This is really great and I came from the world of video and audio syncro as a videotape editor in Hollywood, Ca. and I had an audio studio thru the glass that I interfaced with during sound design sessions. The one thing you didn't do was actually play tracks showing the system in play. Would have loved hearing the 2 track slew & lock like the good old days. Other than that nice video and congratulations. Nice gear! :)
Thanks for the comment! Lots of experience syncing machines you have…and lol yeah the “werp” of the scrub in…that would have been good to include, but…I’ll have to look…I think it might be possible there was nothing tracked in Cubase or on tape except for timecode…most boring song ever.
A lot of tape decks have this capability though…and note the deck I had was the “T” version with the timecode track. Otherwise you use one of the two tracks as a sync track if you don’t have the third sync track. Fostex made a similar halftrack with a small sync track the E-22 I think? And many multitrack decks have slave capability. But no matter what you still then have to find a capable synchronizer, and often times custom build the interface cables which often use obscure connectors and/or require hard to find schematics in order to even know the circuit design within the cable. It was rewarding to reach success with the BR-20T, but ultimately what I determined for me worked better workflow-wise was to have a multitrack machine with a high enough track count to handle what projects if throw at it, and either mix down straight from the multitrack deck, -OR- dump all the tracks to the DAW and continue the project there if it was a hybrid project. The synchronizing thing is super cool, but IMO the number of situations where people actually *need* to do that is dwindling. And it’s complicated. One can always go the *much* more simple route of setting the tape deck as master and slave the DAW…way cheaper and easier, but I will never get over my distaste for the idea of samples being added or removed in order for the DAW to stay in sync, OR in the case of the version of Cubase I was using all those years ago in the video, the DAW not actually being locked to the tape deck…the manual states the DAW free-wheels when slaved to incoming MTC.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop The Fostex Model 20 is what you're thinking of, I believe. I owned one of these, actually. At one point I did start tinkering around with the timecode channel, but I didn't really do enough research to implement it. I had the thought that it would be cool if the deck could read the position of the tape regardless of the accuracy of the roller counter. I primarily just make 4-track (quad) or 2-track stereo mix tapes, and given that they're always tails-out, it would be cool to just thread it on and hit the zero-return/play button to have it be automated. My excitement dwindled pretty quickly when I noticed it was shaving microscopic amounts of tape from the deck-facing edge and leaving a little pile of tape dust below the guides every time I ran a tape through it. Ultimately after repeatedly working on it (and also frankensteining a pair of parts-only Model 80's into a good working unit) I decided they were too cheaply made and their issues couldn't be resolved without reengineering and machining new parts, so I sold all 3 of the decks off before really having the chance to fully play around with the timecode track on the Model 20. Despite its shortcomings build quality-wise, I was very impressed at the precision of the transport. Having seen your video and your explanation, it makes complete sense now and I see what an SMPTE track-equipped deck is capable of. There are a couple of downsides though, as IIRC there is a very slight decrease in fidelity performance to a timecode 3-track vs a standard 2-track, and the tapes with timecode on them wouldn't be playable on a standard 2-track deck without the timecode track being audible, I think.
