# Lucky me, but do I want this project? Yes. Yes I do. Studer A810.



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

An old friend called me up and said "I think you should have this."










"I also have three boxes of tape if you need any," he says.

This was purchased by CBC Radio back when these were new, and the tech who maintained it bought it at auction from them when CBC retired it. It was part of his studio until it was bumped by those new-fangled DAT decks. I doubt it's been turned on since. 

Cool. But after some quick reading online it seems I'm likely going to need to replace the battery before I even try to fire it up, and I should re-cap the whole thing and clean everything. I thought "no problem," but there are around 74 caps to be replaced! 

Then I'd need to learn to calibrate it, let alone use it!

Is this a project I really want to take on? My friend said he has another, not quite as good, a810 I could have if I revive this, so there's some incentive. But I'm not recording anything these days, let alone on a reel-to-reel. But, then again, it's a cool piece with a history behind it.

Came with original manual and all circuit diagrams! A 3.5" binder! 

What to do? Keep it 'cause it's cool? Sell it? Refurbish and sell? Bury it in _my_ "old, but probably cool," pile of gear?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I'd give it a try. If it wasn't used much, maybe it doesn't need to be refurbished. If it needs to be refurbished, I'd bury it in _my_ "old, but probably cool," pile of gear?


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Moot said:


> An old friend called me up and said "I think you should have this."
> 
> View attachment 160281
> 
> ...


Depends how much free time you have I suppose. If you have the time and motivation, do it up.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

If it works, why would you go through all that work to solve imaginary problems? 

Free tape? Even unused, it is still old tape so it will not be up to spec anyway. Still good for daily use, though. 

Hook up a couple of decent mikes and run her every time you jam. When that magic riff happens you'll have it covered. Code the tape by date and time. Other notes if necessary. Re-run the tape til its pooched. 

Drive the deck into the ground and sell it for parts.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

Believe it or not, reel to reel has its own following right now. A high quality tape machine is worth big dollars, it might be worth doing some research on the possible value of this unit.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Lord-Humongous said:


> Believe it or not, reel to reel has its own following right now. A high quality tape machine is worth big dollars, it might be worth doing some research on the possible value of this unit.


Looks like 1/2" tape. This will never be a music recording studio piece. Its a high quality utility deck probably used for interviews.

I would personally be effin thrilled to get such a prize. Great for home use. I think I paid about $700 for a bottom of the line Teac that was re-built by a couple of old-timers in Texas. I bought it for nostalgia. 

This one is way better. If it works fine forget the re-build if you intend to use it. Otherwise...

Yeah, Humongous, properly re-built it would be worth four figures.


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

Nice friend. Personally I find that most technology when approached from a dedicated person will likely take away your playing and writing time. That’s my take. 

They are cool. But for $300 used to have a zoom r24 with SD card is tough to beat. 

My two cents. Rock on either way.

Last thought
Could be a rabbit hole that just wastes your time. And if you're allowed to just sell it then you could be much further ahead (practically speaking ).


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2018)

I have a '61 Phillips that I inherited from my wife's uncle.
Boxfull of store bought and recorded big band music.
Everything works except the stereo mic which is weak.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

laristotle said:


> I have a '61 Phillips that I inherited from my wife's uncle.
> Boxfull of store bought and recorded big band music.
> Everything works except the stereo mic which is weak.
> 
> ...


The perfect match!! I know they seem expensive but the spelling of "mikrophone" is correct so don't fool around.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CMC64STSet


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2018)

Wow! More than what I would dish out for recording jams. lol.
Someday, I'll research to see if this is worth fixing.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

Everything old is new again. You can buy reel to reel copies of the original masters of some famous sixties acts now (there was a Beatles album on the list I saw, maybe Sgt Peppers). They are around $500 a piece of I recall correctly!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies so far, everybody!

I think I'll take the Kapn's advice and simply turn it on and see what happens.
I'll put the VU meters back into the main unit so it's all together.

Yup, only 1/4" tape, though I can compensate for the size a little by running the tape faster.
These units were considered portable for their day! We've come a long way, baby!


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Moot said:


> Thanks for all the replies so far, everybody!
> 
> I think I'll take the Kapn's advice and simply turn it on and see what happens.
> I'll put the VU meters back into the main unit so it's all together.
> ...


