

 
Any of the studio machines would be able to be rack mounted vertically. However, they exhibit their lowest wow and flutter when they are horizontal. Also, I can tell you from years of experience, they are easier to operate in the horizontal orientation.

I question whether the existing RTR electronics would be useful to me, I think that it might be better to use my phono preamp which is a Boulder 2008.  The Boulder is an excellent preamp has the capability to select any of three equalization curves (One being RIAA for LP's) and the other two can be specified by the installation of a small card so I guess I could have Boulder send me an IEC programmed card and I am guessing that this would allow me to go directly from the playback head to the Boulder and thus into my sterio system.  Does this sound right to you?

Yes, but...
This seems at first glance like it should be a good idea, but I don't recommend it. First, I believe that the electronics should be adjustable, and dialed in with the heads and deck as a system. It's common in the world of hifi to think that you should just build the gain stage to match the published curve and then everything will be alright. That's the way it's done with RIAA stages. But that's not the way to get good performance from a tape deck. In fact that's not even the way the standards are written for tape. They don't say "Use this curve," they say "Here's the curve that would work with an ideal head, now use what you have to in order to get flat response with a practical head."

Also, the cabling from the heads to the first stage wants to be as short as possible, and routing them for minimum hum pickup can be tricky.

Overall, I think it's better to look at the tape machine as a tightly integrated unit, so you can do all your troubleshooting and integration within that unit, and then feed a line level signal out to your preamp.

If the above assumption about going from the playback head to the phono preamp makes sense then I guess the controls and transport stability and durability would be important to the selection of the deck as would the "Cool Factor", and this is where I am stopped.  I suspect that the most attractive prospects are the ATR 102 or a Studer but which Studer would be the candidate; the 810, 820, A80 (I understand the A80 has the best transport).  Of course the Nagra T-Audio is much higher on the "Cool Factor" scale for me but I really don't have information on the transport stability, parts availability, or even practicality given my parameters so I would welcome any comments at all.

There are three transports which I consider the class of the league, plus they are reliable and maintainable. They are the Ampex ATR-100, the Studer A-80, and the Studer A-820. An ATR from Mike Spitz is unbeatable, the stability is rock solid, and it will probably be running perfectly when your heirs inherit.

I apologize in advance if I am asking dumb questions here

There are no dumb questions except the ones which remain unasked. There are lots of folks here to help.

[ironbut]

Great post Paul. Thanks.
While we're on the subject of Mike Spitz and ATR's, one of these days I plan to get one of his machines. Since you're among the few here that have ATR's in various levels, could you say a little about the different upgrades that he can perform? Personally I don't see myself being able to tell him to do everything that he can. So from a practical standpoint, is there a hierarchy of cost/benefit? (past getting it all working at spec)

[xcortes]

Steve,

I'm not sure they are different levels of Spitz' ATR's. In my case what he did was charge some "extras" for additional items such as installing the BH electronics, a switch to select between the stock and BH electronics, a four track head, rack mounting, etc. But the machine is basically one.

[traf]

My 3 cents:
1. For a combination of top transport and easy maintenance/modification (all discrete audio electronics) - A80RC. But only horizontal position, and a large size.
2. For even better transport but much harder to maintain w/o a Studer expert around - A820.
3. For compactness, vertical position, a great transport/sonics, integrated VU meters (no overbridge), but not-so-easy to maintain/modify (dozens of ICs on signal path, lots of decades old software and ICs, virtually same as with A820) - A810.
Tod

[microstrip]

Hi Tod,

Although I know such appreciations can be subjective, can you share with us why you consider that A820 transport is better than the A80 one?
regards
Francisco

[traf]

Both A80 and 820 are great machines, with their own merits, and would be an oversimplification to say one is better than the other.
I said the A820 has "even better" transport, to acknowledge the unprecedented tape speed quartz/servo controls which rely on sophisticated software/electronics, and a long/elaborate tape path (just count the tape path elements).

Hence, the tape A820 speed/time stability (W&F), in principle, is unbeatable.

How does this translate into practice, is another matter, as every sophistication comes at a cost - more tings that may go wrong, hard to calibrate/maintain w/o dedicated expert (don't try this at home:). The reliance on the software to deliver that accuracy means that if it is not adequately maintained, you will go out of specs, and often out of operation. And remember, while more modern, the A820/810 are to be seen as computers, of 10+ years of age.

The A80 was built on the concept of mechanically-based stability and reliability, with more simple servo systems and no software. This makes its age less important, as soon as you refresh the mechanics/electronics, and definitely more user/service/mod-friendly. This friendliness will become more and more important, with age, and the shortage of Studer techs in your area.

My own choice is modified A80.
Tod

[docb]

Nicely put, Tod. Those great big buttons and nearly idiot proof tape path make the A80 a prime candidate for someone who wants a truly top flite machine but maybe isn't a super mechanically oriented person.

[ironbut]

Hey Tod,

You mentioned that your A80 is modified. Could you give us some details on what has been done and how it effects performance?

[microstrip]

Thanks Tod, Dan and Steve. After some weeks "fighting" with an old A80 with the help of a sound card PC spectrometer and  the D. Manquen "Flutter Database" for the A80 (really a valuable tool for tuning any Studer), I am fully able to understand your opinions.
Can I also ask for some detail on the modifications?
Regards
Francisco

[kipdent]

Interesting thread as an A80 RC Mk II owner. Also, I want to unequivocally state how much I love the thing...  :-)

Kip

[ironbut]

Hell Kip,
I love your machine and I've never evens seen it in person!

[traf]

Hello Studer fans,
I have 3 A80RC (one is 1/2" 15/30ips) in differnet stages of modification, along the following lines:
1. PS revisited:
a) All 'lytics upgraded (everywhere, not just PS) for best quality and up to 50% higher values,
b) Faster diodes (18ns)
c) Dedicated PS/regulation with Lars (former LC Audio) for the audio boards - in progress
2. Mechanics:
a) Capstan motor rebuilding, with ball bearings - in progress
b) bearings replaced on tape path
c) Sapfire tape guides
3. Audio path:
a) rebuilding the discrete opamp A101 with modern components/LN-transistors/resistors
b) use of tight tolerance metal film resistors and low noise matched transistors on audio path
c) use of film caps on signal path, where possible (stacked PE) and/or a combo of better 'lytics (Nichicon NP) and a bypass film cap;
d) rewiring with low capacitance screened cable, reducing total capacitance 50% - looooots of loooong cables inthere!
e) taking the signal before the final output stage/trafos, also bypassing the meter bridge - in progress
f) upgrading for high output tapes, as per the manual (a few caps)

Results: each mod gives small incremental improvement, adding to a very detailed, lively image, not that the stock version is bad.

Similar mods also done on my 2 A810, but the mod-freedom is more limited there - forests of opamps (replaced) and 47uF 'audio path 'lytics (replaced). My past experience in jewelry was very helpful when I had to redo the preamp in the headblock, so packed now that I wonder if a bacteria could get in there.

Bet wishes,
Tod