The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tape is back! :-) Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 15th August 2008
  #61
Gear Addict
 

tape tape cheep cheep

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
As for the tape degradation situation, here's what I've heard (a producer friend who talked to Chris directly)...

Quantegy is making a special tape for this process. It will hold up a bit longer than traditional tape, but, since you're not archiving the tape, it will not hold up over time, nor will there be a need for it to. As for the recording to tape and it wearing out, this CLASP process runs the tape from top to bottom. Let's say you have a 3 minute song. You are not recording the song on the same 3 minutes of tape. You are recording the 3 minute song over the whole length of tape... the machine stays in record mode, on all tracks, until you disable record on your DAW. So, if you're tracking a full project of 24 tracks (drums, guitars, vocals, etc. all at once) then yes, you will be using a lot more of the tape's actually space throughout the whole reel and it will probably wear more quickly than if you're doing overdubs, where you'll be recording to parts of tape here and there. Once you RTZ, the next pass "might" record over your first passes, it might miss and hit new tape.

Here's an example of an overdub situation... let's say you're doing a guitar solo. You enable the guitar track in your DAW and start the song. The tape and your DAW begins at 1:00. Let's say you punch in the solo at 1:10 and out at 1:20. The guitar player missed it, so you decide to record it again. You start your DAW again and you'll punch at 1:10 on your DAW, but it might be 1:31 on your tape machine. Let's say the guitar player got everything except the notes between 1:16 and 1:20. You punch at 1:16 and out at 1:20 on your DAW, but that might be 1:43 to 1:47 on your tape machine. As you can see, there is space between the takes on your tape machine, and you haven't cut to the same spot of tape 3 times. Also, because the tape stays in record, you have retrospect record, so you can "peel back" the audio in your DAW, making a perfect punch, just as you would in digital. REMEMBER: You are not trying to cut perfect tracks in time to tape. You are using tape strictly for the analog tape sound. You use your DAW to be your final "here are the finished tracks, all lined up and perfect" machine. I hope that makes a little sense. It's something you need to see to wrap your head around it.

And yes, from what I understand listening to Chris last night, the CLASP unit can run three 24-track machines at the same time... you can set one to 15 ips, one to 30 ips, and one at 7.5, or any combination you desire... all running perfectly in sync with one another and your DAW.

Again, you have to think of CLASP in this fashion... you are capturing your signal to tape and bringing it instantaneously into your DAW, with all the benefits of speed and editing and retrospect recording, rather than treating your DAW as just a transport to run a tape machine, with traditional time code and MMC, recording on the same area of tape over and over, and then just transferring it into digital at the end. Again, I hope this makes a little sense. It's worth seeing and considering for any tape lovers who have been missing analog, and I'd say that's a lot of folks!

hello,

well i am still not totally sure if i understand what you are saying, but i think i do, at least most of it. my question is still, basically, are you talking about a situation where the same piece of tape is going to be recorded over more than once or twice for the basic tracks before overdubs? or is it a situation where you could choose to keep using the same reel, or choose to keep switching reels?

i am trying to set the tape cost issue aside to begin with, so as to look at the issue of tape wear separately.

seems to me that it would be more inefficient as far as tape use normal overdubbing.

i do not think i understood the "retrospect record" thing.

can you choose what area of the tape you want the tape machine to start at for any given take or punch?

i am already nervous about the "quantegy is making a special tape for this" comment. how does the "special tape" sound, ........, and so on.

you said it will hold up a bit better than traditional tape, but then you said it will not hold up over time. confused.

again, thanks for explaining. i guess it will be cool. but i guess you do not get a tape at the end of the sessions.


userofgear
Old 15th August 2008
  #62
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
As for the tape degradation situation, here's what I've heard (a producer friend who talked to Chris directly)...

Quantegy is making a special tape for this process.




Old 15th August 2008
  #63
Here for the gear
 

I think Chris used Quantegy GP9 tape in the demo last night.

