New C.L.A.S.P units!

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by EndlessAnalog

The CLASP is designed so that overdubbing/quick punching/peeling back clips/playlisting at light speed is possible with analog tape running sample accurate in real time. When doing complex punch ins the talent and the engineer needs to be able hear the correct source signals to circumvent latency problems. When playing back just before the punch ins/outs artist and engineer are both hearing the DAW playback. During punch ins in the CLASP auto routes so that the talent and engineer are hearing the source signal in the analog domain pre tape. So from monitoring experience it's the same as you would have if you were recording with tape machine only (no DAW) but with smoother punch ins, no latency, sample accurate tape, real-time first generations virgin transfer, compensated A/D latency errors, and so on...

Chris,

I totally understand the basic premise and the benefits. I have videos describing/demonstrating a poor man's version of it on my Youtube site (as you know).

I totally agree--when doing punch-ins the engineer and talent need to be able to hear the source signal before it has been delayed by the tape deck. Having a console allows you to do just that:

mic preamp --> console input --> Aux Send --> Hearback system --> artist
........................................--> Direct Out --> tape deck input

So my question is: to what do I physically connect the DB25 connector you have labeled "Monitor 1-24" on the back of the CLASP? Likewise, to what do I physically connect the DB25 connector labeled "DAW Return 1-24"?

I really would like to know the answer to these questions. I'm probably not the only one with this question. "To Nothing" would be an acceptable answer, by the way.

sincerely,
Brad

[sailor]

I've never seen a piece of gear cause so much head scratching. I think I understand it, but now even my brain is getting loopy.

In integrating an analog deck and DAW, doesn't the CLASP system essentially treat the whole rig as a multitrack in sel-rep mode?

When you're in sel-rep, in playback you hear REPRO on recorded tracks, even if they're record-ready. When you go into record, you hear INPUT. When you drop out of record, you're back on REPRO.

With CLASP, "input" basically takes the console bus sends you routed to the unit and kicks them back out the MONITOR path to your console tape returns. "Repro" is what you hear coming off the DAW tracks, so when you're just doing playback on the DAW, the MONITOR path of CLASP sends that DAW signal to your console returns. The monitor switching of CLASP alternates between these two sources, depending on record/playback state.

Is this right?

If this is how it works, then it explains why with CLASP you don't have to create two monitor paths, one pre-record for the talent and one post-record for the engineer. You just make your monitor mix off the tape returns and either send that to the talent or use aux sends derived from those returns to make a different mix. Just like with a single multitrack machine.

Or so it appears to me.

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Chris,

I totally understand the basic premise and the benefits. I have videos describing/demonstrating a poor man's version of it on my Youtube site (as you know).

I totally agree--when doing punch-ins the engineer and talent need to be able to hear the source signal before it has been delayed by the tape deck. Having a console allows you to do just that:

mic preamp --> console input --> Aux Send --> Hearback system --> artist
........................................--> Direct Out --> tape deck input

So my question is: to what do I physically connect the DB25 connector you have labeled "Monitor 1-24" on the back of the CLASP? Likewise, to what do I physically connect the DB25 connector labeled "DAW Return 1-24"?

I really would like to know the answer to these questions. I'm probably not the only one with this question. "To Nothing" would be an acceptable answer, by the way.

sincerely,
Brad

Hi Brad, As you know from our conversations I was using the same poor man method for a really long time. Years in fact. But it was always inconvenient and not efficient. And when I wanted to overdub with pro tools it was completely impossible. So I sat down with a pad of graph paper and designed what was to become CLASP. This was back in 2005.

The main thing to know is that the poor man thing doesn't fly with pro tools and it does't do all the things that CLASP as a system does. Not to mention when you add our new Machine Matrix hardware that is coming out.


So to answer your question about the connections I am going to upload a PDF that explains how to install CLASP in the studio and what goes where.

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by sailor

I've never seen a piece of gear cause so much head scratching. I think I understand it, but now even my brain is getting loopy.

