Tascam TSR-8 V Fostex 16 track Half inch tape

Ryan Murphy

New member
So I was down at the local vintage music shop. They are selling everything and they have a Fostex 16 track reel to reel down there.

My mixer only has 8 out puts (16 channel though)....

Has anybody used splitters before maybe I could double it up... Might be kind of interesting....

In the long run I would probably buy another mixer, but that is a whole other transaction. NOt wanting to get another mixer especially a bigger one than what I got.....

I can get the Fostex machine locally and most likely at a better price.

What does everyone else here have to say about this? I need to know.
 
What is your mixer? Does it have direct outs?

Sometimes on recorders the inputs on the first half of the channels are duplicated on the second half. In other words, input 1 would also feed track 9 (unless something is plugged into 9).

At least, that's the way it worked on my 8 track Fostex machine; I haven't used the 16 track before, though.

How many tracks do you need to record at once?
 
Yes...like the beagle said...do you need to record 16 tracks at once?

I assume about "8 outs" you're talking group outs....OK....but do your mixer channels have direct outs or any other I/O options?
There's many ways to skin a cat. :)
The fact that you have a 16 channel mixer, means it has 16 inputs...so that would be of greater concern, since it means you can take 16 tracks from the deck to 16 inputs and mix them all on your mixer.

Unless you are going to record a full band, with multiple mics on drums, etc...you're rarely going to exceed 8 outputs from the mixer to the deck.

It would also help if you actually identify the models you are referring to...since Fostex had more than one 16-track 1/2"...and there are many mixers with only 8 group outputs. My old Tascam 3500 was a 24-channel board...but with only 8 group outputs...never had an issue with that.

Oh...and what's the TSR-8 have to do with the Fostex?
You're talking about the mixer marrying withy the Fostex...but your title is about comparing two decks...?
At any rate...the TSR-8 has wider track with, being only 8 track across 1/2" tape...but depending on which Fostex 16 track you are asking about...that point may be less important than what you get with the 16 track deck.
 
As I recall, the Fostex 16's have a mult function allowing you to send to each track with a 4-buss mixer.
 
Thank you all that replied.

It is a Mackie 1642 - VLZ Pro.

I have 8 direct outs. I think they may be part of the bus, but I don't know yet. It has 4 stereo busses, and no I do not need 16 at once except for mix downs. There are 16 channels there I could use for that.... A lot plug/ unplugging. This where splicing comes in audio wire.
 
Thank you all that replied.

It is a Mackie 1642 - VLZ Pro.

I have 8 direct outs. I think they may be part of the bus, but I don't know yet. It has 4 stereo busses, and no I do not need 16 at once except for mix downs. There are 16 channels there I could use for that.... A lot plug/ unplugging. This where splicing comes in audio wire.

Get and install a patchbay.
 
You should probably avoid the G16S as the Dolby-S chips are known to fail.
If it's the Dolby C version (e.g. E16, G16) it should be okay, but do check the condition of the heads as you may not be able to replace them.
As others have said, the TSR-8 is likely to give you better sound quality, but having more tracks is very useful. The E16 was quite popular back in the day for budget studios and project studios, and has been used to make commercial recordings.
 
You should probably avoid the G16S as the Dolby-S chips are known to fail.
If it's the Dolby C version (e.g. E16, G16) it should be okay, but do check the condition of the heads as you may not be able to replace them.
As others have said, the TSR-8 is likely to give you better sound quality, but having more tracks is very useful. The E16 was quite popular back in the day for budget studios and project studios, and has been used to make commercial recordings.

It's a B 16, and I don't need 16 tarcks... I've have not made a recording that had more than 6 or 7 in awhile so i will probably be overlapping channels to get quality.... But alos I can imagine squeezing stuff into a smaller space for compression would be useful too. When I was in my early 20's I use to just use the web cam mic on Audacity and load 'em up with so many over dubs... It created some interesting stuff. I mean I still do that in a way to this day, but now I am more efficient. We'll see how it goes. Load up all 16 tracks with the tape and unload it on to computer at ultra super high resolution and add percussion with unlimited tracks :).

What's all this 30 ips I keep hearing about?
Fostex B16-D 1/2" 16 Track Reel to Reel | HALL OF | Reverb

Doesn't say anything about 30 IPS here.

Fostex reel tape recorders • the Museum of Magnetic Sound Recording
 
Last edited:
That guy on Reverb is mistaken...unless someone did an aftermarket mod, which TBH, I don't think could be done without replacing a lot of the stock parts...motors, electronics, etc.