Also it should be mentioned that the system has a post and pre roll setting which eases the transport's wear and tear. Most of you that have used tape machines know transports burn out and cause headaches. Also the tape is always moving forward until it reaches the end, then a warning lets you know that it's time to return to zero, which you can either select from the clasp or shortcut from your keyboard in your DAW.

You still have to take care of your tape machine: clean heads, degauss, all that.

Somebody earlier mentioned "just use tape." I don't think any pro working engineer would part with the ease of editing with their DAW. At least any engineers that wish to actually work and have clients : ).
Old 15th August 2008
  #64
Gear Addict
 
Levi's Avatar
 

Userofgear, I'll try to address the best I can...

Quote:
well i am still not totally sure if i understand what you are saying, but i think i do, at least most of it. my question is still, basically, are you talking about a situation where the same piece of tape is going to be recorded over more than once or twice for the basic tracks before overdubs? or is it a situation where you could choose to keep using the same reel, or choose to keep switching reels?
As for the amount of times a tape is recorded over, I guess it depends ultimately on how many passes you're comfortable with. If it's three total passes from top to bottom before you hear degradation, then that should be your limit. If it's ten, then that should be your limit. The way that I see this being easier on the tape is that you're not recording, stopping, rewinding and then recording again on the same area of tape. You're also not working your tape transport as hard either. So, not as much wear and tear from that respect.

Quote:
i do not think i understood the "retrospect record" thing.
OK, you know how in Pro Tools (or most other DAW's, such as Nuendo, etc.) it actually records before you punch in (basically where you started your transport), so that if you need to peel back the audio a beat or a whole measure or whatever to get your punch correct? This does the same thing. Because the tape machine is in record mode any time that a track is record-enabled on your DAW, it is, in essence, retrospective recording. We were doing punches last night and then peeling back the audio to make our punch points wherever we wanted them... just like you were recording in digital.

Quote:
can you choose what area of the tape you want the tape machine to start at for any given take or punch?
I would say the answer to this is "yes," but again, since tape is running from top to bottom, you "should" have equal wear throughout the whole tape, rather than using the first 10 minutes over and over and then using the last 5 minutes for overdubs. Hope that makes sense. Short answer: yes, but may not ever need to be a concern.

Quote:
i am already nervous about the "quantegy is making a special tape for this" comment. how does the "special tape" sound, ........, and so on.

you said it will hold up a bit better than traditional tape, but then you said it will not hold up over time. confused.
I may have misunderstood, but from my conversations, what I gathered is that this tape is supposed to be able to run through more times, but not last as long over time. Not sure how this works, but again, based on this process, you are not archiving the tapes, unless you want various takes to various songs all over the tape, not knowing what goes where. Tape is thought of COMPLETELY differently in this process... it's strictly for the sound of tape, not the ultimate and final medium of your project. The tape sounded great last night. Granted, we didn't go through the whole tape many, many times, but the initial pass was nice! And yes, I'd most definitely say you can use whatever tape you care to use. This is just what I heard from one person, and it wasn't Chris directly, but something Chris had told him. Also, the head of Quantegy was there last night and singing the CLASP's praises... I'm sure he's thrilled there's a need for tape again! LOL heh

Quote:
again, thanks for explaining. i guess it will be cool. but i guess you do not get a tape at the end of the sessions.
Well, yes, you get the tape, but it's virtually useless to listen back to. Again, the tape is just the "sound" of the project. You're actually taking the "sound" immediately into your DAW, which is your final "recorder," just like tracking directly to Pro Tools, except in this instance, you're going from your preamps to tape and then to your DAW, immediately, with all of the great features available to you in your DAW. I guess it's like having an analog tape DAW, for a lack of a better explanation. Hope that helps!
Old 15th August 2008
  #65
Lives for gear
 

Unfortunately, unless this machine is going to automatically demag, clean, align heads and electronics, adjust bias etc, basically do all the things that a half-decent recording engineer ought to know how to do, it isn't going to sell the "tape" dream to the DAW masses. Not when there are idiot-proof contraptions like the Anamod around that claim to give you "virtual" tape sound anyway.
Old 15th August 2008
  #66
Lives for gear
 

This is what would interest me, I wonder if it is "do-able" with this system.

