R
RRuskin
Rick Ruskin
Just posted in classified on behalf of a neighbor.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Is that the one that reportedly was used by Bryan Adams?
R
RRuskin
Rick Ruskin
I have no idea.
lo.fi.love
Functionally obsessed.
Want want WANT!
Good luck selling the machine
Good luck selling the machine
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
I just wondered since it was up by you, Rick.
I've seen an MM-1100-16 on craigslist and eBay a couple-three times each over the last number of months all referring to Bryan Adams, and an acquaintance of mine in the Portland area who does some servicing for machines in the Seattle area knew of it and was trying to help find a buyer too...just wondered if it might be the same machine.
The 1100 addressed issues that plagued the 1000, namely the size. The 1100 is the same console format of its successor, the very popular MM-1200. The 1100 wasn't around very long before the 1200 came out. IIRC it was kind of pushed to market because the 1000 wasnt competing well due to its dinosauric size and I imagine the reputation was a bit challenged because it didn't have auto-input-switching for ease of punch-ins until later in the production run. The 1100 was better set in that regard and a *much* smaller package because all the plugin cards (which would be 48 in number on a 16 track) were in a frame arrangement rather than in separate modules like the 1000 (which were taken from the 440 series). The issues I've heard about the 1100 is that some verisons (basic entry versions) didn't even have VU meters or any scrape flutter idlers...later versions included meters and one flutter idler, but the total wrap angle on that thing is relatively large and lots of unsupported tape and in stock form not one rolling guide (part of the wrap angle problem). So on paper flutter was bad. The 1200 addressed all that. Not saying the 1100 is bad by any means, but its enough to keep me away. The MM-1000 is rediculously big, and it also has lots of unsupported tape, but a much smaller wrap angle thanks to a number of rolling guides, and flutter reducing idlers aplenty (3 on the 1" version).
I've seen an MM-1100-16 on craigslist and eBay a couple-three times each over the last number of months all referring to Bryan Adams, and an acquaintance of mine in the Portland area who does some servicing for machines in the Seattle area knew of it and was trying to help find a buyer too...just wondered if it might be the same machine.
The 1100 addressed issues that plagued the 1000, namely the size. The 1100 is the same console format of its successor, the very popular MM-1200. The 1100 wasn't around very long before the 1200 came out. IIRC it was kind of pushed to market because the 1000 wasnt competing well due to its dinosauric size and I imagine the reputation was a bit challenged because it didn't have auto-input-switching for ease of punch-ins until later in the production run. The 1100 was better set in that regard and a *much* smaller package because all the plugin cards (which would be 48 in number on a 16 track) were in a frame arrangement rather than in separate modules like the 1000 (which were taken from the 440 series). The issues I've heard about the 1100 is that some verisons (basic entry versions) didn't even have VU meters or any scrape flutter idlers...later versions included meters and one flutter idler, but the total wrap angle on that thing is relatively large and lots of unsupported tape and in stock form not one rolling guide (part of the wrap angle problem). So on paper flutter was bad. The 1200 addressed all that. Not saying the 1100 is bad by any means, but its enough to keep me away. The MM-1000 is rediculously big, and it also has lots of unsupported tape, but a much smaller wrap angle thanks to a number of rolling guides, and flutter reducing idlers aplenty (3 on the 1" version).
T
thinbrownline
New member
Cory
Only the early MM-1100s had all fixed guides (which can always be replaced with rolling ones of course).
An MM-1100 with rolling guides has an identical tape path to the MM-1200.
I have just completed a rebuild of an MM-1100-8 for someone local. It was actually made from the best parts from two 16Ts. Not a particularly difficult job, however I wouldn't recommend rebuilding a 16T - rather spend the same amount of time rebuilding a constant take-up tension MM-1200.
From a routine repair point of view, the big difference between the two machines is the switcher cards. On the 1200 they just pull out, whereas on the 1100 you have to pull the channel bay, disconnect rods that reach from the front panel to the pots and switches, before you can remove said card.
Still a nice machine though!
Regards
David
Only the early MM-1100s had all fixed guides (which can always be replaced with rolling ones of course).
An MM-1100 with rolling guides has an identical tape path to the MM-1200.
I have just completed a rebuild of an MM-1100-8 for someone local. It was actually made from the best parts from two 16Ts. Not a particularly difficult job, however I wouldn't recommend rebuilding a 16T - rather spend the same amount of time rebuilding a constant take-up tension MM-1200.
From a routine repair point of view, the big difference between the two machines is the switcher cards. On the 1200 they just pull out, whereas on the 1100 you have to pull the channel bay, disconnect rods that reach from the front panel to the pots and switches, before you can remove said card.
Still a nice machine though!
Regards
David
Last edited:
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
I seem to remember reading that the MM-1100 often had issues with hygroscopic materials in the audio cards, and that this issue was fixed in the MM-1200. Did I just imagine that?
Cheers,
Otto
Cheers,
Otto
T
thinbrownline
New member
It is mentioned on the recordist.com web site certainly, and refers to the switcher cards.
I have never seen it myself, but maybe we are immune in SoCal because of the climate?
Regards
David
I have never seen it myself, but maybe we are immune in SoCal because of the climate?
Regards
David