“The Fostex Model 20 is what you're thinking of, I believe.” No, I meant E-22…E-2 also. I totally forgot the Model 20 had the timecode track. The Model 20 is something of an anomaly with the 15ips tape speed capability, three-head setup, timecode track but max 7” reel capability. The E-2 and E-22 both also have the timecode track, but with 10.5” reel capability…more robust transport…the E-2 is 1/4” and 7.5/15ips, the E-22 is 1/2” and 15/30ips. I agree the Model 20 and Model 80 have some weak points in their transport design, like the capstan pulley, tape guide setup, etc., which is unfortunate considering their other unique facets. “…I noticed [the Model 20] was shaving microscopic amounts of tape from the deck-facing edge and leaving a little pile of tape dust below the guides every time I ran a tape through it. Ultimately after repeatedly working on it (and also frankensteining a pair of parts-only Model 80's into a good working unit) I decided they were too cheaply made and their issues couldn't be resolved without reengineering and machining new parts…” That’s usually because the wear path was established by Ampex/Quantegy tape and then the operator switches to AGFA/EMTEC/BASF/RMGI or 3M stock. I can explain further if you’re interested. “IIRC there is a very slight decrease in fidelity performance to a timecode 3-track vs a standard 2-track, and the tapes with timecode on them wouldn't be playable on a standard 2-track deck without the timecode track being audible, I think.” Neither is correct…at least as far as the Tascam is concerned. I can’t speak for the Fostex. And, as with any crosstalk situation, your levels to tape are important. I think the recommended nominal level for timecode on the Tascam was -10VU. According to the specifications and my experience, there is no difference in reproduce frequency response between the record head with the sync track and the reproduce head. Both heads have identical NAB track width and gap spacing, the record head includes additional guard bands for the sync track. The reproduce head on the BR-20T is the same as on the non-“T” BR-20…standard NAB halftrack spec. Now, there was a DIN version with wider track width and a more narrow gap in between the tracks. Program material recorded on a “T” with sync tone reproduced on a DIN spec machine…there you might grapple with some sync track bleed. But otherwise that was the beauty of it…no performance deficit and can reproduce on any NAB spec halftrack machine, sync track or not…nicely nestled in between the two audio tracks.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Haha, well... consider me schooled! I don't know why but I thought for sure the gap between the primary channels was larger on a timecode head, with the individual track width being ever so slightly smaller. Whoops😕 I have two other "anomalous" decks that run at 15 IPS with a maximum 7" reel - the Tascam 22-2 and 22-4. Though neither of them do timecode. With those, along with my RT-707, I can play back most tapes I might find in the wild. The wear to the tape path on the Fostex decks being caused by previous tape being used makes a lot of sense. Did Ampex/Quantegy tape run slightly wide or something? I definitely saw wear at both the back plate and cap of the tension arm and guide/counter rollers. The rollers on my Tascams have a lip on the edge of roller wheel itself, but in the Fostex machines it was a completely flat plastic cylinder, allowing the tape to wander into the cuts left by previous use. Without sourcing new parts (which I found to be nearly nonexistent) I didn't really see many options other than to get rid of them, as I didn't want them chewing up my tapes obviously. I also had issues with the plastic reel tables being off-axis (EDIT: not sure if this is the right term - the tables had a slight tilt perpendicular to the shaft), resulting in the reels wobbling in and out with each rotation. I'm not sure if this was due to just poor manufacturing or if the plastic simply deformed due to heat/age. These issues were present on all 3 Fostex decks. They all suffered from VU meter segments not working as well, due to the LEDs being attached by wires that were thinner than human hair. I managed to replace them with new SMD LEDs but it was some seriously tiny precision work.
“Haha, well... consider me schooled! I don't know why but I thought for sure the gap between the primary channels was larger on a timecode head, with the individual track width being ever so slightly smaller. Whoops😕” Yeah not according to the BR-20T specs…same audio track width and gap spacing as the non-timecode version BR-20, and additionally the reproduce head on the BR-20T is the same part number as the record and reproduce heads on the BR-20. “I have two other "anomalous" decks that run at 15 IPS with a maximum 7" reel - the Tascam 22-2 and 22-4.” Yeah the 20 series Tascam machines don’t have the bells and whistles of the Model 20…definitely a more basic machine, but easier to setup and work on, and the transport is more robust…like a mildly miniaturized version of the 30 series…not as professional or robust a design as the 40 or 50 series, but definitely a level up from the Fostex. I think if you don’t need the bells and whistles, and want to stick to 7” reel size, the 20 series machines are a sweet spot… decent user community support, easier to find parts, etc. “The wear to the tape path on the Fostex decks being caused by previous tape being used makes a lot of sense. Did Ampex/Quantegy tape run slightly wide or something?” No, the opposite actually which can cause a number of issues. Ampex/Quantegy tape was purposely slit slightly undersize because of accuracy issues with their slitting equipment. So they undersized in order to avoid at all costs the tape being too wide. That means tape paths worn by such tape tend to be 0.001”~0.003” more narrow than the standard, and when you put tape from a non-Ampex/Quantegy manufacturer, which pretty much everybody else was able to more accurately slit the tape to the standard, on the machine with a tape path established by Ampex/Quantegy tape, you can get edge curl, tape wandering as it tries to fit in the too-narrow path, etc. It all depends on the machine, the tape path design, etc. the more difficult cases is a machine that’s not setup right in the first place AND has a path historically worn by Ampex/Quantegy tape, and now the operator is trying to use tape slot to the standard. That might be your situation with the Fostex machines you had, because I do recall not being impressed with the guide setup. If you had wear at odd places odds are something wasn’t right. Ideally a decently designed tape path that is setup right shouldn’t necessarily need edge guidance, or just minimally. That’s my experience.