My preference is to keep the process analog to the bitter end and convert the stereo track. However in many circumstances, the 24 track has to be dumped to digital for an edit fest for no other reason than time/money.

Having said that, can this device be sinc'ed to the tape machine in such a way that I can do a few edits on the DAW (like a nudge for eg) and then overwrite that edit onto the corresponding tape track at the exact position?

IE, instead of using tape "for it's sound" I want to use it as the primary medium and avoid conversion except for whatever small edits that we've overwritten from the DAW back onto the tape machine.
Old 15th August 2008
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by basho View Post
Unfortunately, unless this machine is going to automatically demag, clean, align heads and electronics, adjust bias etc, basically do all the things that a half-decent recording engineer ought to know how to do, it isn't going to sell the "tape" dream to the DAW masses. Not when there are idiot-proof contraptions like the Anamod around that claim to give you "virtual" tape sound anyway.
Well, still no one has mentioned the price of the CLASP yet....have they?

The Anamod is 2ch @ $3k, the CLASP is what ever track tape machine you have...which makes tracking bands easy.

If Anamod comes out with 8 channel unit at a reasonable price it could be death to the CLASP.
Old 15th August 2008
  #68
Gear Addict
 

thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post

I would say the answer to this is "yes," but again, since tape is running from top to bottom, you "should" have equal wear throughout the whole tape, rather than using the first 10 minutes over and over and then using the last 5 minutes for overdubs. Hope that makes sense. Short answer: yes, but may not ever need to be a concern.
hello,

thank you very much for taking time to explain. the reason i asked about the above issue is because is seems to me that there may be lengthy portions of the tape that may only have say one track recorded on [if doing an overdub], and then perhaps one could "harvest" other tracks in those sections if the rest of the reel was hammered.


userofgear
Old 15th August 2008
  #69
Gear Addict
 

tapeness

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
This is what would interest me, I wonder if it is "do-able" with this system.

My preference is to keep the process analog to the bitter end and convert the stereo track. However in many circumstances, the 24 track has to be dumped to digital for an edit fest for no other reason than time/money.

Having said that, can this device be sinc'ed to the tape machine in such a way that I can do a few edits on the DAW (like a nudge for eg) and then overwrite that edit onto the corresponding tape track at the exact position?

IE, instead of using tape "for it's sound" I want to use it as the primary medium and avoid conversion except for whatever small edits that we've overwritten from the DAW back onto the tape machine.

hello,

good question. anyone know?


userofgear
Old 15th August 2008
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Yet still no mention of price and how many channels you get.

When ever price talk is avoided, it usually means--expensive.

I can't believe there was no talk, no mention of price during the 'demo'...yet everyone is keeping their mouths shut

Everyone here talking up the CLASP with no mention of price...... sounds like salesman pitches...

Did I mention, Price?
Old 15th August 2008
  #71
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
This is what would interest me, I wonder if it is "do-able" with this system.

My preference is to keep the process analog to the bitter end and convert the stereo track. However in many circumstances, the 24 track has to be dumped to digital for an edit fest for no other reason than time/money.

Having said that, can this device be sinc'ed to the tape machine in such a way that I can do a few edits on the DAW (like a nudge for eg) and then overwrite that edit onto the corresponding tape track at the exact position?

IE, instead of using tape "for it's sound" I want to use it as the primary medium and avoid conversion except for whatever small edits that we've overwritten from the DAW back onto the tape machine.
Clasp won't do that.
Old 15th August 2008
  #72
Gear Addict
 

both

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
This is what would interest me, I wonder if it is "do-able" with this system.

