What's better: A Rodgers 110 I Scarborough, or a Rodgers 610 organ?

[TheKappelmeister]

I know hardly anything about the 610, but I've played the Rodgers 110 I that I saw on craigslist. I noticed a practice panel on the underside of the keydesk but I don't know if the 610 has the same thing. I'm an organ student that needs a new practice organ with a decent stoplist (Pedal reed, mutation(s), mixture(s), and something that sounds better than a Baldwin 5A tube organ). My mother hates the organ, and I was wanting to put an organ w/internal speakers, and a headphone jack in my bedroomroom which is about 9'x12' and has a bed. So far, I'm planning on attaining the 110. Tell me all that you guys can about the 610 though, because I don't want to turn up being dissatisfied with the 110 I! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

[jbird604]

I'd probably want the 610 over the 110 but that's not a clear-cut opinion. The 110 is old, goes back to the 70's, so it's ancient technology and could having age-related issues.

The 610 is much newer, from the 90's. It is digital, so the tones will be much more realistic, at least individual notes of individual stops. Whether the ensemble effect of a digital is better than an analog is open to debate.

But the 610 is fully MIDI-compatible, while the 110 would have not MIDI and no hope of adding it on, if that means anything to you. Also, the 610 has a very elaborate capture system compared to the 110. The 610 has a headphone jack, and also has built-in speaker switching so you can add external cabinets if you want to, though it plays just fine through its rather nice self-contained speakers. It has excellent digital reverb, as opposed to the primitive spring reverb on the 110, if it even has reverb.

The only thing the 110 would have in its favor would be the generally sturdier construction of these vintage consoles. The 610 may have a less well-built console, possibly a poorer finish. Also, the keyboards in the 610 are probably those slightly lightweight Roland units that they used in cheaper models back then. However, the 110 may also suffer from keyboard problems if it has the rubber upstop/downstop bushings that crumble with age.

So, on balance, I'd go with the 610 because it's so much newer and will sound better, I think. But you may have other considerations such as cost.

John

[arie v]

Hi,

I would be inclined to agree with John here. I'm not familiar with the 610, but do know it was built from about 1993 till 1996. It would have had better build quality than the 4xx series that Rodgers was peddling at the time. It would not be a PDI organ, so voicing if any would have been very limited. The saving grace of this model, even for today, is the MIDI implementation, which was excellent for the day, but even still is good for sequencing, and using it for Hauptwerk and the like.

The 110 is from the mid 70s. It was well built, but is kind of over the hill. The tonal variations on it was limited, the ensemble was not great. Unless a knowledgeable tech got into it and improved the overall musical qualities of the instrument, I would pass on it.

I remember when the 110 was a current model, and was considered a good organ. My how times have changed! I must be getting old. Or at least older.

AV

[TheKappelmeister]

Thanks guys, I appreciate it very much. I think cost may very well be an issue. It's interesting to know how the 110 could be more durable (minus the stop bushings) than the newer 610. Now, Arie said that if a knowledgeable tech got inside the 110 "to improve the musical qualities of the instrument", he would pass it on. What kinds of adjustments would they make? And how would the sound be before and after? I've only played a Rodgers 22-d, the 110, and an Essex 605 (which sounded very good-almost digital) analog organ wise, and I thought the 110 sounded better than the 22-d, but the Essex 605 sounds better than all of them. My father is good with electronics, and he's very knowledgeable about these kinds of things.

[jbird604]

TKM,

A good electronics tech could probably fix any malfunctions in a 110. There aren't many unusual parts in it except for the oscillator coils, which rarely fail. Most everything else in it would be standard off-the-shelf parts. You do need the service manual, which I suppose can be ordered from Rodgers or obtained for you by a Rodgers dealer or tech.

But a knowledgeable organ tech with experience on the analog Rodgers models would go further than just repairs and would take pains to be sure the various stops are correctly balanced against each other. Also be aware that each note is separately tunable, and if the tuning is not properly done and re-checked every year or so, it will eventually start to sound really sour. Youwon't enjoy playing it all if it gets out of tune!

The difference between a poorly voiced and a properly voiced analog is considerable. If the stop balances are wrong, you are continually frustrated trying to play it, so it's worth the effort to have that done properly, along with the tuning.

Of course, the organ may come to you with those balances pretty well correct, if someone has done a good job on it in the past and no tinkering has been done in the meantime. But I would count on having it tuned after the move.

Interesting that you judged the 605 to be the best of the analogs you'd played. I suppose it had the rather good trompette stop that Rodgers seemed to have perfected in the later years of the analog production. Truth is, of the 3 analogs you listed, the 22 would be "more organ" in that those early 60's organs had more oscillators and more independent voicing and leveling controls than eitherthe 110 or theEssex organs, which were of course much newer.

I'd still rather see you get the 610 because of the age of the 110. But if it can be had for very little money, it might prove to be a perfectly good practice organ. However, if the keys are quite noisy and especially if they are noticeably uneven (some higher or lower than others) you may suspect the key bushings are the bad kind, and that may prove to be its undoing sooner or later.