Yes I built the cable, sort of. My Micro Lynx came with some cables for other machines, so I cut the machine connector off of one of the cables and installed the DB37 connector for the BR-20, and then modified the Micro Lynx end to match the requirements for the BR-20.
Nice setup and thanks for posting this. Did you use the microlynx to generate the SMPTE you recorded on the tape? I bought one years ago but never did integrate into my setup..this was very helpful!
A lot of work for two extra channels for your DAW. ;) I think the only way this could be possibly made more ridiculous would be to get the wordclock card for the microlynx, and run both the DAW and the microlynx off the same wordclock. At that point you're just gilding the lily. This put the crazy thought in my head of syncing three BR-20Ts together to make the world's most expensive 6-track. :)
Well yes...that would be a lot of work just to add two tracks to my DAW. But you have to think outside the box in which you’re stuck. The purpose wasn’t to add tracks, but rather to be able to build a multitrack project in the DAW tracking first to the tape machine and then dumping that to HDD using position offset. Tracks would be serially recorded on tape, but could be in parallel in the DAW. Though there was the limitation of two tracks at a time, for some this would not be a limitation, and would allow one to build larger multitrack projects in the DAW through the tape machine taking advantage of the economy of 1/4” tape and the wide format track width...essentially the same as 1” 8-track or 2” 16-track. The BR-20T is what I had available at the time to test this and get accustomed to the Micro Lynx, but my goal was to apply this practice using a 1/2” 8-track machine. This wouldn’t offer the same wide format as the 1/4” half-track, but would still be more economical 1/2” tape and offer 7 tracks at a time, good for many drum kit mic’ing scenarios. The BR-20T helped me determine that I could make the concept work. I could also track through the tape machine in real-time ala CLASP, but this didn’t preserve the tracks on tape...sort of a “lost-wax” alternative.
Yes. But it’s a one-of-a-kind prototype… www.torridheatstudios.com/ftp/share/pictures/Tascam%20M-___/2012_11_20/original/IMG_3949.JPG Modular inline, 12 input/output modules, 8 mix busses plus stereo master, 4 AUX busses switchable pre/post with source switching, dedicated stereo monitor buss with multiple switchable sources, 4-band swept EQ with fully parametric mid bands, two HPFs and one LPF, assignable to the channel or the monitor buss, global per-channel control of source switching, which can also act is mute groups, multiple solo points per channel, multiple mute functions per channel, per channel switchable meter sourcing, and 3 inputs per channel all accessible simultaneously via inline monitoring…plus assignable effects return and external inputs for a total of 42 simultaneous inputs. All mix buss outputs and AUX outputs are +4dBu capable, the master out is +8dBu capable, and all are driven by +/-35V powered discrete transistor array output stage…massive headroom. Those are the highlights.
it sick i seen a guy sync a 4 track portable cassette recorder. with a midi thing. with the portable cassette recorder. it start and stop the daw and so 0n .it even was in time. keep feeding tracks 0ne at a time t0 portable cassette recorder. then record there then portable cassette recorder. play back as it g0t rec0rd back in daw. all start and rececord at the right time.
Do any other transport functions work? Does it do anything at all when you press the PLAY button or does literally nothing happen when you press PLAY? Please answer both of my questions with as much detail as possible. I asked both questions because they are related and the answers to both questions help to narrow in on where the problem(s) might originate.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Hi, can I send you a smal video so that you can see what happens. All other functions work, when press PLAY seams it will start but doesn't.
Great tape machine. Better than it got credit for.
This is really great and I came from the world of video and audio syncro as a videotape editor in Hollywood, Ca. and I had an audio studio thru the glass that I interfaced with during sound design sessions. The one thing you didn't do was actually play tracks showing the system in play. Would have loved hearing the 2 track slew & lock like the good old days. Other than that nice video and congratulations. Nice gear! :)
Thanks for the comment! Lots of experience syncing machines you have…and lol yeah the “werp” of the scrub in…that would have been good to include, but…I’ll have to look…I think it might be possible there was nothing tracked in Cubase or on tape except for timecode…most boring song ever.