In integrating an analog deck and DAW, doesn't the CLASP system essentially treat the whole rig as a multitrack in sel-rep mode?

When you're in sel-rep, in playback you hear REPRO on recorded tracks, even if they're record-ready. When you go into record, you hear INPUT. When you drop out of record, you're back on REPRO.

With CLASP, "input" basically takes the console bus sends you routed to the unit and kicks them back out the MONITOR path to your console tape returns. "Repro" is what you hear coming off the DAW tracks, so when you're just doing playback on the DAW, the MONITOR path of CLASP sends that DAW signal to your console returns. The monitor switching of CLASP alternates between these two sources, depending on record/playback state.

Is this right?

If this is how it works, then it explains why with CLASP you don't have to create two monitor paths, one pre-record for the talent and one post-record for the engineer. You just make your monitor mix off the tape returns and either send that to the talent or use aux sends derived from those returns to make a different mix. Just like with a single multitrack machine.

Or so it appears to me.

YES ! Thanks Sailor!

[sailor]

You can hire me to write for your website!

[drBill]

Originally Posted by EndlessAnalog

Would someone else please chime in and explain this to Bill. I know what you are saying. I here it at every seminar we give until they see it running and then like I said earlier thats when their lightbulb goes on and they come around. I have done everything I can to explain this to you. Thanks

Listen, no need. Really, I understand. Listen, I don't know why you must assume that if someone does not "see it your way" that they don't understand. It's very frustrating here, and probably for you as well. Nothing you or sailor have posted has changed what I fundamentally understand about it. I just realize that although it's an elegant solution, it's not the only way, and is in fact is not sonically any different than the alternatives.

In addition to CLASP, theres also the inexpensive way (Brad's way), and having the DAW and machine interlocked via synchronizer (Bill's way), and even my favorite way when working with tape - Run the tape machine like a tape machine, and transfer when DONE. Woohooooo!!!.

They all WORK. They all sound identical when everything is said and done. They all have different levels of complexity and work flow. And at the end of the day, they all end up in PT or some other DAW.

But then again, what do I know.....

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by drBill

Listen, no need. Really, I understand. Listen, I don't know why you must assume that if someone does not "see it your way" that they don't understand. It's very frustrating here, and probably for you as well. Nothing you or sailor have posted has changed what I fundamentally understand about it. I just realize that although it's an elegant solution, it's not the only way, and is in fact is not sonically any different than the alternatives.

In addition to CLASP, theres also the inexpensive way (Brad's way), and having the DAW and machine interlocked via synchronizer (Bill's way), and even my favorite way when working with tape - Run the tape machine like a tape machine, and transfer when DONE. Woohooooo!!!.

They all WORK. They all sound identical when everything is said and done. They all have different levels of complexity and work flow. And at the end of the day, they all end up in PT or some other DAW.

But then again, what do I know.....

You are correct. CLASP is not the only way to record with tape.

However, it the only way to record with tape and Pro Tools and have the following:

1. pro tools quick punch on tape with no latency

2. ability to record up to three tape speeds within same session same accurately on the same tape reel instantly

3. no tape shuttling so tape lasts longer and is worn more evenly

4. overdub and punch for up to an hour without rewinding

5. latency free monitoring with Pro Tools through mastering grade signal path

6. post roll feature that relieves wearing out the tape deck while overdubs are recorded

7. plugin controlled a/b tape vs. DAW for getting sounds dialed in

8. gives vintage decks without location ability - auto locate

9. compensates and corrects for any Pro Tools A/D latency so tracks are always sample accurate to the grid

10. daisy chain up to 3 CLASP systems and run 72 tracks of tape 10 times faster and easier than any synchronizer while maintaining sample accuracy

11. completely eliminates tape print through

12. switch between tape decks on the fly in a session with no patching while still maintaining sample accuracy and locate points with a single mouse click

Like many I had been recording using the other methods you mentioned for many years but instead of giving up on tape I invented a solution to bridge the two worlds of analog and digital together.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by EndlessAnalog

11. completely eliminates tape print through

[Killahurts]

Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio

But he's right, because the tape doesn't get wrapped on the real before the repro head already delivers the goods.