My preference is to keep the process analog to the bitter end and convert the stereo track. However in many circumstances, the 24 track has to be dumped to digital for an edit fest for no other reason than time/money.

Having said that, can this device be sinc'ed to the tape machine in such a way that I can do a few edits on the DAW (like a nudge for eg) and then overwrite that edit onto the corresponding tape track at the exact position?

IE, instead of using tape "for it's sound" I want to use it as the primary medium and avoid conversion except for whatever small edits that we've overwritten from the DAW back onto the tape machine.
hello,

the best way to do what you are talking about is to sync pro tools and the 2-inch machine, and record to both at the same time [not through the tape machine, use separate outputs from the console, or mults].

then you can tweak small [or big] parts of stuff and fly it back over tape in sync. you will maintain the overall analog sound on the tape [unless you end up fixing and flying over a ridiculous amount of stuff]. also you can put them both up in sync to mix, and pick and choose what tracks you like from tools and what you like from the 2-inch.

lots of fun but you need a big console.


userofgear
Old 15th August 2008
  #73
Lives for gear
 
lozion's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleaman View Post
Did I mention, Price?
Anyone???
Old 15th August 2008
  #74
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpiccolini View Post
I assume these are the methods most people are using now, but still you have timing differences in long runs like a song due to inaccuracy in tape recorders transport. It can be phase problems or worse, but sure it happens. That`s what the CLASP seems to address... it compares the waveform to make them align... I suppose it adjusts speeds in one of the two systems... otherwise you´re both right and is a solution for an easy problem. I hope not to be missing something.
From what I gather most people are doing things the hard way and recording a bunch of tracks to tape and then dumping in a separate pass to the DAW (syncing is done manually). Let me think about your point about timing a little more and get back to you. From my experience using my method there does not seem to be any audible timing issues. That doesn't mean there aren't any in an absolute theoretical sense...just that I haven't heard any problems.

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #75
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

I don't see the really big problemo...

I can buy a decent 3 head reel to reel and record the monitor from the repro head, using a latency plugin to compensate for the delay. Thanks Brad!

As far as the tape wearing out or degrading, hey that might be desirable for some of us since we are always chasing vintage this and vintage that with our overbright mics and pres.

I'd take Brad's word over some of the other posters. If he just rewinds his tape and reuses it then that's how I'm going to approach things. I could care less.

I'm getting into this head first by the end of the month and I will report back.

Peace
Illumination
Old 15th August 2008
  #76
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimoSound View Post
Chris also stated tonight that this is not for a project studio. This is meant for Pro studios. Lots of these studios have tape machines gathering dust. I'm thinking that Quad, Ocean Way, Sound Stage, will be the first orders.

My advice - don't judge the book until you've read it.
Right--the project studios can employ my method for free. I feel like I'm pounding my head against a brick wall. The technology exists for everyone to enjoy their tape decks alongside their DAW's for free. I can see a pro studio not wanting to have to deal with watching to see when the tape is going to spool off or to have to press two sets of transport controls. But I think the rest of us can deal.

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #77
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by userofgear View Post
from what little anybody has been able to say, the product appears to include the idea of using one reel of tape for an entire project. that is weird, basically. we all know that you can erase and overdub, or even reuse a tape, usually once, if necessary. but nobody usually re-records over the same reel of tape 20 or 30 times. the audio would start to degrade at some point way before that.
I guess I'm one of those people. I've been using the same couple reels since the beginning of the year. On a recent project when it came time to mixdown, I thought "gee, I better unwrap a fresh reel of tape...I've been using the same reel the whole project." So I did a bunch of mixdowns, one or two pass max to the new reel. I made a mistake on one song and had to re-run it. However, I ran out of tape (I was planning to transfer back to the DAW at a higher sampling rate) and had no choice but to print to the "worn out" reel. When I listened back to the two takes of the mixdown and A/B'd them in DAW I couldn't tell a damn difference between the two. I don't know...maybe my ears are broken. My brain was telling me "that old tape is worn out, don't use it." But my ears were telling me "sounds fine".

