Ampex ATR 800 1/4" 2 track (info needed)

[gtbuba[_2_]]

Hey Gents, I,m looking into buying a used Ampex ATR800 2 track. I know
they are sort of like the ATR700. Made by Teac. Has anyone owned one
of these machines? Or used one. I ,m looking at using it with my MCI
JH16 track 2" as a mixdown deck. GT.

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba > wrote:
>Hey Gents, I,m looking into buying a used Ampex ATR800 2 track. I know
>they are sort of like the ATR700. Made by Teac. Has anyone owned one
>of these machines? Or used one. I ,m looking at using it with my MCI
>JH16 track 2" as a mixdown deck. GT.

I've used one. They aren't horrible, but they are kind of flimsy and
more of a pain to work on than a 440.

Given how cheaply all this gear is selling, I would be more likely to recommend
a 440 or an MCI JH-110. But ask on the Ampex Mailing List, somebody
will have one they'll be willing to sell.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 6:50*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> gtbuba > wrote:
> >Hey Gents, I,m looking into buying a used Ampex ATR800 2 track. I know
> >they are sort of like the ATR700. Made by Teac. Has anyone owned one
> >of these machines? Or used one. I ,m looking at using it with my MCI
> >JH16 track 2" as a mixdown deck. *GT.
>
> I've used one. *They aren't horrible, but they are kind of flimsy and
> more of a pain to work on than a 440.
>
> Given how cheaply all this gear is selling, I would be more likely to recommend
> a 440 or an MCI JH-110. *But ask on the Ampex Mailing List, somebody
> will have one they'll be willing to sell.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ok will check out the mailing list. I guess the ATR700 and ATR 800
are much different than ATR100? Glenn

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT), gtbuba >
wrote:

>On Jun 3, 6:50*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> gtbuba > wrote:
>> >Hey Gents, I,m looking into buying a used Ampex ATR800 2 track. I know
>> >they are sort of like the ATR700. Made by Teac. Has anyone owned one
>> >of these machines? Or used one. I ,m looking at using it with my MCI
>> >JH16 track 2" as a mixdown deck. *GT.
>>
>> I've used one. *They aren't horrible, but they are kind of flimsy and
>> more of a pain to work on than a 440.
>>
>> Given how cheaply all this gear is selling, I would be more likely to recommend
>> a 440 or an MCI JH-110. *But ask on the Ampex Mailing List, somebody
>> will have one they'll be willing to sell.
>> --scott
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>Ok will check out the mailing list. I guess the ATR700 and ATR 800
>are much different than ATR100? Glenn


The ATR 700 is basically the same machine as the TASCAM 25-2 and 7300.

The ATR 800 is considerably more refined. Neither compares to an
ATR100.




Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba > wrote:
>Ok will check out the mailing list. I guess the ATR700 and ATR 800
>are much different than ATR100? Glenn

Yes, they bear no connection with the ATR-100 which was actually an
Ampex machine.

When Ampex discontinued the 440, they needed a replacement broadcast-grade
machine that they could sell into the same market, and so they rebadged
a couple Japanese machines. They weren't bad machines, but they were a
step down from the 440, I think, and not as well-supported today.

I kind of think of the ATR-100 as an MR-70 replacement.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 10:12*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> gtbuba > wrote:
> >Ok *will check out the mailing list. I guess the ATR700 and ATR 800
> >are much different than *ATR100? Glenn
>
> Yes, they bear no connection with the ATR-100 which was actually an
> Ampex machine.
>
> When Ampex discontinued the 440, they needed a replacement broadcast-grade
> machine that they could sell into the same market, and so they rebadged
> a couple Japanese machines. *They weren't bad machines, but they were a
> step down from the 440, I think, and not as well-supported today.
>
> I kind of think of the ATR-100 as an MR-70 replacement.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't remember anything about the mr 70's. I have owned a 350 and a
351 my MCI has Ampex clone cards in it. It sound great. Quiet
operation too.Also have owned a 440c years ago. So that could work
again. Got signed up for the mailing list tonight. Glenn

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/3/2011 5:50 PM, gtbuba wrote:
> Hey Gents, I,m looking into buying a used Ampex ATR800 2 track. I know
> they are sort of like the ATR700. Made by Teac.