[Soniferous]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soniferous View Post
Show me your U47 mic plugin. Want me to explain the science of why you can emulate a tape machine and not a microphone?

Endless Analog:
I did not know you were a scientist or designer. Pardon me. Please do explain.


Isn't it obvious?

The piece of equipment translating vibrations in the air into an electrical signal is MASSIVELY more important to the fidelity of the recording than the storage medium. And yes, tape is a storage medium, it also imparts a sound. Your device uses it as a front-end processor and a hard disc as a storage medium, but they are both still storage mediums.

The science? why yes, you are correct I am not a designer nor a scientist but I understand that the process of translating vibrations in the air into an electrical signal has a huge spectrum of accuracy. Even a layman without any recording experience or ear training can tell the differences between various microphones' signals. But tape--> digital versus pure digital recording? There is only a subtle spectrum of accuracy and color in the methods by which that electrical signal is turned into a magnetic signal or digitized.

My claim, which should be completely obvious to you, is that you cannot model the "vibrations in the air" to "an electrical signal" (for many reasons, environment, humidity, source proximity to the element, etc.. - let alone the completely different responsiveness of the microphone's element to this moving air, radio shack mic vs U47) YET; whereas the transition from an electrical signal (a controlled source) into a magnetic signal (through all the electronics of a tape machine) seems like a very simple task by comparison. Since both of the latter signals are essentially an electrical signal and not "vibrating particles in the air and an electrical signal."

The argument and the conclusion should be obvious to any thinking man.

Moving on,
I have no issue with your product, we were considering buying one for our studio a year ago when the Studer was originally offered to us. If for some reason all the hipster bands start wanting to record to tape and we see a resurgence in tape in general as a recording medium, we will probably buy one of your products.

What I am railing against is your attitude on this forum, and some of your comments. We are specifically discussing (if you've forgotten) how you scoffed at the UAD A800 plugin and compared its use in a professional studio environment to someone telling a professional singer "oh sing into this $15 mic I bought at Radio Shack, I have a U47 emulator plugin that sounds as good as the real thing." That comparison is ludicrous. For reasons I have described above.

As a manufacturer posting on this forum you need to be a bit more polite and watch the fallacious metaphors.

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by Soniferous

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soniferous View Post
Show me your U47 mic plugin. Want me to explain the science of why you can emulate a tape machine and not a microphone?

Endless Analog:
I did not know you were a scientist or designer. Pardon me. Please do explain.


Isn't it obvious?

The piece of equipment translating vibrations in the air into an electrical signal is MASSIVELY more important to the fidelity of the recording than the storage medium. And yes, tape is a storage medium, it also imparts a sound. Your device uses it as a front-end processor and a hard disc as a storage medium, but they are both still storage mediums.

The science? why yes, you are correct I am not a designer nor a scientist but I understand that the process of translating vibrations in the air into an electrical signal has a huge spectrum of accuracy. Even a layman without any recording experience or ear training can tell the differences between various microphones' signals. But tape--> digital versus pure digital recording? There is only a subtle spectrum of accuracy and color in the methods by which that electrical signal is turned into a magnetic signal or digitized.

My claim, which should be completely obvious to you, is that you cannot model the "vibrations in the air" to "an electrical signal" (for many reasons, environment, humidity, source proximity to the element, etc.. - let alone the completely different responsiveness of the microphone's element to this moving air, radio shack mic vs U47) YET; whereas the transition from an electrical signal (a controlled source) into a magnetic signal (through all the electronics of a tape machine) seems like a very simple task by comparison. Since both of the latter signals are essentially an electrical signal and not "vibrating particles in the air and an electrical signal."