I'm not an expert here, but I think that HF degradation is more of a problem when the audio is actually being stored on the tape and then rewound and played back many times for overdubs. However, when the audio is only existing on the tape just for 100ms to make it from record head to repro head...well that's a different story. Someone like John French would probably be the guy to ask about this.

Illacov - I personally wouldn't blindly take my word. heh But I would try it for yourself and see if it works for you.

Levi - thanks for explaining this all really well. As soon as a bunch of people "get it" and then try the method I'm proposing (the poor man's version) I think there will be a lot more people using tape in their recordings. Which is a very good thing in my mind.

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #78
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

I just want to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
I guess I'm one of those people. I've been using the same couple reels since the beginning of the year. On a recent project when it came time to mixdown, I thought "gee, I better unwrap a fresh reel of tape...I've been using the same reel the whole project." So I did a bunch of mixdowns, one or two pass max to the new reel. I made a mistake on one song and had to re-run it. However, I ran out of tape (I was planning to transfer back to the DAW at a higher sampling rate) and had no choice but to print to the "worn out" reel. When I listened back to the two takes of the mixdown and A/B'd them in DAW I couldn't tell a damn difference between the two. I don't know...maybe my ears are broken. My brain was telling me "that old tape is worn out, don't use it." But my ears were telling me "sounds fine".

I'm not an expert here, but I think that HF degradation is more of a problem when the audio is actually being stored on the tape and then rewound and played back many times for overdubs. However, when the audio is only existing on the tape just for 100ms to make it from record head to repro head...well that's a different story. Someone like John French would probably be the guy to ask about this.

Brad
Thanks for putting it out there how to use your method. For some this would be a "trade secret" and keep it to themselves, you just changed my entire way of looking at recording!

I've been doing the digital thing with hip hop and summing as you've noticed for a few years now, but the whole time I've been wishing for tape. Simply because I grew up on hip hop that was not only tracked to tape but mixed to tape and mastered to tape. This is somewhat possible for me in varying forms now and I'm sure that literally the "sound" of my projects will be changed forever.

I am currently salivating over a couple of 3 head reel to reels either by Akai or Tascam/Teac. The price is right and to be honest even if I can just get thru my project before the unit dies, I'll be fine with that, because I could always buy another one or get the one I have serviced.

Again
Thanks Brad.

PS the CLASP thing simply looks like it does the delay compensation and sync as one whole action. That's awesome but why does sync really matter if the tape that Quantegy is going to use will withstand repeated use/wear and tear? Since it seems that sync is only so you don't waste tape?

PSPS Brad where do you source your tape? Ebay? What type are you using? Also what deck are you recording with? Revox? Studer? Otari? Tascam? Fostex?

Are there any brands as far as reel to reel manufacturers to avoid? For the units that offer the 3.5 and 7 something recording speeds are they going to give a person good results on stuff like drums or guitars or vocals?

Peace
Illumination
Old 15th August 2008
  #79
Gear Addict
 
Levi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Yet still no mention of price and how many channels you get.
I'm not at liberty to say, as what I've heard isn't from Chris' mouth, but if you're comparing price-per-channel with Anamod, this will be cheaper. I didn't say it's cheaper than Anamod, though. Again, this is only rumor and not from Chris' mouth. Someone DID ask about price at the demonstration and he said "see me after the meeting." Not sure if he's offering a "how serious are you about buying" price, or if he's just keeping it under wraps until the street date in September. I do know that they are being hand-made 100%, so it's a quality build. And I know that he's catering to high-end studios, not project studios.

And no, I'm not a salesman... just someone who is excited to see something like this come along and work as well as it did!!!