I owned a G16C...which was two generations later (B16, E16 and then G16)...and the G series was substantially more sophisticated and better built than its predecessors...and it only ran at 15 ips...so did the E16. I doubt the B16 could do 30 ips...and then they changed that for the later models.
 
That guy on Reverb is mistaken...unless someone did an aftermarket mod, which TBH, I don't think could be done without replacing a lot of the stock parts...motors, electronics, etc.

I owned a G16C...which was two generations later (B16, E16 and then G16)...and the G series was substantially more sophisticated and better built than its predecessors...and it only ran at 15 ips...so did the E16. I doubt the B16 could do 30 ips...and then they changed that for the later models.

I was thinking about that myself. Maybe they put two tension arm springs on each tension arm spring and either doubled the voltage on the motor or got new motors. Anyway it's gone now. Still looked like a good deal though.
 
That guy on Reverb is mistaken...unless someone did an aftermarket mod, which TBH, I don't think could be done without replacing a lot of the stock parts...motors, electronics, etc.

I owned a G16C...which was two generations later (B16, E16 and then G16)...and the G series was substantially more sophisticated and better built than its predecessors...and it only ran at 15 ips...so did the E16. I doubt the B16 could do 30 ips...and then they changed that for the later models.

30ips became an available factory mod. A friend had it done by Fostex USA.
 
30ips became an available factory mod. A friend had it done by Fostex USA.

Didn't know that...or don't remember that. :)

I know some machines have an internal switch letting you do that, or external...I just knew the Fostex B/E/G machines came stock at 15 ips.

Was that offered just on the B...or also on the E and G series...?...because there is no mention of it the manuals that I could find.
Wonder what it cost and what had to be changed to get it to 30 ips...also, did that become then the only speed...or did you have the option to switch between 15 and 30 ips?

I guess the 30 ips for a deck like that might give you a bit of a fidelity boost...?...but like on my Otari MX80, I can do both 15 and 30, and I always run it at 15, it sounds really good in the low end, and much less tape use. I did some 30 ips tracking, and the difference was marginal with overall sound quality.

The 30 ips also might let you get away with not using NR on that smaller format deck...but again, on my MX80, I don't use NR and I run at 15, and it's pretty clean. They tried hard to get those smaller format machines to perform at higher quality levels, but they never got to the level of a large format decks, at any speed.
 
Didn't know that...or don't remember that. :)

I know some machines have an internal switch letting you do that, or external...I just knew the Fostex B/E/G machines came stock at 15 ips.

Was that offered just on the B...or also on the E and G series...?...because there is no mention of it the manuals that I could find.
Wonder what it cost and what had to be changed to get it to 30 ips...also, did that become then the only speed...or did you have the option to switch between 15 and 30 ips?

I guess the 30 ips for a deck like that might give you a bit of a fidelity boost...?...but like on my Otari MX80, I can do both 15 and 30, and I always run it at 15, it sounds really good in the low end, and much less tape use. I did some 30 ips tracking, and the difference was marginal with overall sound quality.

The 30 ips also might let you get away with not using NR on that smaller format deck...but again, on my MX80, I don't use NR and I run at 15, and it's pretty clean. They tried hard to get those smaller format machines to perform at higher quality levels, but they never got to the level of a large format decks, at any speed.


I have an E16 30ips and it has no speed switch. Too expensive to include @ the price point of the machine. It does have a Dolby C defeat switch, though.

The 30ips B mod was not widely publicized but it was made available to existing machines. Their VP in charge of marketing, a former guitar student of mine, 1st mentioned it to me.

30ips is a mixed bag. You get slightly better performance @ the top end but not so hot low end - all at twice the tape costs. After doing 1 session with Dolby C on my machine and not liking it, I went out and got 16 channels of dbx1 which noticeably improved performance. It couldn't compete with any 2" unit, I was still happy with the results. Given my druthers, if still doing production on analog tape, I'd find a clean MCI/Sony 24 track.
 
Given my druthers, if still doing production on analog tape, I'd find a clean MCI/Sony 24 track.

I drool every time I check out the Mara Machines. On the expensive side, but you know where the money went.

Home - Mara Machines

There was a guy not too long ago selling a 2" 24-track...and I looked at it hard, it was "new" from, Mara...and he only want like $7k for it, which is a great deal instead of the $12k...but then it was far away, crating and shipping w/insurance would have added at least another $1500-$2000 depending on the carrier.