The argument and the conclusion should be obvious to any thinking man.

Moving on,
I have no issue with your product, we were considering buying one for our studio a year ago when the Studer was originally offered to us. If for some reason all the hipster bands start wanting to record to tape and we see a resurgence in tape in general as a recording medium, we will probably buy one of your products.

What I am railing against is your attitude on this forum, and some of your comments. We are specifically discussing (if you've forgotten) how you scoffed at the UAD A800 plugin and compared its use in a professional studio environment to someone telling a professional singer "oh sing into this $15 mic I bought at Radio Shack, I have a U47 emulator plugin that sounds as good as the real thing." That comparison is ludicrous. For reasons I have described above.

As a manufacturer posting on this forum you need to be a bit more polite and watch the fallacious metaphors.

Let's be clear. You don't know me as a person. I am a polite person. I already apologized to you. You and some of the others on here are the ones who have not been polite to me. As far as my comment about plugin vs. the real thing. I could spend a lot of energy getting into this with you but I have a lot of work to do. Time to move on. As a person talking to a manufacturer / inventor on this forum you need to be a bit more polite.

Peace

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by sailor

I've never seen a piece of gear cause so much head scratching. I think I understand it, but now even my brain is getting loopy.

In integrating an analog deck and DAW, doesn't the CLASP system essentially treat the whole rig as a multitrack in sel-rep mode?

When you're in sel-rep, in playback you hear REPRO on recorded tracks, even if they're record-ready. When you go into record, you hear INPUT. When you drop out of record, you're back on REPRO.

With CLASP, "input" basically takes the console bus sends you routed to the unit and kicks them back out the MONITOR path to your console tape returns. "Repro" is what you hear coming off the DAW tracks, so when you're just doing playback on the DAW, the MONITOR path of CLASP sends that DAW signal to your console returns. The monitor switching of CLASP alternates between these two sources, depending on record/playback state.

Is this right?

If this is how it works, then it explains why with CLASP you don't have to create two monitor paths, one pre-record for the talent and one post-record for the engineer. You just make your monitor mix off the tape returns and either send that to the talent or use aux sends derived from those returns to make a different mix. Just like with a single multitrack machine.

Thank you Sailor! That technical explanation makes complete sense to me. Thank you very much. I think Chris should quote this and put it up on his website. I get it now

So back to my question... I often work in a weird manner where I create my cue mixes directly from my preamp outputs (using axes) so that the artist can always hear their voice/instrument regardless of whether or not the tape deck or Radar is in record mode. I have multitrack returns coming up on separate channels on my console. This makes it possible for folks to sing along prior to the punch-in that puts the machine into record, and thus would normally allow one to start hearing themself in the cue mix. I had a discussion with a friend about this yesterday and realized that this is indeed an unconventional approach that flies in the face of normal tape deck monitoring behavior. Although its a different method, it's not wrong. If this is way I choose to work this way then it is indeed the case that I would not need to connect the DAW return or monitor DB25 connectors on the back of CLASP. However if i wanted CLASP to give me normal tape deck monitoring then I would need to connect those cables. Again, thanks to Sailor for helping me answer my question and better understand CLASP.

Chris--it appears that the hook-up diagram you posted didn't attach correctly. I'd still love to see it.

I'm really trying to understand this system, so I have a new question. When doing punch-ins, does the tape deck enter record prior to the punch-in in ProTools, or does the tape deck go into record when ProTools is in play? How does the system avoid punch-in issues due to the reel motors spinning up? In other words, is the tape deck constantly in record even when PT is in stop or play?

