I figured I would start a new thread on this deck because it is so unusual. I ran the numbers on the reel motors and they are special for one inch tape. As you can see all the relays are identified by hand and the mounting bosses are different. The master bias oscilator assembly looks to be common to the MR70,but I will have to look closer. The control board is definitely not a production type. As I get farther a long with this I'll decide how to configure this,maybe 1/2 inch or a one inch 3 track would be a killer machine.
I figured I would start a new thread on this deck because it is so unusual. I ran the numbers on the reel motors and they are special for one inch tape. As you can see all the relays are identified by hand and the mounting bosses are different. The master bias oscilator assembly looks to be common to the MR70,but I will have to look closer. The control board is definitely not a production type. As I get farther a long with this I'll decide how to configure this,maybe 1/2 inch or a one inch 3 track would be a killer machine.
Btw I just got off the phone with the RE I got this from and he said he was given it by one of the project engineers on the MR70. The capstan motor is very large and this transport uses a belt drive system and not the 300 based type flywheel. This type of belt drive was capable of the lowest wow and flutter measurements of any Ampex deck according to the RE. He had it recently assembled and it did pull tape and playback. He very recently dis assembled so I could take it....dang I wish he would have asked me first...but he says I have everything to get it operational. We shall see.
A few years back I stumbled upon an Ampex instrumentation recorder which resembled a 300 transport except for the capstan drive. Instead of the rubber-tire drive system, it had a timing belt & pulley arrangement, which when spun by hand definitely felt like something you would not want for the best playback motion. That unit was a wreck and never saw power, so perhaps the drive performed OK at actual speed. Interesting comments about the MR70 belt drive, but I ask why they did not continue that if it was superior to the tire drive. More so considering Ampex did not seem to be price-conscious on this one.
A few years back I stumbled upon an Ampex instrumentation recorder which resembled a 300 transport except for the capstan drive. Instead of the rubber-tire drive system, it had a timing belt & pulley arrangement, which when spun by hand definitely felt like something you would not want for the best playback motion. That unit was a wreck and never saw power, so perhaps the drive performed OK at actual speed. Interesting comments about the MR70 belt drive, but I ask why they did not continue that if it was superior to the tire drive. More so considering Ampex did not seem to be price-conscious on this one.
Yes, Ampex did go another direction with the MR70. Whether this belt version is better I have no idea. This transport will be the last if and when I decide to bring it up to working order. It is a interesting novelty to say the least. Right now I have my hands full and these other transports are in a lot better shape.
Roger
P.S. that probably was a FR1100....Red Henry had 2 in operation.
At the time I already had at least one FR1100 lying around; this one was a bit different in a few respects. My only regret in getting rid of it (and I really don't recall who ended up with it) was that it didn't look like some home-made thing...it looked like someone worked quite hard on it. It had sand-cast brackets on the drive system, something you typically don't do during the prototype phase.