I was thrilled that you got it all working. Fantastic machine. :) @@SweetbeatsTechStop
Holy crap that is some next level stuff
That is sick as hell! I had no idea the BR-20 was capable of this. I wish I had one. 😞
A lot of tape decks have this capability though…and note the deck I had was the “T” version with the timecode track. Otherwise you use one of the two tracks as a sync track if you don’t have the third sync track. Fostex made a similar halftrack with a small sync track the E-22 I think? And many multitrack decks have slave capability. But no matter what you still then have to find a capable synchronizer, and often times custom build the interface cables which often use obscure connectors and/or require hard to find schematics in order to even know the circuit design within the cable. It was rewarding to reach success with the BR-20T, but ultimately what I determined for me worked better workflow-wise was to have a multitrack machine with a high enough track count to handle what projects if throw at it, and either mix down straight from the multitrack deck, -OR- dump all the tracks to the DAW and continue the project there if it was a hybrid project. The synchronizing thing is super cool, but IMO the number of situations where people actually *need* to do that is dwindling. And it’s complicated. One can always go the *much* more simple route of setting the tape deck as master and slave the DAW…way cheaper and easier, but I will never get over my distaste for the idea of samples being added or removed in order for the DAW to stay in sync, OR in the case of the version of Cubase I was using all those years ago in the video, the DAW not actually being locked to the tape deck…the manual states the DAW free-wheels when slaved to incoming MTC.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop The Fostex Model 20 is what you're thinking of, I believe. I owned one of these, actually. At one point I did start tinkering around with the timecode channel, but I didn't really do enough research to implement it. I had the thought that it would be cool if the deck could read the position of the tape regardless of the accuracy of the roller counter. I primarily just make 4-track (quad) or 2-track stereo mix tapes, and given that they're always tails-out, it would be cool to just thread it on and hit the zero-return/play button to have it be automated.
My excitement dwindled pretty quickly when I noticed it was shaving microscopic amounts of tape from the deck-facing edge and leaving a little pile of tape dust below the guides every time I ran a tape through it. Ultimately after repeatedly working on it (and also frankensteining a pair of parts-only Model 80's into a good working unit) I decided they were too cheaply made and their issues couldn't be resolved without reengineering and machining new parts, so I sold all 3 of the decks off before really having the chance to fully play around with the timecode track on the Model 20.
Despite its shortcomings build quality-wise, I was very impressed at the precision of the transport. Having seen your video and your explanation, it makes complete sense now and I see what an SMPTE track-equipped deck is capable of.
There are a couple of downsides though, as IIRC there is a very slight decrease in fidelity performance to a timecode 3-track vs a standard 2-track, and the tapes with timecode on them wouldn't be playable on a standard 2-track deck without the timecode track being audible, I think.
“The Fostex Model 20 is what you're thinking of, I believe.”
No, I meant E-22…E-2 also. I totally forgot the Model 20 had the timecode track. The Model 20 is something of an anomaly with the 15ips tape speed capability, three-head setup, timecode track but max 7” reel capability.
The E-2 and E-22 both also have the timecode track, but with 10.5” reel capability…more robust transport…the E-2 is 1/4” and 7.5/15ips, the E-22 is 1/2” and 15/30ips.
I agree the Model 20 and Model 80 have some weak points in their transport design, like the capstan pulley, tape guide setup, etc., which is unfortunate considering their other unique facets.
“…I noticed [the Model 20] was shaving microscopic amounts of tape from the deck-facing edge and leaving a little pile of tape dust below the guides every time I ran a tape through it. Ultimately after repeatedly working on it (and also frankensteining a pair of parts-only Model 80's into a good working unit) I decided they were too cheaply made and their issues couldn't be resolved without reengineering and machining new parts…”
That’s usually because the wear path was established by Ampex/Quantegy tape and then the operator switches to AGFA/EMTEC/BASF/RMGI or 3M stock. I can explain further if you’re interested.
“IIRC there is a very slight decrease in fidelity performance to a timecode 3-track vs a standard 2-track, and the tapes with timecode on them wouldn't be playable on a standard 2-track deck without the timecode track being audible, I think.”