I am surprised at how happy I am to hear that you are going to use it! Nostalgia runs deep, 
I guess. Good luck and keep us posted! _ 

Audacity_ into the back of your desktop computer is fine for converting demos to digital.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

KapnKrunch said:


> Looks like 1/2" tape. This will never be a music recording studio piece. Its a high quality utility deck probably used for interviews.
> 
> I would personally be effin thrilled to get such a prize. Great for home use. I think I paid about $700 for a bottom of the line Teac that was re-built by a couple of old-timers in Texas. I bought it for nostalgia.
> 
> ...


Dude, sure it would - it's stereo not multitrack. _Very_ in demand; not for tracking but as a mixdown deck. Granted mixdown decks are not as large a market as multitracks, but still, this is _the _most desirable one.

And that's exactly what I would want it for (considered going that way, obviously with a lower end deck than this, but decided against getting into tape due to cost and maintenence; would have to learn all from scratch). Also for live off the floor pure stereo recordings, which I don't do as much anymore, but would if I had one of these in working order. Even if it was 4-8 track on 1/2"; someone would want it and the price would be good (again - me, except I am mostly over my tape lust at this point for the reasons mentioned) for a smaller/project studio even though most pro places would insist on at least 1" for that.

Also worth quite a bit of coin as parts; no need necessarily to fix it up before selling. But yeah @Moot, fire it up and see.


----------



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Dude, sure it would - it's stereo not multitrack. _Very_ in demand; not for tracking but as a mixdown deck. Granted mixdown decks are not as large a market as multitracks, but still, this is _the _most desirable one.
> 
> And that's exactly what I would want it for (considered going that way, obviously with a lower end deck than this, but decided against getting into tape due to cost and maintenence; would have to learn all from scratch). Also for live off the floor pure stereo recordings, which I don't do as much anymore, but would if I had one of these in working order. Even if it was 4-8 track on 1/2"; someone would want it and the price would be good (again - me, except I am mostly over my tape lust at this point for the reasons mentioned) for a smaller/project studio even though most pro places would insist on at least 1" for that.
> 
> Also worth quite a bit of coin as parts; no need necessarily to fix it up before selling. But yeah @Moot, fire it up and see.


Very encouraging, thanks!
At first I thought "It'll be just like my old Radio Shack cassette recorder, but bigger." Boy, was I wrong! Once I started reading the manual I realized that this was the kind of kit an engineer would spend a couple of years to master.
But my buddy is coming over to show me how to use it as a cool slap-back delay! Now that's decadence!

I've cleaned the tape heads. The tape that was in the unit must have been there since it was put away - it looked like rust that I was removing. 

It's missing its tape-cutter and two screws. _Everything_ I've read online urges changing the battery if it hasn't been fired up for five years or more. I may as well look at the caps while I'm there.

It might be a fun restoration project, and, who knows, maybe I'll find it worth learning. 
But compared to Pro Tools, it's a bit archaic. 

But now that I think about it, I bet Hipsters would _love_ tape masters!


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Moot said:


> But compared to this, Pro Tools is shit!


Corrected.


----------



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

LOL'd!



KapnKrunch said:


> Corrected.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

Moot said:


> But now that I think about it, I bet Hipsters would _love_ tape masters!


Exactly. Even if tracking to tape, it makes sense to mix down to digi UNLESS you are going to master OTB (analog) in which case it makes more sense to leave it analog vs converting back and forth all the time. There are a lot of people (from Pro to Indie,) who do just that - keep it all analog through to mastering.

I can't afford analog mastering (or analog tracking). I rec to DAW, multitrack out to mixer and outboard, and then mix back down to digital and leave it there (except if I'm pressing vinyl, which is not often).That's still more rounds of A/D conversion than I would like, but the best feasible compromise for what I am trying to do.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

The A810 is an iconic mastering recorder. It was a great gift from your friend.

As others have said, I think analogue tape is best viewed in the rear view mirror. The only benefit I can see these days is to use it, along with several other long surpassed iconic devices, to attract clients who think that stuff is "best".


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Granny Gremlin said:


> There are a lot of people (from Pro to Indie,) who do just that - keep it all analog through to mastering.


Pretty much backwards I would say. To go analog all the way and then do the final refinements digitally, well... just shows how misunderstood mastering is. Way better off with digital tracks to save the money for analog mixing and analog mastering. 