It's not that I'm unhappy with my Otari MX80...but you're right, the MCI machines have that "mojo" in the electronics, just like some Ampex machines, and you do get some "color" out of them.
My MX80 is on the more neutral side with its electronics, though I can still add some flavor with the tape choice and how it's setup...but that also allows me to add color before and after the tape.
If I sprang for an MCI...I would probably keep the MX80 too...because it's actually more reliable than a used MCI, though the Mara machines are probably in another class, because they are fully refurbished and tested.

Back in the mid-90s, I did a short stint at a local studio that was pretty decent...not your million dollar studio, but they had a Neve 8058 and also an MCI 2".
I remember one sessions over a few days, that MCI kept "throwing a shoe" every 20-30 minutes of use...it was some small part that was blowing when the machine got hot, but it was a generic part, because the engineer had sent one guy to the local Radio Shack and told him to pick up everything they had on the shelf of that part (I wish I could remember what it was...but it wasn't a fuse). So when it would blow...it would take him maybe 5 minutes to replace it, and back to the session.
Not a major issue...but the one day, it was getting late and there was only one replacement part left...so if the session went longer, you would have to stop.

I know that doesn't paint a complete picture of reliability issues...but I know they were temperamental. The other issue with it was the remote....maybe it was an older one...but he had to literally PUNCH in hard-n-fast on the switches, otherwise there would be a noticeable audio glitch.

All that said...if I wanted to throw down the $$$...I wouldn't have any other reservations about getting a Mara MCI. They just do MCI desks and decks. I almost bought an MCI desk from Chris Mara, but it turned out to be too big for my old studio space. If it was now...I could easily fit it into my new studio space.
 
So I get the local tape machine because it spins tape. Ive always had problems with getting these things to spin right. I could hear noise from the test tape I had, but that is it. No green on the vu's for tracks or anything. But the noise sounded like tape traversing over the head so that is a good sign to me. I have no idea if the test tape I had had anything on it or not....

I have to order tape now and get a take up reel.


On the bright side though I was taking a look at my mixer and it looks like all the 1/4 inch inputs and out puts are stereo for bal audio signal.... So alls I need is to get stereo 1/4 inch to rca adapters. Even the 8 direct outs are balanced it appears.... and 8 inserts...

20200924_180501.jpg20200924_180550.jpg


So the tape is supposed to go inside that metal shield I guess?
 
Last edited:
You mention 'overlapping channels to get quality'. I may be mistaken, but if you mean what I think you mean, overlapping tape channels will not give you 'better quality'. It will merely double the output voltage, along with doubling the unwanted noise. It just comes to what you had before, just bigger. You're effectively 'summing' everything but not 'improving' anything. And if the head is worn, or the machine not well aligned, I'm guessing that you might even introduce slight phase error
 
While I am not so much a fan of any TSR type unit because I have to calibrate them and they are a pain with only two heads, the Tascam equipment
has been seen to be superior to the Fostex decks. I have worked on Fostex units and there are a lot more parts that can not be had. Go with a product that had more of them made. I fix Tascam decks but I may not do Fostex too much anymore.
 
You mention 'overlapping channels to get quality'. I may be mistaken, but if you mean what I think you mean, overlapping tape channels will not give you 'better quality'. It will merely double the output voltage, along with doubling the unwanted noise. It just comes to what you had before, just bigger. You're effectively 'summing' everything but not 'improving' anything. And if the head is worn, or the machine not well aligned, I'm guessing that you might even introduce slight phase error

No the outputs jacks on the mixewr are all balanced, so i don't need to splice any wire.... All I ment was sending one signal to two tape channels on the Fostex to double the width on the tape for better quality, but it is balanced. That is when they send two identical signals parrallel to the same source to cancel out noise and get better quality. I'll just send each signal to a separate tape channel. Having 8 balanced outputs and inputs is like having 16 normal ones.
 
No the outputs jacks on the mixewr are all balanced, so i don't need to splice any wire.... All I ment was sending one signal to two tape channels on the Fostex to double the width on the tape for better quality, but it is balanced. That is when they send two identical signals parrallel to the same source to cancel out noise and get better quality. I'll just send each signal to a separate tape channel. Having 8 balanced outputs and inputs is like having 16 normal ones.

There's so many things wrong with that post.
Your understanding of balanced signals and wiring, and how summing identical tracks has no effect on their quality...are both flawed.
 
Back
Top