It's not at all like the ATR-700 except that it's
manufactured by TEAC. The ATR-700 was designed by TEAC,
based on the 7300 high end home recorder. Ampex adapted the
design to be a replacement for the 600 series.

The ATR-800 was designed by Ampex as a studio or broadcast
production recorder, something more modern than the AG-440
but less expensive than an ATR-100 series. It's a lot more
complicated than an AG-440 and potentially better, but if
you're going to be doing your own maintenance (you pretty
much have to these days), you might find an AG-440 easier to
live with.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba > wrote:
>I don't remember anything about the mr 70's. I have owned a 350 and a
>351 my MCI has Ampex clone cards in it. It sound great. Quiet
>operation too.Also have owned a 440c years ago. So that could work
>again. Got signed up for the mailing list tonight. Glenn

The MR-70 was a high end machine. It was touchy and required constant
attention, and cost a fortune, but it was very much the flagship of the
line.

The 350 and 351 machines were broadcast workhorses, as was the 440, and
that market was a huge one and accounted for a lot of Ampex's sales.
So there are a lot of those machines out there on the surplus market.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>gtbuba > wrote:
>>I don't remember anything about the mr 70's. I have owned a 350 and a
>>351 my MCI has Ampex clone cards in it. It sound great. Quiet
>>operation too.Also have owned a 440c years ago. So that could work
>>again. Got signed up for the mailing list tonight. Glenn

>The MR-70 was a high end machine. It was touchy and required constant
>attention, and cost a fortune, but it was very much the flagship of the
>line.

Vaguely remember seeing the MR-70 listed in a 1960s era Allied Radio catalog (it's
true -- you could mail-order some really cool stuff if you had the coin).
Pricing was into the range of a modest home of the era (US$3-7K)

Never seen one in the flesh, but from what I've read it was indeed an engineering
marvel but indeed needed attendence by someone in a white lab coat.

Have also heard that the total manufactured was less than 100 units, with about a
fourth of those machines owned by US intelligence agencies.

Any of this MR-70 history sound correct?

And as a general curiousity, do we know in round numbers the production run totals
for these models (with no regard to configuration):

200
350/51
440
1000
1100
1200
ATR100
ATR124

I realize this is really off in the weeds, just curious.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

>
> And as a general curiousity, do we know in round numbers the production
> run totals for these models (with no regard to configuration):
>
> 200

128


> ATR100

about 3000


> ATR124

32 or so

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>Never seen one in the flesh, but from what I've read it was indeed an engineering
>marvel but indeed needed attendence by someone in a white lab coat.

Yes. The ATR-100 isn't QUITE that bad, but the white lab coat is definitely
recommended. The servo control electronics in the ATR-100 look like someone
pulled out the TTL databook and ordered one of everything.

>Have also heard that the total manufactured was less than 100 units, with about a
>fourth of those machines owned by US intelligence agencies.

I don't know if it was THAT low.

The spooks did like those machines, though. They also liked the ATR-100
machines and the Nagra-Ts as well. In fact, my ATR-104 was originally owned
by one of those three-letter guys and I got it a surplus auction in the
nineties.

>And as a general curiousity, do we know in round numbers the production run totals
>for these models (with no regard to configuration):
>
>200
>350/51
>440
>1000
>1100
>1200
>ATR100
>ATR124
>
>I realize this is really off in the weeds, just curious.

I don't know, but I bet someone on the Ampex list will. There are even
people who are fans of those awful 600 machines and the horrible Sunnyvale
consumer Ampex machines there. Presumably they care more about history than
actual sound quality...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."