Quote:
is seems to me that there may be lengthy portions of the tape that may only have say one track recorded on [if doing an overdub], and then perhaps one could "harvest" other tracks in those sections if the rest of the reel was hammered.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I misunderstood), I think you could easily cross-patch to use areas of tape that haven't been recorded on, or recorded on very little.
Old 15th August 2008
  #80
Gear Addict
 

head stack

hello,

after reading some of the posts [not sure exactly which ones] i got the impression that the unit may be in someway varispeeding both the tape machine and the pro tools rig at the same time [something about comparing the daw to the tape constantly to keep sample accurate sync].

i would hope that the pro tools rig would not be subject to any sort of smpte slavedriver-style control. that is bascially sample-rate conversion on the fly while trying to chase tape, and it does not sound good. remember? i know you do. hopefully, the device allows the daw to be clocked properly and has the tape machine chasing it while referenced to the same clock.

do you stripe the tape with smpte, or what?

the way to do it if you are recording to both tape and pro tools simultaneously is to stripe the tape with the machine free running. then have the lynx drive the tape machine while the lynx is referenced to a nanosyncs or something, and pro tools is also referenced to the nanosyncs.

we always have the studer as the master with pro tools chasing, but it looks like the clasp is all about using the daw as the main machine.



userofgear
Old 15th August 2008
  #81
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
As for the tape degradation situation, here's what I've heard (a producer friend who talked to Chris directly)...

Quantegy is making a special tape for this process. It will hold up a bit longer than traditional tape, but, since you're not archiving the tape, it will not hold up over time, nor will there be a need for it to. As for the recording to tape and it wearing out, this CLASP process runs the tape from top to bottom. Let's say you have a 3 minute song. You are not recording the song on the same 3 minutes of tape. You are recording the 3 minute song over the whole length of tape... the machine stays in record mode, on all tracks, until you disable record on your DAW. So, if you're tracking a full project of 24 tracks (drums, guitars, vocals, etc. all at once) then yes, you will be using a lot more of the tape's actually space throughout the whole reel and it will probably wear more quickly than if you're doing overdubs, where you'll be recording to parts of tape here and there. Once you RTZ, the next pass "might" record over your first passes, it might miss and hit new tape.

Here's an example of an overdub situation... let's say you're doing a guitar solo. You enable the guitar track in your DAW and start the song. The tape and your DAW begins at 1:00. Let's say you punch in the solo at 1:10 and out at 1:20. The guitar player missed it, so you decide to record it again. You start your DAW again and you'll punch at 1:10 on your DAW, but it might be 1:31 on your tape machine. Let's say the guitar player got everything except the notes between 1:16 and 1:20. You punch at 1:16 and out at 1:20 on your DAW, but that might be 1:43 to 1:47 on your tape machine. As you can see, there is space between the takes on your tape machine, and you haven't cut to the same spot of tape 3 times. Also, because the tape stays in record, you have retrospect record, so you can "peel back" the audio in your DAW, making a perfect punch, just as you would in digital. REMEMBER: You are not trying to cut perfect tracks in time to tape. You are using tape strictly for the analog tape sound. You use your DAW to be your final "here are the finished tracks, all lined up and perfect" machine. I hope that makes a little sense. It's something you need to see to wrap your head around it.

And yes, from what I understand listening to Chris last night, the CLASP unit can run three 24-track machines at the same time... you can set one to 15 ips, one to 30 ips, and one at 7.5, or any combination you desire... all running perfectly in sync with one another and your DAW.