Neither is correct…at least as far as the Tascam is concerned. I can’t speak for the Fostex. And, as with any crosstalk situation, your levels to tape are important. I think the recommended nominal level for timecode on the Tascam was -10VU. According to the specifications and my experience, there is no difference in reproduce frequency response between the record head with the sync track and the reproduce head. Both heads have identical NAB track width and gap spacing, the record head includes additional guard bands for the sync track. The reproduce head on the BR-20T is the same as on the non-“T” BR-20…standard NAB halftrack spec. Now, there was a DIN version with wider track width and a more narrow gap in between the tracks. Program material recorded on a “T” with sync tone reproduced on a DIN spec machine…there you might grapple with some sync track bleed. But otherwise that was the beauty of it…no performance deficit and can reproduce on any NAB spec halftrack machine, sync track or not…nicely nestled in between the two audio tracks.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Haha, well... consider me schooled! I don't know why but I thought for sure the gap between the primary channels was larger on a timecode head, with the individual track width being ever so slightly smaller. Whoops😕
I have two other "anomalous" decks that run at 15 IPS with a maximum 7" reel - the Tascam 22-2 and 22-4. Though neither of them do timecode. With those, along with my RT-707, I can play back most tapes I might find in the wild.
The wear to the tape path on the Fostex decks being caused by previous tape being used makes a lot of sense. Did Ampex/Quantegy tape run slightly wide or something? I definitely saw wear at both the back plate and cap of the tension arm and guide/counter rollers. The rollers on my Tascams have a lip on the edge of roller wheel itself, but in the Fostex machines it was a completely flat plastic cylinder, allowing the tape to wander into the cuts left by previous use.
Without sourcing new parts (which I found to be nearly nonexistent) I didn't really see many options other than to get rid of them, as I didn't want them chewing up my tapes obviously.
I also had issues with the plastic reel tables being off-axis (EDIT: not sure if this is the right term - the tables had a slight tilt perpendicular to the shaft), resulting in the reels wobbling in and out with each rotation. I'm not sure if this was due to just poor manufacturing or if the plastic simply deformed due to heat/age. These issues were present on all 3 Fostex decks.
They all suffered from VU meter segments not working as well, due to the LEDs being attached by wires that were thinner than human hair. I managed to replace them with new SMD LEDs but it was some seriously tiny precision work.
“Haha, well... consider me schooled! I don't know why but I thought for sure the gap between the primary channels was larger on a timecode head, with the individual track width being ever so slightly smaller. Whoops😕”
Yeah not according to the BR-20T specs…same audio track width and gap spacing as the non-timecode version BR-20, and additionally the reproduce head on the BR-20T is the same part number as the record and reproduce heads on the BR-20.
“I have two other "anomalous" decks that run at 15 IPS with a maximum 7" reel - the Tascam 22-2 and 22-4.”
Yeah the 20 series Tascam machines don’t have the bells and whistles of the Model 20…definitely a more basic machine, but easier to setup and work on, and the transport is more robust…like a mildly miniaturized version of the 30 series…not as professional or robust a design as the 40 or 50 series, but definitely a level up from the Fostex. I think if you don’t need the bells and whistles, and want to stick to 7” reel size, the 20 series machines are a sweet spot… decent user community support, easier to find parts, etc.
“The wear to the tape path on the Fostex decks being caused by previous tape being used makes a lot of sense. Did Ampex/Quantegy tape run slightly wide or something?”
No, the opposite actually which can cause a number of issues. Ampex/Quantegy tape was purposely slit slightly undersize because of accuracy issues with their slitting equipment. So they undersized in order to avoid at all costs the tape being too wide. That means tape paths worn by such tape tend to be 0.001”~0.003” more narrow than the standard, and when you put tape from a non-Ampex/Quantegy manufacturer, which pretty much everybody else was able to more accurately slit the tape to the standard, on the machine with a tape path established by Ampex/Quantegy tape, you can get edge curl, tape wandering as it tries to fit in the too-narrow path, etc. It all depends on the machine, the tape path design, etc. the more difficult cases is a machine that’s not setup right in the first place AND has a path historically worn by Ampex/Quantegy tape, and now the operator is trying to use tape slot to the standard. That might be your situation with the Fostex machines you had, because I do recall not being impressed with the guide setup. If you had wear at odd places odds are something wasn’t right. Ideally a decently designed tape path that is setup right shouldn’t necessarily need edge guidance, or just minimally. That’s my experience.
great vidéo
did you built the câble between micro lynx and BR 20 ? Mean câble for accessory port to connect the BR 20 to the synchroniser ?
