Should vague item name be renamed

Hey, there is the Revox A77, where a bunch of artists are referenced to, but there are actually the Revox A77 MK1, MK2 and MK3. The picture shows a Revox A77 MK2. Should it be renamed to MK2, or MK1, or should the MK1 and MK2 and MK3 be added separately, keeping the current one to general? Thanks!

Great question, meb.

There are definitely items in the database that need separate entries for MK 1, 2, 3, etc -- The Elektron MK2 and MK3 products come to mind: there are meaningful changes between each revision, to the point where some owners agonize over whether or not to sell their current MK1 Octatrack (for example) to fund moving up to the MK2 or MK3.

But in the case of the Revox A77, a product discontinued almost 50 years ago, their use of model revision designations seems to be more old school: they were making subtle changes to the product almost every year, in the name of continuous improvement, aesthetics and/or parts availability, and not making much of an effort to market these changes to customers.

For things like this, I ask myself these questions:

Q: Would distinguishing between revisions help when submitting items to an Artist?

A: Looking at the current A77 submissions, I'd say no -- many of the submissions are from mentions of the A77 in interviews or official gear lists, rather from photos or videos. It doesn't look like many of them (if any) specifically mention whether they used a Mk2, Mk3, etc... they just say "We used a Revox A77".

Q: Would this help users shopping for gear?

A: I'm no tape expert, but from what I can gather about distinctions between revisions, its way more important to find an A77 that has been well maintained and calibrated, than it is to make sure you get a specific revision. The MK1 may have been slightly noisier than the MK2, as a theoretical example, but that was back in 1968 -- in 2024, the machine that was taken care of or recently restored is going to be the less-noisy machine, the few parts that distinguish between a MK1 and MK2 may have been replaced or upgraded over the years anyway. Also, it looks like there were some interchangeable parts between each Revision, so (in theory) machines still in operation today might have a capstan from a MK3, the body of a MK2, a meter from a MK4, etc.

3. Would community members who own this gear care about these distinction?

A: Some might, for sure, but if the Artist submissions are any indication, a lot of artists actually using these machines don't really care to mention the revision. There are some clear aesthetic distinctions between some of the revisions, as you point out, but I don't think any of the machines had "MK II" or "MK III" actually written on the unit anywhere, you have to look up your serial number and/or ask a tape forum to figure it out. In some quick research, I'm seeing people who have owned an A77 for years asking for help figuring out which revision they've been using.

So based on the answers above, I'd vote to keep this one simple as "Revox A77" and let it apply to all revisions... but what do you think?

You raised good points, that it was minor adjustments that were made over each revisions, so I think your idea of using the current Revox A77 for all revisions is the most appropriate solution.
Though, I think we should find a way to mention that it's all revisions (and also I have to remove the MK3 and MK4 I added yesterday (I'll use duplicates once we have all settled, but it might takes time :/)).

Though, I think we should find a way to mention that it's all revisions (and also I have to remove the MK3 and MK4 I added yesterday (I'll use duplicates once we have all settled, but it might takes time :/)).

For guitars, as an example, we have generic entries for all the major makes and models, like "Fender Telecaster", "Gibson Les Paul", etc and we don't list them as "Gibson Les Paul (all versions)" or "Gibson Les Paul (all models)" because then the entry looks strange in the Artist's profile or in someone's personal Equipboard.

Would mentioning that the "Revox A77" entry is for all revisions within the item description be enough, or were you thinking we need to list that it's for "all revisions" within the title?

Also, what if we had one general entry that was "Revox A77" and then separate entries for MKI through MKIV?

Another question: how did you happen across this issue in the first place? were you trying to submit something for an Artist? Did you start getting into old tape machines?

Yeah, I thought of having a "Revox A77 (all revs)" and the other models on the side like the guitars, but I think having one item "Revox A77 (general)" and merge all in it would be better.

I have a Revox PR99 in my room since quite a long time now, that I have to check the power supply if it would be safe to turn on (but I don't have the power cable :/).
I saw on equipboard that only two of these machines were referenced, so I referenced them all.
I did the same thing for Jupiter, iCON Pro (unfinished), Codanova and AJH Synth. (And then there were brands such as Sonicware or Livid that were in part filled, and I hadn't much to add, but still a few gears (iCON Pro had a few gears in there, but was still missing tons)).

Yeah, I thought of having a "Revox A77 (all revs)" and the other models on the side like the guitars, but I think having one item "Revox A77 (general)" and merge all in it would be better.

OK, got it. Mods don't have the ability to delete entries, so if you want the MK3 and MK4 entries you made to go away, just submit them as duplicates and explain why you want them removed in the duplicate notes. You're right that it will take months for the dupes to get looked at, most likely, but I don't think the entries are doing any harm in the meantime. In general, when it comes to adding gear to the database, only add gear to the database if you need it there to complete an artist submission, or you own the gear yourself and want to add it to your Equipboard. Adding gear for the sake of completion is something the Admins have asked us to refrain from, for a range of database-health and SEO-related reasons. If you added any other entries for the sake of completion, don't worry about it, just leave them be -- someone will use them eventually, I'm just mentioning this for future situations.

As far as adding the word "(general)" to the name of the Revox A77 entry that's been getting used, if that is what you're suggesting, we need to consider that this entry has been in use for 9 years and submitted to 14 different Artists over that time without anyone raising a concern... sometimes, things annoy me or seem too vague to me, and I want to change them right away, but I have to stop and ask myself "is this something that confuses other people, or is it just me?"... very often, it's just me, lol.

I have a Revox PR99 in my room since quite a long time now, that I have to check the power supply if it would be safe to turn on (but I don't have the power cable :/).

Sounds like a very cool piece of decoration to have in your room :)

OK, got it. Mods don't have the ability to delete entries, so if you want the MK3 and MK4 entries you made to go away, just submit them as duplicates and explain why you want them removed in the duplicate notes.

I wish people like us could help with the duplicates, since there are more and more, and it looks like admins don't have time to manage all of that.

I have a Revox PR99 in my room since quite a long time now, that I have to check the power supply if it would be safe to turn on (but I don't have the power cable :/).

Sounds like a very cool piece of decoration to have in your room :)

I wish I could make it work :D
It has Midi on it, would be fun to create an integration with Ableton and all, or just trying to create stuff without using any DAW.

Btw I fixed a guitar lute with my dad. It's my first guitar! I'm now legally a guitarist :D