Again, you have to think of CLASP in this fashion... you are capturing your signal to tape and bringing it instantaneously into your DAW, with all the benefits of speed and editing and retrospect recording, rather than treating your DAW as just a transport to run a tape machine, with traditional time code and MMC, recording on the same area of tape over and over, and then just transferring it into digital at the end. Again, I hope this makes a little sense. It's worth seeing and considering for any tape lovers who have been missing analog, and I'd say that's a lot of folks!
This whole process, while ingenious, seems like an incridible wear on the tape machines - which are in tenuous at best condition at most studios these days. The tech's are few and far between, and keeping them running 20+ years ago was a chore. Start running them during your entire session nonstop (they didn't even do that 20 years ago as the flow of sessions was much different) and they will wear out fast. Personally, I'd rather work with the rhythm section til they got it, roll tape, and immediately transfer off of it, then move to the DAW for OD's and the rest. Minimal wear on the tape and the machines. I've used tape for 30 years, and I don't care what quantegy or anyone else says, after a few hours, you'd better be putting on a fresh reel of tape, or get used to degraded sound. Tape is a medium that wears out just a little bit every time it goes over the heads. Doesn't matter if the track is in record or not. Those heads start to magnatize and "erase" the tape with each pass over the heads.
Old 15th August 2008
  #82
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimoSound View Post
Also it should be mentioned that the system has a post and pre roll setting which eases the transport's wear and tear.
Please tell me how pre and post roll eases the wear on the machine please. For me, machine maintaince and wear is the #1 reason why I do not use tape anymore. From everything I can conclude, the use of this device will actually cause me to be rolling tape LONGER and MORE OFTEN than I would on a normal analog/tape session. Thus - more machine wear and tape degradation.
Old 15th August 2008
  #83
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
I don't use any sync boxes or time code the way I do it and I'm not having any sync issues that are bothering me. Like I said earlier...that's not to say that the tape machine's speed is not varying over any given length of ~2-3" of tape that travels between the record an repro head. It's obviously not physically possible for perfect sync to be maintained with an electro-mechanical device without a closed loop control system. It's just that that variation is very very very small in practice, and thus not an issue as far as I can hear. I should do some tests and see what kind of variation I get when comparing to a duplicate signal that is looped back through ADDA. I've checked this before, but never really in detail or over a large statistical sample set.

Keep in mind that the sync problem is only relevant when talking about signals split between multiple tape decks or tape decks and the DAW. Anything coming off of multiple tracks from one machine will logically be in sync with itself (i.e. if you multed a source to all eight tracks of an 8-tracks for instance).

I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize a one or two sample variation at an given moment in time for tape travelling a few inches from record head to repro head. For two samples at a sample rate of 48kHz that translates to 0.042 milliseconds, which is equivalent to moving a microphone 0.5 inches. For one sample that would be about 0.25 inches. That seems tolerable to me since the things I'm usually splitting between the DAW and the tape are sources that are not related or in the same room (bass DI, vocals vs. drums).

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #84
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Tape is a medium that wears out just a little bit every time it goes over the heads. Doesn't matter if the track is in record or not. Those heads start to magnatize and "erase" the tape with each pass over the heads.
Bill,

The audio is only relevant as it exists between record and repro head. Before or after those moments in time it doesn't matter if it degrades since it is already captured on the computer. So in this sense the audio is not being subjected to anything bad during the time that we care about its existence on the tape.

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #85
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Please tell me how pre and post roll eases the wear on the machine please. For me, machine maintaince and wear is the #1 reason why I do not use tape anymore. From everything I can conclude, the use of this device will actually cause me to be rolling tape LONGER and MORE OFTEN than I would on a normal analog/tape session. Thus - more machine wear and tape degradation.
I am only making a conjecture, but it seems to me that the CLASP system starts and stops the tape whenever the DAW is started and stopped. That indicates to me that that tape usage/wear would be similar to any typical session using tape.

I, on the other hand, just let the tape roll until I feel like stopping it. So maybe that makes me guilty of putting excessive wear and tear on my deck. heh

Brad
Old 15th August 2008
  #86
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
Bill,

The audio is only relevant as it exists between record and repro head. Before or after those moments in time it doesn't matter if it degrades since it is already captured on the computer. So in this sense the audio is not being subjected to anything bad during the time that we care about its existence on the tape.

