Studer A820 in for repair!

[Fred Thal]

What is the real cause of anomaly with positioning of left guide roller in fast wind modes? Any input?

The modification was on tape lifter control right.

Not sure who you're asking. But I'll jump in.

First, I should make an important qualification for my remarks. I'm not an A820 expert. Far from it. I was very late to the A820 party. The A820 was long out of production before I ever started to study it.

And I do not know the answer to your question.

Regrettably, I've also never even met an A820 expert. Undoubtedly, there were at least several at Studer, back in the mid to late 1980s. But many, or even most of them (and here I mean the true A820 experts) were long gone from the firm by the early 1990s. As many will recall, that's another story.

But back in 2008, I was still very much in the freshman class on learning this machine.

Yeah, today I may teach a class, but I'm still really only an A820 sophomore.

Now to your question. As I suspect you know, we usually hear about the right guide roller parking in the wrong position, as though polling is sensing that a time code block is installed when one isn't. So I was perplexed by what I observed back in 2008 with this left roller positioning issue.

So I asked the one person at Studer in Regensdorf who at that time was charged with fielding the unceasing torrent of world-wide service support requests for the obsolete, unprofitable, analog tape machines. He was a very kind and caring person and he always tried to help me. He made inquiries, but on this one, he came back empty handed.

Because I had observed that the problem would not exhibit with the same TD MPU card (loaded with the same firmware) in any machine of any later serial number, I wrote it off as some kind of unknown, undocumented, hardware-firmware incompatibility bug.

If I knew back then what I know today, I could maybe find it with only a few, simple card or firmware substitutions. Maybe.

It could also be as simple as a left guide motor control board optical interrupter disk position error, as your post subtly hints at. But I think we checked for that.

Perhaps someone else has long ago done this investigation on Mike Lavigne's machine? (I don't know.)

But I'm curious to learn if you are asking about this because you too have seen this left roller parking position issue? I believe I posted about it on the Studer list ten years ago. But I don't recall ever receiving any helpful answers. That suggested to me that the problem was indeed rare.

 

[c1ferrari]

after Fred wrote his concerns about my comments regarding the work he did on my Studer A-820, i started thinking more about it, and eventually i recalled that right after i picked it up in 2008, exactly 10 years ago, i asked him to write a short description of what he found, and what he did. i was afraid i would either oversell what he did, or not relate it properly (like i just did).

i just searched my email's and found that response that he wrote which i've copied in it's entirety below. it's different than what i posted on this thread earlier, so first off, i was wrong and he was right. my apologies to Fred for being wrong and unfair to him and inferring something i should not have. obviously i've referred people to him over the years for good reason.

Thanks for sharing this, Mike.

 

[c1ferrari]

ATAE is sometimes asked why we ceased to offer repair and reconditioning services for Studer A820 tape recorders.

The answer is a bit complex (sorry), but perhaps suffice it to say that we prefer building our new reproducers and recorders, over trying to restore vintage ones for which far too many critical genuine original parts are no longer available.

That said, one of the very last A820s fully reconditioned by us was completed back in 2014.

The cost to our customer for that reconditioning job was thirty-five thousand dollars.

Note that no one so far contributing to this thread has ever owned (or probably even seen) an ATAE completely reconditioned A820 recorder-reproducer.

And I suspect most here are seriously questioning the $35,000 amount we charged for the work.

Well, let's brake it down. That was about eighteen thousand dollars for parts, and about seventeen thousand for labor, which also included sublet labor.

Seem too high?

Well, where would you go to have your A820 spooling motors properly reconditioned?

(Here's a hint: no one here in the USA can do this work well.)

Or, how do you correctly recondition a Studer sinter-bearing capstan motor today?

Or, what about something as "simple" as sourcing a proper replacement A820 pinch roller?

(Think you know someone who sells a properly engineered substitute one? How would you tell?)

For those who still might think that ATAE was (or is) charging too much, please note that we have many parts custom made in Germany to our specifications. (Care to discover what that costs today?)

So, even at thirty-five thousand dollars, we were just breaking even on our A820 reconditioning jobs.

I see that the new WBF platform doesn't accept large image files. So tomorrow, I'll temporarily post a few pics on the ATAE website, showing WBF readers three different views of our last A820 reconditioning job.

The pics were all taken in 2014. The first will show you our customer's A820 transport foundation, re-mounted in its tilting auxiliary frame, which was repaired (precision re-welded) by us. The view is of the transport sub-assembly being readied for its path component reassembly.