Thanks,
Brad

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Thank you Sailor! That technical explanation makes complete sense to me. Thank you very much. I think Chris should quote this and put it up on his website. I get it now

So back to my question... I often work in a weird manner where I create my cue mixes directly from my preamp outputs (using axes) so that the artist can always hear their voice/instrument regardless of whether or not the tape deck or Radar is in record mode. I have multitrack returns coming up on separate channels on my console. This makes it possible for folks to sing along prior to the punch-in that puts the machine into record, and thus would normally allow one to start hearing themself in the cue mix. I had a discussion with a friend about this yesterday and realized that this is indeed an unconventional approach that flies in the face of normal tape deck monitoring behavior. Although its a different method, it's not wrong. If this is way I choose to work this way then it is indeed the case that I would not need to connect the DAW return or monitor DB25 connectors on the back of CLASP. However if i wanted CLASP to give me normal tape deck monitoring then I would need to connect those cables. Again, thanks to Sailor for helping me answer my question and better understand CLASP.

Chris--it appears that the hook-up diagram you posted didn't attach correctly. I'd still love to see it.

I'm really trying to understand this system, so I have a new question. When doing punch-ins, does the tape deck enter record prior to the punch-in in ProTools, or does the tape deck go into record when ProTools is in play? How does the system avoid punch-in issues due to the reel motors spinning up? In other words, is the tape deck constantly in record even when PT is in stop or play?

Thanks,
Brad

Hi Brad,

I am going to call you so we can talk it through. Look for a call in about ten minutes.

Peace

[andersmv]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

How does the system avoid punch-in issues due to the reel motors spinning up? In other words, is the tape deck constantly in record even when PT is in stop or play?

Thanks,
Brad

I might be misunderstanding your question, but I'll break it down into two parts. I've used CLASP a few times, so I think I understand what it's doing... First, you have to remember, when you get to the punch in stage, the tape signal is already digitized inside of your DAW, so you are not going to erase anything or record over anything when you do the punch in (I'm pretty sure you realize that, just making sure ). Secondly, I'm pretty sure that whenever you are rolling in ProTools or your DAW, CLASP starts running as well. The Studer is in the other room, so I'm not positive about this, but I see the counter running on the CLASP rack and counting down my tape time whenever I'm rolling in ProTools, so I believe it starts running when you start playing the song, that way it's ready for the punch in and there's no warm up time lag. I've not had issues punching in.

Is that correct Brad?

[RKrizman]

Ok simple question, I have a control 24, no analog mixer. All my A/D/As are spoken for, for inputs, fx sends, whatever. If I use clasp how do I create a monitor mix for the musicians and engineer during tracking ?

-R

[James Lugo]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Ok simple question, I have a control 24, no analog mixer. All my A/D/As are spoken for, for inputs, fx sends, whatever. If I use clasp how do I create a monitor mix for the musicians and engineer during tracking ?

-R

I had the same set up. The way I did it and it worked great and sounded great was I got a Mackie mixer. Sounds fine for headphones.

On another note, I know Chris and his wife Amy very well, they are cool people and Chris' level of personal tech support is from outer space. The guy does unheard of things for his clients, he is a never say die kinda guy. Chris is very intense about Clasp and may come off a bit one minded about it but it's only cause he friggin loves and believes in it with all his heart. Chris has not put a lot of energy into being the 'cool' manufacturer on forums, he's out there making it happen on a grassroots level. I commend him for that. My purpose in writing this is as a gearslut moderator, what I have noticed over a few years is the same people coming onto every Clasp thread and condemning it. We get it, you don't like it, that's fine for a thread or 2 but not every thread. So my take on this is if you don't own it, have never owned it or have no intention of owning it you've made your point loud and clear many times! There are plenty of other threads on topics that must interest you and directly pertain to what you use to make music.

James

[HudHudson]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

On another note, I know Chris and his wife Amy very well, they are cool people and Chris' level of personal tech support is from outer space. The guy does unheard of things for his clients, he is a never say die kinda guy. Chris is very intense about Clasp and may come off a bit one minded about it but it's only cause he friggin loves and believes in it with all his heart. Chris has not put a lot of energy into being the 'cool' manufacturer on forums, he's out there making it happen on a grassroots level. I commend him for that. My purpose in writing this is as a gearslut moderator, what I have noticed over a few years is the same people coming onto every Clasp thread and condemning it. We get it, you don't like it, that's fine for a thread or 2 but not every thread. So my take on this is if you don't own it, have never owned it or have no intention of owning it you've made your point loud and clear many times! There are plenty of other threads on topics that must interest you and directly pertain to what you use to make music.