Yes I built the cable, sort of. My Micro Lynx came with some cables for other machines, so I cut the machine connector off of one of the cables and installed the DB37 connector for the BR-20, and then modified the Micro Lynx end to match the requirements for the BR-20.
Thinking of going in that mess thx for the answer got also a BR 20 T at home 😉
Nice setup and thanks for posting this. Did you use the microlynx to generate the SMPTE you recorded on the tape? I bought one years ago but never did integrate into my setup..this was very helpful!
Thanks for the comment and for watching! Yes I did use the MicroLynx to generate the time code striped to the tape machine.
Nice Deck
Awesome
interesting: who will win if to compeered REVOX vs TEAC ....
A lot of work for two extra channels for your DAW. ;)
I think the only way this could be possibly made more ridiculous would be to get the wordclock card for the microlynx, and run both the DAW and the microlynx off the same wordclock. At that point you're just gilding the lily.
This put the crazy thought in my head of syncing three BR-20Ts together to make the world's most expensive 6-track. :)
Well yes...that would be a lot of work just to add two tracks to my DAW. But you have to think outside the box in which you’re stuck. The purpose wasn’t to add tracks, but rather to be able to build a multitrack project in the DAW tracking first to the tape machine and then dumping that to HDD using position offset. Tracks would be serially recorded on tape, but could be in parallel in the DAW. Though there was the limitation of two tracks at a time, for some this would not be a limitation, and would allow one to build larger multitrack projects in the DAW through the tape machine taking advantage of the economy of 1/4” tape and the wide format track width...essentially the same as 1” 8-track or 2” 16-track. The BR-20T is what I had available at the time to test this and get accustomed to the Micro Lynx, but my goal was to apply this practice using a 1/2” 8-track machine. This wouldn’t offer the same wide format as the 1/4” half-track, but would still be more economical 1/2” tape and offer 7 tracks at a time, good for many drum kit mic’ing scenarios. The BR-20T helped me determine that I could make the concept work. I could also track through the tape machine in real-time ala CLASP, but this didn’t preserve the tracks on tape...sort of a “lost-wax” alternative.
This is awesome
Crazy
whats that mixer ? tascam ?
Yes. But it’s a one-of-a-kind prototype…
www.torridheatstudios.com/ftp/share/pictures/Tascam%20M-___/2012_11_20/original/IMG_3949.JPG
Modular inline, 12 input/output modules, 8 mix busses plus stereo master, 4 AUX busses switchable pre/post with source switching, dedicated stereo monitor buss with multiple switchable sources, 4-band swept EQ with fully parametric mid bands, two HPFs and one LPF, assignable to the channel or the monitor buss, global per-channel control of source switching, which can also act is mute groups, multiple solo points per channel, multiple mute functions per channel, per channel switchable meter sourcing, and 3 inputs per channel all accessible simultaneously via inline monitoring…plus assignable effects return and external inputs for a total of 42 simultaneous inputs. All mix buss outputs and AUX outputs are +4dBu capable, the master out is +8dBu capable, and all are driven by +/-35V powered discrete transistor array output stage…massive headroom. Those are the highlights.
awesome!!!!@@SweetbeatsTechStop
it sick i seen a guy sync a 4 track portable cassette recorder. with a midi thing. with the portable cassette recorder. it start and stop the daw and so 0n .it even was in time. keep feeding tracks 0ne at a time t0 portable cassette recorder. then record there then portable cassette recorder. play back as it g0t rec0rd back in daw. all start and rececord at the right time.
Hi, my BR20 does not start when I hit the play, anyone can help me?
Do any other transport functions work? Does it do anything at all when you press the PLAY button or does literally nothing happen when you press PLAY? Please answer both of my questions with as much detail as possible. I asked both questions because they are related and the answers to both questions help to narrow in on where the problem(s) might originate.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Hi, can I send you a smal video so that you can see what happens. All other functions work, when press PLAY seams it will start but doesn't.