Post by: rickymix on September 29, 2008, 01:09:44 AM
So Fletcher and I were trying to figure out the current value of my API EQs, which I love but rarely use these days since I no longer have a tracking room. I have a pair each of original 550s, 550As, and 560s.
The 560s are the vintage "Hen's Teeth" version with the original long-throw faders and 2520. They're in great condition, which as you probably know is what makes them rare, since most vintage 560s have been destroyed over the years by people spraying them with Deoxit or Cramilon, etc, which kills the faders. Those original faders haven't been manufactured for decades, so all the subsequent API 560s; As, Bs, Reissues, etc, have short-throw faders which have less subtlety.
I can't find any info online regarding the current value of any vintage API EQs. All the stuff on eBay, etc seems to be the new reissues. Do y'all have any anecdotal info regarding the realistic value of these, or suggestions of where to look for info? Yeah right, you'll be happy to take them off my hands for $10.00 a piece! :>) No, but seriously folks.....
Thanks for sharing you're expertise and time!
Cheers, Rick Novak.
Post by: Hank Alrich on September 29, 2008, 01:12:46 AM
I'll give ya ten bucks for 'em.
Post by: Andres Gonzalez on September 29, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
At least this is a data point for you for the 550As. I have never purchased an original 560 (I have a couple of the reissues 560s).
-Andres
Post by: Andres Gonzalez on September 29, 2008, 08:32:24 AM
| rickymix wrote on Mon, 29 September 2008 01:09 |
The 560s are the vintage "Hen's Teeth" version with the original long-throw faders and 2520. .... Those original faders haven't been manufactured for decades, so all the subsequent API 560s; As, Bs, Reissues, etc, have short-throw faders which have less subtlety. |
How can a 500-series module have "long-throw" faders? Is the physical size the same? and then the resistance range of the fader wider? When I hear "long-throw" I assume that refers to the physical/travel range of the fader.
-Andres
Post by: Haolemon on September 29, 2008, 07:33:56 PM
Post by: Andres Gonzalez on September 29, 2008, 08:13:58 PM
| Haolemon wrote on Mon, 29 September 2008 19:33 |
The faders adjust left to right. |
Yes, that is my point. The 500-series modules are only 2 inches wide so I have a hard time thinking of them as being able to be "long throw." So to have a 560 "long throw" version with less than 2 inches left-to-right just seems odd to me. That is why I am asking if the "long throw" version is the same physically as the re-issues--the difference being the resistance range of the actual fader.
-Andres
Post by: rickymix on September 29, 2008, 10:35:12 PM
Andres, the 10 little faders which move left to right are the same size on all of the 560 models. If you push the faders to the extreme left or right they all sound the same. But on the original "Hens' Teeth" version, the middle area near the center detent is "longer throw", meaning that you have to move the fader further left or right to cut or boost the audio by the same number of dbs. My initial reaction was the same as most people's; "What's the big deal with that? So what?" The reason it's important, and why these old EQs are so desired is this:
The vast majority of the time you DON'T push those faders to their extreme. Usually you make subtle "S" curves with them, and the majority of those 10 faders are very close to their center detent. Certainly closer to the center than to the extremes usually. Multiply that times ten faders, and it's simply much easier to sculpt good sounds with the old long-throw version.
Hope that explains it. Let me know if not.
Cheers, Rick.
Post by: Andres Gonzalez on September 29, 2008, 11:12:30 PM
I did not think the fader was physically different--it wouldn't be a 560 without 10 horizontal faders--I figured it was just a different taper on the pot. But I have never seen a "Hens' Teeth" 560 and I associate "long throw" faders with consoles with long faders.
Thanks again for the clarification.
-Andres
Post by: Bryson on September 30, 2008, 07:51:21 AM
| Andres Gonzalez wrote on Mon, 29 September 2008 20:12 |
I associate "long throw" faders with consoles with long faders. |
As do I.
Post by: Hank Alrich on September 30, 2008, 11:03:02 AM
| Bryson wrote on Tue, 30 September 2008 04:51 | ||
As do I. |
So imagine laying on a tall couch and looking at the console sideways!
Post by: rickymix on September 30, 2008, 05:49:36 PM
The issue with any API 560 faders is that they shouldn't be sprayed with ANYTHING; Deoxit, Cramilon, WD40, etc. It destroys them. And then they can only be replaced with the newer "short taper" faders. Which is why old 560s in good condition are "rarer than hens' teeth". :>) They used to be the most expensive of all the API EQs.
I've got a pair in good condition and have no idea of how to value them now. I remember thinking the prices of API EQs were silly when they were valued at $300 each when I bought the Record Plant API desk from Stevie Wonder in 1986! :>) I kept a pair each of 550s, 550As, and these "Hens' Teeth" 560s when I eventually sold the desk. But I rarely use them now in this digital world, especially since I no longer own a drum tracking room.
Any advice on how to go about selling these EQs? Where and for how much?
Thanks as always,
Rick Novak.
Post by: Silvertone on October 01, 2008, 07:58:18 AM
If so Digitran still sell the set for 1800.00 each!!!
Caig actually makes a conductive plastic spray that works extremely well with these type "faders" or switches. I've had "totally stuck ones" that move like they are brand new now.
Do they look like these? ...
Post by: tom eaton on October 01, 2008, 08:02:58 AM
tom
Post by: rickymix on October 02, 2008, 04:07:11 AM
I'm sure you're correct; the old 560 faders should be called Log Taper faders and the new ones are Linear Taper.
As for the cleaning spray; I have a can of "CAIG DeoxIT D5" which I've been warned not to use on my 560s under penalty of being beaten to death with a wet noodle! DeoxIT is certainly a miracle substance which I used to use regularly and generously on practically everything else, 550As, patchbays, etc, but never the 560 faders. The Electrodyne/Sphere faders are very different, BTW. They're stepped, aren't they? Lovely desk, BTW!
Cheers, Rick.
Post by: Silvertone on October 02, 2008, 07:29:03 AM
| rickymix wrote on Thu, 02 October 2008 03:07 |
"Log taper", "long fader"... Hmmm, maybe I, or someone else, simply heard it wrong back in yore, and I've been saying it wrong all these years? Could be. I'm sure you're correct; the old 560 faders should be called Log Taper faders and the new ones are Linear Taper. As for the cleaning spray; I have a can of "CAIG DeoxIT D5" which I've been warned not to use on my 560s under penalty of being beaten to death with a wet noodle! DeoxIT is certainly a miracle substance which I used to use regularly and generously on practically everything else, 550As, patchbays, etc, but never the 560 faders. The Electrodyne/Sphere faders are very different, BTW. They're stepped, aren't they? Lovely desk, BTW! Cheers, Rick. |
Yes Rick, you are correct, they are stepped in 2dB increments. Thanks for the compliment on the console she's been a labor of love for the past few years. I just picked up two of the CA 702 compressors for her.
Caig does make a conductive plastic spray. I use it all the time (for over 20 years now). I'll get the name off the bottle later today. I highly recommend it. For sticky metal pots and such I use Miller-Stevenson, I've found it to be better than the Caig and leaves no residue like Caig can (I'm talking for cleaning not lubing).
Post by: rickymix on October 04, 2008, 03:09:57 AM
Are the originals still considered more valuble than the re-issues?
Years ago I sold a pair of 1176's for $1250 each, twice what I payed for them. What I didn't realize was that they had become super trendy and were going for over $2000 each at the time. I'm just trying to avoid making that same mistake again! :>)
Thanks for your help!
Cheers, Rick.
Post by: wwittman on October 05, 2008, 11:32:22 AM
(for the models with 2520s, that DON'T suck)
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2008, 11:39:50 AM
Post by: wwittman on October 05, 2008, 11:46:25 AM
but on the whole, API has been smart enough to realise that their reputation is built on that discrete 2520, transformer in and out, sound.
the exceptions have always turned out to be mistakes.