James

+1. We were one of the first CLASP adopters (and now have units for both rooms at yellow DOG) and Chris exemplifies passionate customer service by an audio manufacturer. Hard to believe there are so many doubters and outright haters who can't recognize all the benefits of the system and instead of just passing it by feel they need to slag a gifted inventor.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by andersmv

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that whenever you are rolling in ProTools or your DAW, CLASP starts running as well. The Studer is in the other room, so I'm not positive about this, but I see the counter running on the CLASP rack and counting down my tape time whenever I'm rolling in ProTools, so I believe it starts running when you start playing the song, that way it's ready for the punch in and there's no warm up time lag. I've not had issues punching in.

Is that correct Brad?

So activating play in PT puts the deck into record? That would make sense. Perhaps Chris can confirm. Is there an easy way to keep the deck from spooling tape when you are just listening to takes?

Sorry I missed you last night Chris. Hope we get a chance to talk soon.

Thanks,
Brad

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

So activating play in PT puts the deck into record? That would make sense. Perhaps Chris can confirm. Is there an easy way to keep the deck from spooling tape when you are just listening to takes?

Sorry I missed you last night Chris. Hope we get a chance to talk soon.

Thanks,
Brad

Hi Brad,

CLASP looks to see if there any tracks armed in Pro Tools. If there are no tracks armed in Pro Tools then CLASP does not run the tape at all. However, if any tracks are armed in Pro Tools, CLASP will start the tape the instant you press the space bar. If you are listening and want to save tape without un-arming tracks you can press the power button on the CLASP plugin and it will take the tape offline for mixing, listening, editing.

Here is a screen shot of the upcoming software release for all new CLASP systems.


Peace

[Bob Olhsson]

There are a few great things about this that haven't been mentioned.

1. You can continue using 3M, Agfa and Ampex tape which in my experience are lots less prone to dropouts than anything manufactured today.

2. Immediate playback before the tape hits the take-up reel eliminates print through and the loss of high frequencies that can happen with some kinds of tape after only a day's storage. This also applies to all tape after it has been beat to crap in overdub sessions. There is "first playback" quality every time.

3. Your tape machine can be optimally biased to one specific roll of tape for minimum asperity noise without fudging in a little over-bias to eliminate the possibility of slightly under-biasing a different roll from the same batch.

[bassjam]

Originally Posted by EndlessAnalog

Hi Brad,

CLASP looks to see if there any tracks armed in Pro Tools. If there are no tracks armed in Pro Tools then CLASP does not run the tape at all. However, if any tracks are armed in Pro Tools, CLASP will start the tape the instant you press the space bar. If you are listening and want to save tape without un-arming tracks you can press the power button on the CLASP plugin and it will take the tape offline for mixing, listening, editing.

Here is a screen shot of the upcoming software release for all new CLASP systems.


Peace

The new plug looks great! Will the new plug work with our system now that we have upgraded the chips?

Also, will CLASP work with protools HDX?

Greg

[EndlessAnalog]

Originally Posted by bassjam

The new plug looks great! Will the new plug work with our system now that we have upgraded the chips?

Also, will CLASP work with protools HDX?

Greg

Hi Greg,

Thanks!

Yes, you should be good with your new system.

Yes, we have lots of people running on the new HDX systems.


Peace

[bassjam]

Originally Posted by EndlessAnalog

Hi Greg,

Thanks!

Yes, you should be good with your new system.

Yes, we have lots of people running on the new HDX systems.


Peace

That's great news! Thanks Chris!

