Reel to Reel Deck - Multrack to 2-track Conversion?

Greetings,

I have an older Fostex E16 deck (1/2," 16 track) sitting around collecting dust, and was thinking of possibly converting it to 2 track for printing mixes/mastering purposes.

I'd like to potentially outfit it with xlr ins/outs to replace the RCA connectors in back, replace caps/clean up the signal path, etc. in addition to swapping out the head mechanism - anything else I need to take into consideration? Been searching around the internet with no luck.

The machine is is good mechanical condition, figure this would be an inexpensive and fun alternative to purchasing an entire deck if it's possible.

Anyone have any insights into the feasibility of such an undertaking?

Thanks!

NCOak

The 1st challenge is to find a set of heads to fit....

Right, assuming I can find a replacement for the head assembly (or possibly swap heads in the existing block), any known logistical barriers to doing this?

In essence, a tape machine is a tape transport, heads, and rec / repro electronics. If you can get decent 2 track heads on the transport, and you like the electronics, you should be there. There will probably be some issues because the difference in track width that require modding the electronics. Better yet run the head cables to outboard electronics and use some more suitable units.
I think this could be a good idea, the transport is probably decent, and this is the thing you have to pay $$ for when buying a good 1/2" 2 track.
I have yet to find a good set of 1/2" 1/2 track heads for cheap.....

Appreciate the replies - yeah I've been looking around for a while for good 2 track heads, hopefully I'll get lucky sometime soon. Wiring the heads to their own appropriate electronics sounds like a great idea. Will keep everyone posted if I'm able to make this happen.

Everybody please feel free to chime in with thoughts or part sources!

I don't mean to discourage you, but I think you'd be better off selling that Fostex and buying a more professional 2-track machine and performing some maintenance.  

Once you add up the cost of new head, modifying the electronics with balanced connections along with whatever else needs to be done to properly print to 1/2", you're probably in for a lot of time and money for an experiment.  I got an Otari MTR-10 with Timecode for a song.  Patiently watching ebay, I found a NOS headstack with Timecode electronics kit and wiring for $200!  If I can get someone to teach me how to calibrate it, I'm in business for less than cost of a reel of 2".  

Granted it's not 1/2", but I know it was designed to work.  You're welcome to try anything you like, but to me it sounds like putting Porsche wheels and brakes on a VW Rabbit.  I might look cool, and improve the Rabbit's handling, but it sure ain't a Porsche.  (I make no claims that my Otari is the tape machine equivalent to a Porsche    )

I agree, and disagree... there are a ton of 1/4" machines out there, 1/2" 2 tracks are much more rare and bringing the highest $ of any tape format (excluding one offs like 1" 2 track, 2" 8 tracks, and so on).
His deck is actually not a bad transport, and there are many different electronics out there for a song. The big question is the heads. New 1/2" headsets are going for $2K+, so to do this for cheap it would take finding a deal on heads that will work in his headblock, and don't need major restoration.
As far as time goes, this is DIY, right? Time well spent...

As noted replacement 1/2" 2 track heads run $2k or more. Plus getting the heads to fit properly in the transport. THis all makes a nice project for projects sake. Then again a used MCI JH-110 in 1/4" 2 track or 1/2" 4 track show up quite often in the less than $500 range and are quite easy to convert to 2 track 1/2" (just put the headblock in the machine). THe headblocks are ment to be replaced to convert from one format to the other, come with XLR at +4 dBu and will do 30 ips too.

--Ethan

Thanks for the insights. Sounds like this will all hinge on my ability to find heads at a reasonable price....a pretty daunting task from all indications. Interesting thought on the MCI decks - I'd consider selling the E-16 and trading up, but it's got some head problems and led issues (almost all shot), don't think I'd be able to get much for it. Would love to be able to take advantage of the working transport et al, as it's pretty solid as is - I'll definitely keep everyone posted as to progress.