I know a mastering engineer and starting out, he thought he was doing it pretty well in the box, until he went pro with all analog gear. Funny thing is, everybody was happy before and everybody is happy now. I guess he was the only guy who could tell the difference. Although his new clients are better musicians and pay better too. 

Frankly a lot of those refinements are lost on me. Did we even have mastering in the sixties? I hear that guys like Ted Fletcher used to scab stuff together for the BBC outa military parts. 

BTW, GG what you said about the submix tape deck is so true. I stand corrected. Definitely want analog mastering with that though.

Check out this piece of brand new mastering gear. Talk about analog! It doesn't even have a power cord...

Gyraf Audio


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

Oh I'm familiar with Gyraf. 

But no, most mastering is in the box these days (just like the entire rest of the music production chain) - sure most bands lust for analog mastering but most of them can't afford it (it does cost more) and if you hand them digital files it makes little sense to convert to analog to master (some people do it anyway). Many big mastering studios or pros will have an analog option, but all, with maybe a very few limited niche exceptions, have the digital option. IMHO, the most important factor in the mastering process is the person's ears and their monitoring environment. Digi/Analog is not half as important as that (mastering is not supposed to add anything, but clean things up and even things out; increase translatability from one playback system to the next; digital is actually better suited to that vs analog; and I love analog, but I don't want a mastering engineer who's gonna add or change the character of the track that we just spent ages tweaking so everyone is happy) but one engineer may do a better job with one or the other for various reasons. Also I do find that better monitoring environment does correlate with analog process, but not in a strict rigid sense.

In the 60s mastering was part of the laquer making process for record making (hence the term we use now - making the master disk). The processing that was done on the way into the lathe that cut the first disk from which the stampers were made. In the early 50s there prob wasn't too much to it, but by the mid-late 60s there'd be a whole processing chain in there fo sho.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Oh I'm familiar with Gyraf.
> 
> But no, most mastering is in the box these days (just like the entire rest of the music production chain) - sure most bands lust for analog mastering but most of them can't afford it (it does cost more) and if you hand them digital files it makes little sense to convert to analog to master (some people do it anyway). Many big mastering studios or pros will have an analog option, but all, with maybe a very few limited niche exceptions, have the digital option. IMHO, the most important factor in the mastering process is the person's ears and their monitoring environment. Digi/Analog is not half as important as that (mastering is not supposed to add anything, but clean things up and even things out; increase translatability from one playback system to the next; digital is actually better suited to that vs analog; and I love analog, but I don't want a mastering engineer who's gonna add or change the character of the track that we just spent ages tweaking so everyone is happy) but one engineer may do a better job with one or the other for various reasons. Also I do find that better monitoring environment does correlate with analog process, but not in a strict rigid sense.
> 
> In the 60s mastering was part of the laquer making process for record making (hence the term we use now - making the master disk). The processing that was done on the way into the lathe that cut the first disk from which the stampers were made. In the early 50s there prob wasn't too much to it, but by the mid-late 60s there'd be a whole processing chain in there fo sho.


 I worked for CBS in the early seventies and through a microscope I watched the sound from a tape deck cut the acetate straight from tape. At the record plant in Don Mills. Then the stamping discs were made from the acetates. I guess that's what you mean by "master disc".

As far as digital mastering goes, I still say you are dead wrong. Listen to the kapn. Go analog or go home. The purpose of mastering is not only consistency and correction, but also naturalization. You know, the way our ears function. Digital don't do dat. Ever. 

A mastering engineer "changing" the sound? Ouch. There are a lot of crappy mastering engineers out there -- ALL of the digital guys and MANY of the analog too. You're right. It's all about the ears. And a good mastering engineer will recognize that digital shit every time. Lot of those big names in mastering are simply masters at making money.

Most mastering done in the box? I guess thats what Dylan meant when he said: "There's a lot of shitty-sounding recordings out there today."


----------



## albert (Apr 15, 2009)

I also bought a Studer A810 from the son of a guy who worked for cbc radio. He was in charge of maintaining the machines. When they were replaced he kept one of the better machines that was used for editing tape. It is a 2 track 1/4 " machine with only playback heads. It has a meter bridge and trolly. It is used in my stereo system and sounds great. I did no repairs, I just hooked it up and turned it on. I paid $750 cad for mine.