The next pic will show you the critical A820 700 and 701 basis boards, immediately following their re-capping here. (The original, removed electrolytics are also seen in that pic.)

The final pic shows you the unit's main power supply unit, the infamous A820 "PSU brick", also just after being re-capped and being readied for bench testing by us, before its re-installation back into the machine.

I hope someone enjoys seeing these "insider" views of the wonderful Studer A820.

Looking forward to it, Fred. Thanks.

 

[yjwu]

Not sure who you're asking. But I'll jump in.

First, I should make an important qualification for my remarks. I'm not an A820 expert. Far from it. I was very late to the A820 party. The A820 was long out of production before I ever started to study it.

And I do not know the answer to your question.

Regrettably, I've also never even met an A820 expert. Undoubtedly, there were at least several at Studer, back in the mid to late 1980s. But many, or even most of them (and here I mean the true A820 experts) were long gone from the firm by the early 1990s. As many will recall, that's another story.

But back in 2008, I was still very much in the freshman class on learning this machine.

Yeah, today I may teach a class, but I'm still really only an A820 sophomore.

Now to your question. As I suspect you know, we usually hear about the right guide roller parking in the wrong position, as though polling is sensing that a time code block is installed when one isn't. So I was perplexed by what I observed back in 2008 with this left roller positioning issue.

So I asked the one person at Studer in Regensdorf who at that time was charged with fielding the unceasing torrent of world-wide service support requests for the obsolete, unprofitable, analog tape machines. He was a very kind and caring person and he always tried to help me. He made inquiries, but on this one, he came back empty handed.

Because I had observed that the problem would not exhibit with the same TD MPU card (loaded with the same firmware) in any machine of any later serial number, I wrote it off as some kind of unknown, undocumented, hardware-firmware incompatibility bug.

If I knew back then what I know today, I could maybe find it with only a few, simple card or firmware substitutions. Maybe.

It could also be as simple as a left guide motor control board optical interrupter disk position error, as your post subtly hints at. But I think we checked for that.

Perhaps someone else has long ago done this investigation on Mike Lavigne's machine? (I don't know.)

But I'm curious to learn if you are asking about this because you too have seen this left roller parking position issue? I believe I posted about it on the Studer list ten years ago. But I don't recall ever receiving any helpful answers. That suggested to me that the problem was indeed rare.

Hello Fred:

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Yes, my A820 has the same parking position "issue". I wondered that roller would be a little bit "down" so tape will not touch it at fast rewind. That was after I learned how to switch F253 wind mode A/B. Still later did I realize the position of right roller is for time code reading.

My guess was that the hard plastic cam drive maybe updated from WA21252 to something else? Or there was an undisclosed update service information on tape lifter control left? A comparison of tape lifter control left of Mk-I and Mk-II would make it clear.

I had not been in touched with other A820 owners nearby. I started the learning of A820 in June 2014. Before that A820 was just an internet picture I kept in my computer.

Sincerely,

Yeun-Jung Wu

 

[dcc]

The figures put forward by Fred don't surprise me.

When I acquired my A80 RC Mk II directly from a recording studio, I gave my studio pro tech (40 years of experience with Studer tape recorders BTW) a mandate to perform a full reconditioning.

He was very transparent and showed me all the invoices for spare parts as well as a full breakdown of the hours he spent on the machine. The invoice from Audio House for the original Studer spare parts was quite steep not to say the least.

I also received hundreds of pictures of all the work performed with detailed explanation which for a non-tech guy like me were difficult to understand.

The total bill was about 20.000 euros including the upgrade of the repro cards and an additional newly designed stabiliser card which trumps the fully reconditioned Studer one.

The Studer tape recorder is still the cheapest source component I have but is the one that brings the best musical enjoyment. I let you do the math on the cost of 200 copies of master tapes...

Regarding the repro cards, my tech worked in two stages: a full reconditioning and then an upgrade where all resistors and transistors were replaced by higher specs components. He did the same for the design of the new stabiliser card. I had the machine back at my listening room between these two interventions (I have a set of spare cards) and I can therefore attest that the upgrade was worth every penny.

I had the chance to compare my A80 against another one which was supplied by a well known reseller in Europe. All I can say is that I could tell a difference between both units and by a large margin.

My tech always tells me that the A80 is a piece of cake compared to the A820 and he recommends the A80 for an audiophile use. He currently has several A820s in his lab that are in very poor condition but their owners believe that he can make miracles for a few bucks. One got a capstan motor dead because the owner dropped a can of coke on the the tape recorder! Quite frankly, I would not want having one of these machines in my listening room.