[BB Bill]

Originally Posted by bassjam

The new plug looks great! Will the new plug work with our system now that we have upgraded the chips?

Also, will CLASP work with protools HDX?

Greg

I ran a whole drum session off of an HDX system last week. Worked like a charm!

I love it.

What's with the CLASP hate around here? If you like it, great, if not, don't buy one. Like with anything else.

[The dman]

Originally Posted by BB Bill

I love it.

What's with the CLASP hate around here? If you like it, great, if not, don't buy one. Like with anything else.

Exactly, if it's not for you move on. The people that use it seem to love it and speak highly of Chris his company and support so that should speak for itself.

[Matt Grondin]

Ok, at the risk of getting banned, I'm going to go ahead and say if you want to see the rest of my construction pics, you might have to go to our Facebook page from now on. That said, getting banned from gearslutz might not be such a bad thing considering how many ignorant assholes seem to frequent this forum lately. And nothing is worse than an ignorant asshole who doesn't know he is one

First of all, I own a CLASP. Did it make my head hurt a little to understand at first? Yes, but so did bias (not just the pots I'm turning, WHY I'm turning them), but I did research and I figured it out. Endless Analog's website actually is very informative and clearly explained what a CLASP did to me so much so that I bought one. If Aerosmith recorded at your studio, would you not list them as a client and use it as a selling point to attract more business? You act like this is a new concept.

Second, who CARES what it costs? Do you bitch about how expensive Lamborghini's are? A company has a right to set their prices based on what they have invested in a product and what they deem it's worth to be. I spent $8k on a fully re-built Fender Rhodes suitcase from Ken Rich. You know what, it's the best Rhodes in the world excepting others he has done and everyone who plays it agrees. I NEVER have to worry about Rhodes for the rest of my life and it's an incredibly important component in what I do. At a bare minimum, the $7k I spent for the CLASP turned my ATR-102 from a simple mix-down deck into an incredible overdubbing machine. It literally DOUBLED the functionality and investment of my two-track. By the way, I don't even use a mixer at home. I take the line outs of my Hear Back box and go directly into my monitors. Problem solved.

Third, to the people who were SO OFFENDED (buncha ****ing babies) that Chris takes issue with the UAD Studer, YOU are the ones drinking the cool-aid. It is an EMULATION of the EFFECTS that analog tape can create on an audio recording. Since when has tape been reduced solely to it's artifacts (good and bad)? Forget it as a storage medium, in it's essence analog tape is a CAPTURE medium much the way a microphone is, hence the perfectly appropriate analogy of saying why not use a U47 plugin instead of the real-thing.

A microphone captures vibrations in the air and translates them into electrical signal. This is a moment in time occurring in the analog domain. Digital can only simulate this and make a fairly decent replica of it. A tape head is taking those same electrical signals and blending them with a high-frequency bias to exert enough coercivity to actually get magnetic particles in the tape to start rapidly changing their orientation, essentially creating a permanent magnet that is a physical analog imprint of the original source material. Look at the numbers, they don't lie: ATR Magnetics

That said, I love Pro Tools and I love my UAD for their particular strengths and I accept their weaknesses without trying to make them something they are not. They are great for what they do and I enjoy them. I also love my MIDI controller and samples, but would I replace my B3 or a real string quartet with them, no thank you. The people who are ragging on tape and it's workflow either a. genuinely dislike the hassle and are perfectly content with digital, and may actually achieve a more desirable result with it for their application (great, I applaud you, seriously) or b. are so complacent with the results they are getting that they don't want to continue to strive to reach new places sonically, hence the mentality that "I bought an emulation, therefore why would I ever need the real thing". It's a fallacy. If you get cool sounds using your Studer UAD plugin, that's great, but you are not getting the sound of a true analog capture, and no fancy graphical interface or a million tape formulas or fluxivity's will ever convince me of that.