I never changed the battery in mine, I am going to have to look into that.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

KapnKrunch said:


> I worked for CBS in the early seventies and through a microscope I watched the sound from a tape deck cut the acetate straight from tape. At the record plant in Don Mills. Then the stamping discs were made from the acetates. I guess that's what you mean by "master disc".
> 
> As far as digital mastering goes, I still say you are dead wrong. Listen to the kapn. Go analog or go home. The purpose of mastering is not only consistency and correction, but also naturalization. You know, the way our ears function. Digital don't do dat. Ever.
> 
> ...


Acetates usually refers to cheapo disposable low-volume run discs such as promotional 'flexis.' I am used to master, manually cut discs being called laquers. Dub plate being (usually) lower grade laquers or thicker (higher grade) acetates. I'm sure a lot of (especially network) radio stations cut stuff straight to disk in a hurry - you gotta send it out to the locals etc (and in any case, there is a significant audio processing chane between the control room and transmitter - not as much need to do it ahead of time); I was speaking about big biz music production. Still, in the case you mention there must have at least been a RIAA filter (surprised ther'd be no limiter at least as well to help max out signal to noise ratio).

Some people just don't take change well. Digital recordings can sound fabulous.... but just not in the same way as analog. So fine, you really prefer the analog sound (whatever that is specifically - no one thing, but a few related things - this can go further into tube vs solid state era as far as rec gear goes). I like both for different things (same as with tube and solid state). The overall sound quality of all music is much higher than the 70s (especially on the low end - go listen to a punk record then and now; many of the oldest ones sound pretty bad (we didn't care cuz that wasn't the point). The Monks Bad Habits was recorded to tape and all analog; sounds thin and meek, exactly what everyone says digital sounds like (but it was recorded before that). Great record despite that, and granted, I doubt that was recorded it at a top studio with a top producer, and maybe they made it sound shitty on purpose, they were lampooning punk after all, but that's hardly the only one.

On the other hand, and I'm not a huge fan (my wife is), but check the production on Reflektor by Arcade Fire. These guys have scoured the eastern half of Canada and litterally bought up all the the seminal/legendary McCurdy tube preamps they could find. They rec analog (it's documented they used multitrack tape for Reflektor) and recorded it in an abandoned castle (stone, large, and empty). It sounds better (even if you don't like the music) than most records I know (in an objective way vs nostalgia - watch out for that), even all analog ones. Is it the tape? A bit, sure, but I'll bet that natural reverb in the castle and those McCurdy preamps (or whatever they were using - dunno if they took them with to the studio, the point is they know their gear and would be using the good shit) had a lot to do with it too and you can still use those things and record to digital.

Then there's Silent Alarm by Bloc Party. Love that record and it sounds amazing. Different but on par with Reflektor. Recorded at Deltalab in Denmark, which is digital, but they have really nice gear otherwise and good acoustic spaces.

Since recordings no longer have the DDD or AAD etc mark on them (not sure if people remember that or what it means - tracking/mixing/mastering - Analog or Digital), for most records we hear we won't know what the case was specifically, we can only guess and trust the Wikipedia page/interviews, if those exist and mention it. I wonder if folks just assume that shittier records are digital vs good records analog. 

You don't explain what you mean by naturalisation so I can't respond to that, but if it involves changing the sound of the mix then I'm gonna disagree.

I know you have your mind made up, but when you say categorical things like all digital mastering engineers suck, it is very hard to take you seriously. I've used a couple. At least 1 of them was a bloody genius (also worked in an analog room, but I couldn't afford it).


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

NOW that’s i know it’s a two track I agree with @Granny Gremlin well worth giving good run for its money.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Granny Gremlin said:


> You don't explain what you mean by naturalisation so I can't respond to that, but if it involves changing the sound of the mix then I'm gonna disagree.
> 
> I know you have your mind made up, but when you say categorical things like all digital mastering engineers suck, it is very hard to take you seriously. I've used a couple. At least 1 of them was a bloody genius (also worked in an analog room, but I couldn't afford it).


You are right, GG. A genius will always make good music - digital or otherwise. Sorry about that. I always imagine digital "mastering" as taking place in a basement where a guy thinks he is a recording engineer, a mixing engineer and a mastering engineer because he's got the software to prove it. Not everyone is like that. That was a dumb thing for me to say. Thanks for correcting me.

EXPLANATION OF "NATURAL": I am telling you what a professional told me. Why he abandoned computers and uses expensive analog gear. Because they respond to sound in the same way as the human ear and brain respond to sound. This is because of interaction between the analog components and the processing of electrical current not binary language. Those are just a couple of basics. 