Needless to say that my tech who comes from the pro studio world is totally against external tape head preamps on an A80 or A820.

 

[ALF]

I sourced my A820 through ATAE/Fred a few years back...it is a super performer without issues. I got lucky, it was a one-owner machine that never saw studio time. The previous owner had this Studer in his home for personal use. It is as close to NOS as one could find. Due to its age, Fred spent a few months after I purchased the A820 completely going through and making any updates as needed. In this case, no need for a tape repo amp, sweet...

Many thanks and a very kind shoutout to ATAE and Fred!!

Cheers!
ALF

 

[Fred Thal]

I got lucky, it was a one-owner machine that never saw studio time.
ALF

I'm afraid that this might fuel a popular misconception.

So let me address it.

Finding an old A820 (or A80) that has very low operating hours is likely a thrill for practically anyone, but it's no assurance that the machine is suitable for serious use today.

In fact, it's often these impossibly low hours, extremely low usage history ones, that will now exhibit the highest flutter. I'm talking off the charts flutter. (There a technical explanation for how this occurs. It has to do with the drying of the grease that's inside the roller bearings.)

What's happened with the audiophile tape renaissance, is that everyone has bought into the bogus idea that all you need is to find a nice old Studer that has had its capacitors changed. Or let someone also try to change out all the bearings.

Sorry, but it just ain't so.

And many of these once magnificent machines are being ruined in the process. (I could show you this in pictures. Very sad pictures.)

ATAE is extremely glad (no, make that elated) to no longer be selling old A80s or A820s!

We're still buying them though. It's the secret to how we can build our new machines and sell them for less than a quarter of a million dollars.

Those exceptional core Studer foundations were real works of mechatronic art and I'm proud to be saving them.

 

[c1ferrari]

Finding an old A820 (or A80) that has very low operating hours is likely a thrill for practically anyone, but it's no assurance that the machine is suitable for serious use today.

Agreed.

What's happened with the audiophile tape renaissance, is that everyone has bought into the bogus idea that all you need is to find a nice old Studer that has had its capacitors changed. Or let someone also try to change out all the bearings.

There are DIY audiophiles that derive great satisfaction from the hands-on experience with their object(s) of joy. As well, there are audiophiles that are fortunate to source an A-820 AND technical support, e.g. Martin Berner, Charlie Bolois, Goran (sorry...surname eludes me at this moment), Fred Thal, et al. (the ususal suspects from the Studer List). I happily coexist in either description.

Those exceptional core Studer foundations were real works of mechatronic art and I'm proud to be saving them.

Agreed and congratulatons!

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

. . . because of the more modern components, even better than when the machine was new.

As a matter of interest, I have bought a machine from Fred Thal and found that in comparison with a good second hand machine completely updated by Petronel (at a vastly reduced price!) sounded far superior and I can therefore through personal experience, heartily recommend that approach.

Thank you for posting, Mike.

What, exactly was the nature of the machine you bought from Fred? Was it a stock machine from Fred's A820 collection? Was it a machine on which Fred performed basic updates like replacing bearings and capacitors? Was it a remanufactured ATAE machine which employs, among other things, Fred's custom outboard power supply and single head repro-only headblock?

. . .

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is indeed interesting (and puzzling) that professional audio studio people unanimously vote against external tape repro amplifiers.

Fred, as I have suggested to you two or three dozen times privately over the last four years I think you could have a business reconditioning machines the way you reconditioned that A820 in 2014, charging whatever are the parts costs with a reasonable profit margin for you.

 

[Bruce B]

It is indeed interesting (and puzzling) that professional audio studio people unanimously vote against external tape repro amplifiers.
.

I use my Doshi all the time. I've used others in the past as well. A few professional studio equipment companies produced external tape repro's, Dave Hill of Crane Song (Aria) and Manley.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is indeed interesting (and puzzling) that professional audio studio people unanimously vote against external tape repro amplifiers.

they also vote against turntables verses digital. until they get exposed to a reality check. how many pro audio guys have heard top flight turntables? or the best tape repro's?

ignorance is ignorance......it takes open minds and open ears to learn. or just exposure to alternatives.

OTOH there are realistic production reasons to stay with a consistent work flow for pros. it's not all performance oriented.

 

[dminches]

Fred often voices his hatred for audiophiles.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fred often voices his hatred for audiophiles.