Cheers

i'm back!

having given up on finding 1/2" heads, and having far more time than money lately, i've got another idea. i've got a million of them  ;D

i'm thinking of using the existing heads in a 2 track fashion - say, tracks 1-8 for the left channel, tracks 9-16 for the right. creating a circuit around analog designs 2141/2142 ICs to (a) split one balanced signal to eight (for input, twice), and to (b) sum the signal from eight head outputs to one balanced signal (for output, twice).

i actually used this machine in such a fashion (8 in & out left/8 in & out right) a long time ago just with the 16 unbalanced rca ins/outs - interfacing with a motu 24io. i didn't encounter any noticeable phasiness or anything, and the results were surprisingly pretty decent for 16 cheap rca cables and 16 mediocre A/D conversions  ;D

so! assuming this is possible (no doubt involves extensive monkeying with/replacement of the signal path), is there any technical reason why this is an especially bad idea? i figure with 1/4" of tape real estate for each channel (albeit recorded/played back through 8 head gaps) it'll get me what i'm after - a 2-track balanced interface for mix saturation purposes.

i figure this could be a fun little project - probably not the most practical, but i don't really see getting much for it by selling it, so why not. if anyone has any specific insights as to why i may be a complete idiot for considering this, i'd like to hear them!

hey,
in my limited experience (but as a e-16 owner) i would say thats fine.
in fact, your noise floor should get lower as you add tracks (as common source signals add together in amplitude) i did it unity gain through my mixer but a dedicated box would be cool.

I might however, consider leaving the first and last tracks off, using just 2-15 split 7-7, although i havent noticed it on my machine, one of the common things to happen is the tracks at the edge lose high end definition faster.

good luck
post the results if you do it

that's encouraging about the noise floor, just the sort of thing i was hoping to hear. good point about tracks 1 & 16, they were a little problematic last time i used them for multitracking iirc.

it'll likely take me a while to figure things out, as i'm sort of learning as i go, though i did just find the e-16 service manual which is a big help...i'll definitely keep you posted.

thanks!

Unless you have the azimuth set up correctly,and the individual tracks aligned correctly,you will get phase anomolies using multiple tracks as one track in a2 track appI, but hey, that might be just what sounds good.I bought a Tascam 42B,( half track ,.25",7.5 and 15 ips, balanced I/O), off of Eb@y last year,literally brand new condition with a small dent in the top.It cost more,($80), to ship from Tx. than I paid for it.They're out there,just look around.All the tape saturation,mastering,and sluggish op-amp slew rate you would want.

Rule of thumb-every time you double the number of playback channels,noise floor increases by 3db.1-2 3db,2-4 3db,4-8 3db = 9db increase in the noise floor.

hmm, good stuff to think about. the phase anomalies would be due to the staggered gaps on the record head? that i hadn't thought of.

would you think that noise floor rule of thumb would apply even when bypassing the individual track electronics? i'm thinking of creating a discreet signal path for stereo balanced ins/outs to connect directly to the head ins/outputs via splitting/summing the identical signals with the 2141/2142 ICs. though maybe this isn't feasible - i'll need to look into it a bit more.

guess i'm doing this more as an exercise than a practical project...plus i've got all this 1/2" tape lying around, haha.

wkrbee said:

Rule of thumb-every time you double the number of playback channels,noise floor increases by 3db.1-2 3db,2-4 3db,4-8 3db = 9db increase in the noise floor.

Click to expand...

I take it you concur, and mean 'lowers'?

or am i reading your 'increase' to mean it gets worse?
as thats not what I found.

also, not sure about the phase anomalies, I have no way to measure that accurately but cant imagine you would get any worth note if your set up even close to right. but I think if your in a position to afford a proper alignment/set up you should probably just buy a real 2-track.

Dont think the result would be worth the effort (if it even worked properly) doing the heads thing you suggest.
i would probably make a rca combine/splitter box just for the purpose. and not end up with a bunch of broken parts that was once a 16 track tape machine

kepeb said:

Dont think the result would be worth the effort (if it even worked properly) doing the heads thing you suggest.
i would probably make a rca combine/splitter box just for the purpose. and not end up with a bunch of broken parts that was once a 16 track tape machine

Click to expand...

indeed! though i think it can be done in a pretty non-destructive fashion, just plugging the new path into the cable assembly from the head pcb. ideally, my thought was to improve the signal integrity/sound quality by replacing the 16 channel unbalanced signal path with a pristine, balanced 2 channel path. if i find this isn't possible, a combine/splitter box would definitely be a fun solution.

anyhow, i'll give it a shot and let folks know how it goes (if it goes!) - appreciate all the food for thought.

wkrbee said:

Rule of thumb-every time you double the number of playback channels,noise floor increases by 3db.1-2 3db,2-4 3db,4-8 3db = 9db increase in the noise floor.

Click to expand...

But, if the channels have identical signal in them, every time you double the number the signal increases by 6dB. So when you double the number of tracks, ifsignal is identical, the signal-to-noise improves by 3dB.

That's why wider tape tracks have better S/N than narrower ones.

Peace,
Paul