Corrections that are made to offending levels or frequencies will sound like they occurred at the "source" (the amp, the voice, in the room) by following all the subtle dynamics that the non-corrected material is going through at the same time. Its not an isolated adjustment, it sits _naturally_ in the mix. The A/B switch must be checked to see if anything really happened sometimes. It's subtle. Transparent. It works through headphones, car stereos, hockey arenas, in broadcast, in album production. No surprises created by mathematical calculations that didn't quite work out, and were overlooked on other equipment by other ears. 

So its not just a matter of adjusting levels and frequencies and making everything even. It has to sound like it was played and recorded that way all along. The best analog gear doesn't isolate these things, it makes its adjustments _naturally _with regard for everything else that is happening at the time. With infinite sublety as is found in _nature_ not in a man-made program.

If you want specific examples of the problems created in the digital domain, just google analog vs digital mastering. Its all on line. Its easy to find pro-analog sites. 

I couldn't find a studio that recommended digital mastering.

Finally, why would it be cheaper to master on a computer if the guy had the analog gear right there? Maybe he finds it handy to offer higher-paying work, while being able to fall back on lower-paying work if necessary. Maybe he gave you an analog job and just said he did it on computer to keep his rates up. Seems weird...


----------



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

Success!










It gave me the "I've lost all the calibration settings" warning, and then started to play effortlessly.

The oddly-unnerving thing was the tape has some old mix-downs of my old (now deceased) guitar teacher (whose cab I recently refurbished.) And sounding quite young! I'm guessing it was from 15 years ago, or so. Cool.

It's missing its cutting mechanism and one screw on the transport. But I've arranged to grab the other unit my friend has in storage and I'm hoping it has those parts.

Thanks to everyone for his/her advice, and for the encouragement to simply turn the thing on!

It's great to finally have a reel-to-reel. As a kid in the '70's it seemed all the intellectual audio snobs had a unit, not to mention all industrial computers back then used reel-to-reel tapes as their RAM! Now I just need an LED watch and a Ghetto Blaster and I'd be what the '70's considered "pretentious."


----------



## oldfartatplay (May 22, 2017)

At the risk of being redundant, a wealth of information on Studers and other RTR tape systems can be found @tapeheads.net


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

I am so friggin jealous I can hardly stand it.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Moot said:


> Success!
> 
> The oddly-unnerving thing was the tape has some old mix-downs of my old (now deceased) guitar teacher (whose cab I recently refurbished.) And sounding quite young! I'm guessing it was from 15 years ago, or so. Cool.


Like the Kapn, I am seriously envious. I wouldn't know the first thing about these, what they are capable of, or even where to start, but a very cool gift. 

I gotta ask clarity on the tape of your old guitar teacher. Was that on a tape _you_ _already_ had, or was that on a tape that _came with_ the unit? If it's the latter, that is freaky! Or you live in a very small town, where everyone knows everyone, and sooner or later you'll find a recording of anyone who ever touched an instrument... both are still cool.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Moot (Feb 15, 2009)

SWLABR said:


> Like the Kapn, I am seriously envious. I wouldn't know the first thing about these, what they are capable of, or even where to start, but a very cool gift.
> 
> I gotta ask clarity on the tape of your old guitar teacher. Was that on a tape _you_ _already_ had, or was that on a tape that _came with_ the unit? If it's the latter, that is freaky! Or you live in a very small town, where everyone knows everyone, and sooner or later you'll find a recording of anyone who ever touched an instrument... both are still cool.


Small town effect. I'm guessing my friend (whose best friend was my old teacher) took the reels off when he got the unit and started with fresh tape. When he gave it to me I bet he took his recordings off and just put the old tape on so I'd have something to record to.

It looks like my friend has the calibration tape, too! Yeehaw!


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Moot said:


> Small town effect. I'm guessing my friend (whose best friend was my old teacher) took the reels off when he got the unit and started with fresh tape. When he gave it to me I bet he took his recordings off and just put the old tape on so I'd have something to record to.
> 
> It looks like my friend has the calibration tape, too! Yeehaw!


That is super-cool! 

If the recordings are his originals, you could write your own harmony parts with bass/drums/etc, and record a song together. Kinda like when Yoko gave Paul an old demo of John's that became "_Free As A Bird_".


----------

