Talk:Studer

Family / Lineage & History

This subject appreciates help from other Studers, who have a knowledgable history of their Family Lineage. Contributing this way can help Wikipedia grow a larger base of family history throughout the past and present, as well as work to track where family lineages extend from and in to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proud kraut (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) The photo at the bottom of the page which is titled "Studer A80, 2-track recorder, mastering version" cannot be used as a mastering machine because it has no record head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.186.39.77 (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

this is OR

"The core circuitry of the two was otherwise substantially identical"

& besides, it is simply not true. I can tell you from my own OR that the revox branded machines had only some occasional overlaps with the apparently similar studer machines, & mostly in the area of transport (mechanical) construction & transport control, e.g A700 vs studer B67, B77 vs PR99. the A700 was really the only revox open-reel machine to have common ancestry, so to speak, with an established studer model. in the case of the "revox" branded PR99, what we have is a recognition of the appeal to budget conscious users of the workhorse A77/B77 machines, & an attempt to offer them something a bit more suitable for heavy-duty use. some of them left the factory with "studer" branding. similarly, the "revox" branded C27x machines were a lot cheaper than functionally-equivalent studers. it gets a bit blurrier in the case of the cassette & CD machines, but (anecdotally) the old man didn't take these formats as seriously anyway, & had to be persuaded to allow his engineers to create a cassette machine at all.

the audio electronics in every case is at least substantially different (& not just the lack on the revox of the balanced i/o connections), & in most cases completely different. how do we address this? there was undoubtedly some considerable penetration of the revox machines into what should have been studer markets, had the studers been more affordable- theatres, small radio stations, studios & other places where the machine might not be in such frequent use, & they are often described optimistically as "pro" or "semi-pro" machines.

I'll try to find some citable source for this, even though everyone (apart from whoever wrote that line in the article!) already acquainted with these brands already knows this stuff.

duncanrmi (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)