Partner and I tackled one of those a year or two ago, removed every single key, replaced the bushings, and re-assembled. It took us all day working together, and the bill was not cheap! However, the customer was satisfied.

Best of luck. Let us know what happens.

John

[toodles]

The 110 can be more durable because fewer cost-cutting measures were employed in its manufacture. In 1970's, you got more wood for a dollar than you did in the 1990's. The plastic & metal keyboards used in the 1970's were of high quality compared to the all-plastic keyboards probably used on the 610. Rodgers spent more time finishing the 1970's organs than they probably did in the 90's. If you were looking for a console for conversion to digital via hauptwerk or Artisan, it would be a better platform. If you want plug'n'play, the 610 would be better.

Lots of the manufacturing cost of an organ goes into all the mechanical parts--probably moreso than in the electronics. So a 1970's organ from Rodgers isbuilt better than a 1990's organ. (Within a target price range.)

The 110 is what I would call an "impoverished" specification. It's got the bare bones basics, but not much else. Personally, I'd pass on both. If you can find a 645 or 655 (analog) it's what I'd look for in a lower price instrument, with respectable sound. They should have full MIDI implementation, too. But these organs had silk screened stop tablets, not engraved (just another cost-cutting measure for the lower priced end of the market).

There's a Rodgers Westminster 890 3-manual organ on e-bay right now with a very low staring price. Attractive if you can fit it in your house (& thru the doors). Analog, but the last generation of Rodgers Analog.

[arie v]

Toodles,

Rodgers started making organs cheaper around 1970 with the model 100. Most of the models made in the 60s were really well built, and a lot of it was using pipe organ type hardware.

Model 100, they started using metal frame keyboards with plastic keys, reduced the # of ranks of oscillators to a single rank, etc.

I'm not sure that Rodgers really furthered the cheapening process beyond that as long as they built analog organs. They did squeeze the lemon to make them sound better though.

I'm not surprised to find someone saying that the newer Rodgers, even in the analog era sounded better. Rodgers was constantly playing around with the filtering, and tweaking the attack characteristics, added wind noise, etc. By the late 80s, even the small organs sounded decent when it came to basic tone. The problem was more the ensemble, there wasn't much, and what was there was created by stretch tuning and phase shifters.

The most desireable of the Rodgers analog organs are the ones with MIDI. Would make a good platform to drive Hauptwerk or the like.

Rodgers really cheapened things when they came out with the first generation digital stuff. The 4xx series and 5xx series organs, were far inferior as far as build quality when compared to their last analogs. In their brochures they didn't even call them organs, they were called Rodgers Classic keyboards.

The higher end Rodgers digitals, the PDI instruments were built to a very different standard than the low end bottom feeder stuff.

AV

[TheKappelmeister]

I just received the Scarborough last night. It was a steal. The guy with the 610 never replied to the email I sent him regarding that console. Now all we need to work on is moving it to my room and getting it to work. I took a really close look at everything today, and in some areas, it seems to be just like the Essex, probably because it was made cheaper with plastic keys, and the stops feel the same as the Essex when I depress them. The pedal lights are very similar too. the 22-d I played had large light bulbs (like the ones in everyday lamps), and this one has two very small light bulbs on the underside of the keydesk in little cutout circles. I can't explain this better. My point is, that they resemble the pedal light of the Essex as well. I guess it WAS a newer console though.

[toodles]

Congratulations! Yes, the keyboards on the 110 & 610 are probably the same, but they are still decent keyboards. Likewise the stop mechanism is probably the same, but I think the stop shapes are different (610 probably has notched tabs). I think the pedal lights are a car lamp type of bulb (cartridge shaped).

Hope you get lots of enjoyment from the 110.

Toodles.

[Grant_Youngman]

You will enjoy the 110. No it isn't digital, and it has limited tone generator resources, but it's still a fine small instrument for it's time and price class.Several much more expensive Rodgers' from the time use the same tone generator racks. Not only that, if you decide some day to give Hauptwerk a try, the 110 can be easily (and inexpensively) converted to provide the appropriate midi signalling.

I had a 110 in my home back when these were "new" in the 70's. Thoroughly enjoyed it. And as someone else mentioned, the console was built like a tank.

On the Practice Panel. Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, sounds worse than a Rodgers analog listened to through a set of headphones on this Practice Panel thing. It will wear you out and give you a bad case of tinnitus over time. But since you have the practice panel, you should also have the spring reverb in the instrument. If you can afford it, you can easlily replace the spring reverb with something like an Alesis 110 (eBay, maybe a 100 bucks).FAR better!. You just plug the input and output cables from the spring reverb unit into the external reverb unit -- (Radio Shack parts). And then plug your headphones into the Alesis. Compared to the Practice Panel, you'll think you've died and gone to heaven