Granted, transferring off the tape machine into digital is somewhat of an oxymoron, but some people either cannot afford the reels, like the workflow of Pro Tools with playlists, etc. and why not provide them with the best front-end you can? In a world of drum replacement, amp sims, and auto-tune, it's already such an uphill battle, why give up on capturing the best art you can? Digital is great for some applications, but I live in New Orleans, enough said. You can't be true to your art and your business. If you make a living churning out CD's for local bands, that's awesome, I'd much rather do that than work at Wal-Mart, but if your goal is to strive to create the best art with the highest integrity, abandoning traditions over convenience, such as not wanting better gear because your clients don't care, is a cop out. Either find some better clients or use gear because YOU know it's better and that you are being true to yourself and your own integrity.

Luther Dickinson from North Mississippi Allstars came by home studio yesterday to cut a steel overdub with Roosevelt from The Lee Boys. Despite the session coming in on Pro Tools and them having limited time due to Jazz Fest, he really wanted to make sure we cut through the tape machine with CLASP even for just one simple overdub. If you know who his dad is, you can understand why he has such a respect for these traditions.

I would work old-school if the clients are talented and adventurous enough to do it, but at least with CLASP, I can begin to bridge that gap. Hasn't anyone noticed the coincidence that the more technology has advanced since the 80's, the general quality of music has turned to shit? There's a reason why great records were made with simple technology. People weren't complacent. They had to work extra hard to realize what they heard in their head instead of recording a billion tracks and hoping for the best later. The fact that digital companies and subscribers to the "digital is just as good if not better than analog" mentality are selling and using emulations of timeless analog classics is one of the more ironic and disturbing trends I've ever seen.

Let's eradicate a proven and wonderful technology by creating a modern, more convenient version and then sell emulations of the technology we've just destroyed claiming it as being just as good for 1/50th the price (the UAD Studer will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER EVER EVER sound like an actual Studer A800... this is scientifically impossible. You are seriously stupid if you believe this, doesn't mean it doesn't sound cool or isn't useful for certain things, just doesn't sound like the very thing it's existence is basically destroying by trying to render it obsolete). This is the Sweetwater mentality. This is the rape and abandonment of our heritage.

People need to have more pride in preservation. I can't imagine where my city would be if no one wanted to preserve the past and the timeless, classic art that humans could create before they had everything spoon-fed to them. Reminds me of Idiocracy... who needs the life-giving wonderful hydration of water when we have Brawndo, IT HAS ELECTROLYTES! You want analog, buy a tape machine, you want digital, buy a Pro Tools rig, but don't ever claim the latter can replace the original because you are just another sheep in the Avid/Sweetwater/UAD marketing blitz. I'll even make you a deal, I'll never claim my tape machine is a noise-free, infinitely editable medium and then we can all call spades what they are.

In closing, Mike Spitz at ATR knows more about tape than 99.9% of people on earth, maybe 100%. When faced with the crisis of losing our ability to have tape to record on, he LITERALLY, and is this in no way an exaggeration, built his own plant to keep this format alive for future generations at what was probably an obscene amount of money. He didn't have to do this. No one at ATR is getting rich. But he believed so much in preserving this that he literally WOULD NOT let it disappear. UAD can shove the Studer emulation up their ass.

To whoever said tape wasn't as accessible anymore, call Bette at ATR, you will have a giant box of tape on your doorstep in a few days.

[Matt Grondin]

p.s. Chris, can you email me (mattgrondin@me.com). Thanks.

[ionian]

Originally Posted by Matt Grondin

This is the Sweetwater mentality. This is the rape and abandonment of our heritage.

As an Italian, I know exactly how you feel every time someone embarrassingly goes to Starbucks to buy an espresso.

Regards,
Frank

[Matt Grondin]

Touché. While I enjoy a vanilla latte as a treat in a pinch, I try to find coffee shops with unique roasts and baristas who actually care. Call me a snob...

[Matt Grondin]

Diehipster was cracking me up. Have MANY friends in Brooklyn.