I probably have had more private conversations via telephone and over email over the last four years with Fred than anybody else. This statement is an exaggeration. Fred does not “hate” audiophiles. It is more that he feels sorry for what he believes to be our ignorance and misunderstandings and misguided approach.

Fred, in my opinion, does not respect some aspects of our approach to sound reproduction and our acquisition of and use of the machines. He feels we lack knowledge about the operation and maintenance of the machines (of course he is correct about this as we are hobbyists and not professional audio people or technicians), and he is baffled how we could claim to be enjoying the high-end sound as audiophiles while maintaining this ignorance and while failing to achieve initially and to confirm on an ongoing basis proper technical operating parameters and calibration of our machines.

Fred finds unpersuasive and baffling our hobbyist audiophile view that whatever the imperfect and unverified mechanical and technical operating status of our machines it is good enough for us to achieve sound quality we value and enjoy.

I understand Fed’s arguments and criticisms, many of which, I think, are valid. But I also feel that some of Fred’s arguments and criticisms are inapposite to our approach and objectives, and are answers to different questions than the ones we as audiophile hobbyists choose to ask.

Fred, if I have misinterpreted or misstated any of your views on this matter please, of course, correct me here.

 

[Bruce B]

Fred often voices his hatred for audiophiles.

I have one 10x worse than Fred..... Tim de Paravicini... I had asked him a couple of times if he would mod on Studer A80's. When he found out I was using outboard tape pre's, he outright called me an a-hole. He then went off into a diatribe degrading me, cursing and made me feel like I was the scum of the earth. Enough said!

 

[dminches]

Ron, I respectfully disagree based on the number of posts I have read that Fred has posted which have disparaged audiophiles time and time again. He has posted a number of time on his studer achives list and even referenced WBF in order to show what fools we are. I don't know what you and Fred talk about. All I know is what he has posted.

 

[Fred Thal]

It is indeed interesting (and puzzling) that professional audio studio people unanimously vote against external tape repro amplifiers. . .

That's just not true, Ron.

Bruce Brown's reply to you listed some examples that contradict your assertion.

I could add many more.

One in particular, one that many people strangely never mention, is the same company that arguably launched this whole idea of outboard tape audio electronics in the first place.

It most certainly wasn't Doc Bottlehead, arriving very late to the tape scene.

It was a company called Inovonics, originally in Campbell, California.

Inovonics was Jim Wood. An absolutely brilliant electronics designer. And a delightful person. I have tremendous respect and admiration for Jim.

Need a second opinion? Ask any of the guys still living who were at Ampex, designing tape electronics back in the day about Jim Wood.

One of the five available "tape stages" (I'm still not sure I like using that term) that ATAE offers a buyer of our one hundred thousand dollar Model Two tape playback system, is a repro amplifier circuit designed by Jim.

I know, you think ATAE should make our line of different "tape stages" available for sale, separately.

Your good friend Mike Lavigne has always told me this, too.

I respect your well intended opinions, and thank you for them, but there are several important technical considerations that would make this highly problematic for me.

I prefer eliminating technical problems. Not creating them.

 

[ALF]

...as Fred told me, one of the other 5 available ATAE “tape stages” is a Studer option...as Fred said, “ Your machine already has that one!”

...anyway, still pining for an ATAE Model TWO .


Many thanks and another very kind shoutout to ATAE and Fred!!

Cheers!
ALF

 

[Mike Lavigne]

...as Fred told me, one of the other 5 available ATAE “tape stages” is a Studer option...as Fred said, “ Your machine already has that one!”

...anyway, still pining for an ATAE Model TWO .


Many thanks and another very kind shoutout to ATAE and Fred!!

Cheers!
ALF

Trafoless (Transformerless) output cards?

 

[microstrip]

It is indeed interesting (and puzzling) that professional audio studio people unanimously vote against external tape repro amplifiers.
(...)

they also vote against turntables verses digital. until they get exposed to a reality check. how many pro audio guys have heard top flight turntables? or the best tape repro's?

ignorance is ignorance......it takes open minds and open ears to learn. or just exposure to alternatives.

OTOH there are realistic production reasons to stay with a consistent work flow for pros. it's not all performance oriented.

IMHO you are comparing apples with oranges ... But I will avoid the digital/analog wars ...

Anyway, IMHO there are good technical reasons for avoiding the external tape repro amplifiers for some one wanting an optimal system. The tape head is a complex system and the input stage must match it accurately. Unless the amplifier designer knows what is the head and cables being used he can't do a perfect job, and then each customer is a special case. It seems to me such burden is beyond what ATAE considers reasonable.