Brad
Brad, I understand that. But the tape ITSELF wears - irrespective of whether you recorded on it or not. If you disbelieve me, take a look at the heads of your machine after a day in the studio. Perhaps the machine and brand of tape you're using does not shed much, but the Scotch, Ampex, Quantegy, BASF, etc. brands that I have used are in a defiinate state of degradation by the end of a project - some more than others. Usually the more I liked the "sound" of a brand, the more it tended to shed. Don't know if there's a correlation there or if it's just coincidence. I think it's not logical or practical to think you can just slap a reel of tape on your machine and use it for an entire project. I'd be surprised if there was any oxide left on it....heh
Old 15th August 2008
  #87
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
For me, machine maintaince and wear is the #1 reason why I do not use tape anymore.

then it seems clear you're not the target market for this device, because it does not --- can not, in fact --- address your concerns. using a machine by definition involves wear and maintenance; no system that involves the use of a tape machine can eliminate this aspect of the equation.

the target, afaict, is people who stopped using tape because it was less convenient and/or didn't integrate so well with the daw. by making the deck integrate relatively seamlessly, that segment of the population is more likely to fire up their machines once again. i view this as a good thing, perhaps you don't.

it's also my experience that tape is far more robust than people give it credit for; i've re-used reels of tape probably hundreds of times and, after an initial 2 or 3 passes, find hf loss to be a non-issue.


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 15th August 2008
  #88
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
I am only making a conjecture, but it seems to me that the CLASP system starts and stops the tape whenever the DAW is started and stopped. That indicates to me that that tape usage/wear would be similar to any typical session using tape.
That was not my impression, but I'm sure that I could be wrong.... heh heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
I, on the other hand, just let the tape roll until I feel like stopping it. So maybe that makes me guilty of putting excessive wear and tear on my deck. heh

Brad
Cool - less wear on the transports, more wear on the heads and tape itself.


This whole deal seems like some kind of stopgap workaround. Until someone decides to manufacture tape machines again, these beasts are "middle-aged" at best and headed toward the end of their lifespan. Running them non-stop for a session seems like an extremely luxurious workaround. Where are the parts and techs going to come from to keep all these machines running. I could barely get a tech to work on mine 8 years ago. Why not just track with the machine and transfer to your DAW??? I don't know, maybe I'm just too old-skool or just don't get it.
Old 15th August 2008
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Start running them during your entire session nonstop (they didn't even do that 20 years ago as the flow of sessions was much different) and they will wear out fast.
Are you using hyperbole to exaggerate the usage of the machine or do you simply not understand the process being discussed here? Maybe no one has adequately explained the operating principle yet in this thread.

When you hit PLAY on your DAW, the tape machine goes into play. When you hit STOP on your DAW, the tape machine stops. Unless you do sessions where you never hit STOP for the entire day, the tape machine will not be "running during your entire session nonstop." You may do sessions like that, but I suspect not.

Simple as that.

This is not an endorsement. I just saw the demo last night and was impressed by the functionality of the system.
Old 15th August 2008
  #90
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
the target, afaict, is people who stopped using tape because it was less convenient and/or didn't integrate so well with the daw. by making the deck integrate relatively seamlessly, that segment of the population is more likely to fire up their machines once again.


gregoire
del
ubk
.
THAT was me. Sorry, I'm also a practical guy that thinks about maintainence as I don't have a tech on staff. You may have missed it, but there was a guy in LA last week that needed a Tech to keep his 2" machine up and running. After all the solutions and suggestions, it seems there was only one guy to do the job and he's (obviously) booked so far out that it's difficult to keep sessions running smoothly. Aside from the DAW vs. Analog wars, there are the logistical issues that plague people who run tape. To ignore that and pretend it's not an issue while forging ahead with tape is insane IMO.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
midy / High end
11
Plush / So much gear, so little time
1
echorec / High end
11
BlackSoultan / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
8
gevermil / So much gear, so little time
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump