EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 50, Issue 04 This issue's topics: 8 track recording 8 track recording. BIPHONY TO MAHAPHONY (4 messages) Direct to Disk Recording on Mac and PC (2 messages) Multitrack Operation (3 messages) Tape Sync (4 messages) TASCAM 464 (8 messages) TASCAM 464 (ACTUALLY YAMAH TASCAM 464 (actually Yamaha MT120) (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 16:38:18 EST From: "Homesh R. Lalbahadur (AED-FD)" Subject: 8 track recording Regarding Arne Claassen ISE's question on subject matter, there is the TASCAM 388 ? which is an eight-track recorder with a built-in mixer. It weighs a lot and is not cheap. This is a 1/4 inch reel-to-reel machine. --Homesh L. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 14:15:40 CST From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: 8 track recording. It is my impression that such casette devices have eight mono tracks. Are there any (or is it even the normal case) units that allow you to adjust the pan of each track for final mixdown onto a master, or do you have to run it through a board that allows for pan... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 17:40:17 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: BIPHONY TO MAHAPHONY Bob Crispen writes: >Here's what I was trying to say. For my application I want dens >layered sequences with precise control of instruments in the ste >field. Assume that I want a denser sound (or better panned or >better balanced sound) than all my MIDI instruments can provide What I have done to overcome 4 track limitations is as follows: 1. record a selected portion of stereo mix to tracks one and two 2. record additional left channel sounds onto track three together with a bounce of track two (or whichever track has your first pass of left channel sounds) 3. record your remaining right channel material onto the now redundant track two along with a bounce of track one 4. track two and three now have a stereo mix of two seperate stereo "sessions". The remaining signal on tack one is redundant since you already bounced it to track two. You can now use track one for an additional mono program. The obvious disadvantage of this method is the degradation of signal from bouncing. In my case, using a Tascam 424, there's the additional problem of a build-up of sync-tone which leaks through from track 4. I'm now using the virtual method more, but the above technique is available for really massive polyphony if I need it. Of course, you can combine the virtual method with the above for mega-polyphony. Joel Stern Library Of Congress stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 08:19:07 CST From: crispen Subject: Re: BIPHONY TO MAHAPHONY JOEL STERN sez: > What I have done to overcome 4 track limitations is as follows: > > 1. record a selected portion of stereo mix to tracks one and two > > 2. record additional left channel sounds onto track three > together with a bounce of track two (or whichever track has your > first pass of left channel sounds) > > 3. record your remaining right channel material onto the now > redundant track two along with a bounce of track one > > 4. track two and three now have a stereo mix of two seperate > stereo "sessions". The remaining signal on tack one is redundant > since you already bounced it to track two. You can now use track > one for an additional mono program. > > The obvious disadvantage of this method is the degradation of > signal from bouncing. In my case, using a Tascam 424, there's the > additional problem of a build-up of sync-tone which leaks through > from track 4. I'm now using the virtual method more, but the > above technique is available for really massive polyphony if I > need it. Of course, you can combine the virtual method with the > above for mega-polyphony. Aarrrrgggghhhh! Now why the heck didn't I think of that? I'm going back to the music store and getting the sync box. Told you I was seriously dopy about this one. Thanks to all who helped. Thanks even to Bill Fox whose solution (among many more helpful comments in private email) was "buy more gear". I've saved your post, Bill, to show my wife. Who knows -- maybe I'll get lucky. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 11:34:39 EST From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: BIPHONY TO MAHAPHONY In referring to Joel Stern's method, frustration overtakes the Rev. Bob as he exclaims: > Aarrrrgggghhhh! Now why the heck didn't I think of that? Noting that Joel points out: > The obvious disadvantage of this method is the degradation of > signal from bouncing. In my case, using a Tascam 424, there's the > additional problem of a build-up of sync-tone which leaks through > from track 4. I'm now using the virtual method more, ... So now that I think I finally understand Rev. Bob's goals at least a little better than I thought I did yesterday (just pound a brick against my thick skull a few times, Bob. I'll get it right eventually!) here's a variation to Joel's method that eliminates the need to bounce and might add polyphony. 1. Record a sequence onto track one for left channel material. 2. Record another sequence onto track two for center channel material. 3. Record yet another sequence onto track three for the right channel. 4. The final sequence is virtual and can be a stereo spread or mono and panned as wildly as desired. That's four times the real-time polyphony and I hope that will suffice. The advantage here, beyond what Joel mentioned, is each track and the virtual can be balanced at mixdown easier than in Joel's scenario. If the balance WITHIN a track needs adjusting, just tweek its sequence and re-record that track before doing your final mix. > Thanks to all who helped. Thanks even to Bill Fox whose solution > (among many more helpful comments in private email) was "buy more > gear". I've saved your post, Bill, to show my wife. Who knows -- > maybe I'll get lucky. More tracks, more mixers, more effects, and more synths (in general, MORE) buys you the luxury of postponing decisions until the final mix. Your wife and wallet might not like it, but the music industry and the economy will benefit and, hopefully, you retain your sanity due to the increased ease of your recording process. (I hope we all get lucky; often!) ...Bill... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 11:40:11 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: BIPHONY TO MAHAPHONY The following message got bumbed back to me, so I'm sending it again at the risk of repitition----------------- Bob Crispen writes: >Here's what I was trying to say. For my application I want dens >layered sequences with precise control of instruments in the ste >field. Assume that I want a denser sound (or better panned or >better balanced sound) than all my MIDI instruments can provide What I have done to overcome 4 track limitations is as follows: 1. record a selected portion of stereo mix to tracks one and two 2. record additional left channel sounds onto track three together with a bounce of track two (or whichever track has your first pass of left channel sounds) 3. record your remaining right channel material onto the now redundant track two along with a bounce of track one 4. track two and three now have a stereo mix of two seperate stereo "sessions". The remaining signal on tack one is redundant since you already bounced it to track two. You can now use track one for an additional mono program. The obvious disadvantage of this method is the degradation of signal from bouncing. In my case, using a Tascam 424, there's the additional problem of a build-up of sync-tone which leaks through from track 4. I'm now using the virtual method more, but the above technique is available for really massive polyphony if I need it. Of course, you can combine the virtual method with the above for mega-polyphony. Joel Stern Library Of Congress stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 14:07:28 -0500 From: Jon Crystal Subject: Direct to Disk Recording on Mac and PC With the great proliferation recently of "sound cards" to run under Windows 3.1, it seems increasingly difficult to assess the comparitive merits of these products vs. the smaller number of possibilities on the Mac. Has anyone attempted a true feature-by-feature comparison of, say, AudioMedia to TurtleBeach, etc? The PC products appear to have a tremendous price advantage, but in my relative ignorance I suspect that is only part of the story. If direct to disk recording *and reasonable subsequent editing* were an overriding concern, which platform has the best price/performance ratio? Jon Crystal University of Vermont jcrystal@moose.uvm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 15:50:37 GMT From: Iddo Ilan Subject: Re: Direct to Disk Recording on Mac and PC Organization: 3rd World Fox Jon Crystal (jcrystal@MOOSE.UVM.EDU) wrote: : If direct to disk recording *and reasonable subsequent editing* were an : overriding concern, which platform has the best price/performance ratio? There are quite a few audio cards on the PC, with 16 bit @ 44.1kHz stereo starting at $300 list or even less. See reviews in comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcards. Since they operate under Windows, the samples are supposedly playable by sequencers such as Cakewalk, and editors will eventually show up. However, these cards do not have a digital i/o like Audiomedia(mac) and so their pro use is limited. CardD and Turtle Beach 56K are an exception to this rule, but these are 2 year old products, costing from around $1200. I'd love to be corrected on the above. -- Ido Amin iddos@math.tau.ac.il 3rd World Fox fax/voice +972-3-5172713 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 10:52:24 EST From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Multitrack Operation Hi Jon, I don't believe your idea will work if you intended that everything is done on a single four track machine. > ... You > take the time to record the sync track ... Track Contents ----- -------------------------- 1 Blank 2 Blank 3 Blank 4 Sync Tone > ... so that you can at a later time sync > additional materials to the original stereo signal layed down on tracks 1 and > 2. Track Contents ----- -------------------------- 1 Program Material 1 - left 2 Program Material 1 - right 3 Blank 4 Sync Tone > ... Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record > one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Track Contents ----- -------------------------- 1 Program Material 1 - left 2 Program Material 1 - right 3 Program Material 2 - left 4 Sync Tone > Bounce > those three tracks down to two Right here is where I believe your flaw in logic occurs. At this point in time, all four tracks are filled up. To what two tracks do you propose to bounce tracks 1 - 3? The play/record head is busy playing those tracks and cannot be used to record a mix of those very same tracks' material. Now if you had a SECOND four track and recorded a mix of tracks 1 - 3 onto the second deck's tracks 1 and 2 (WHILE RECORDING SYNC FROM TRACK 4 ONTO THE SECONDS MACHINE' TRACK FOUR), then indeed track 3 of the second machine will be available for adding new material. But this requires A SECOND MACHINE! Not very cost effective. Better just to buy an 8 track. > ... Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is > able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. All multitracks can do this but not in the way that you propose. Fill tracks 1 - 3 and play them while recording their mix onto track 4. This opens tracks 1 - 3 for new material while a mono mix on track four exists of the original material. This is the only way that machines like this operate. A single play/record head CANNOT play AND record all on the same track. A single track either plays or records, NEVER both. Some tracks can play while others record. That is the basis of ALL multitrack machines. I hope I was clear and removed any confusion that may exists about how multitrack machines operate. Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 00:09:11 -0500 From: J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET Subject: RE: Multitrack Operation Bill, I thank you for your comments, I believe you are a victim of a personal message as Bob and I have been discussing this via private mail and have come to the same conclusion that this will only work on a four track machine with three heads of which I do not believe exist in a consumer version. Note additional comments below... >> ... You >> take the time to record the sync track ... > Track Contents > ----- -------------------------- > 1 Blank > 2 Blank > 3 Blank > 4 Sync Tone >> ... so that you can at a later time sync >> additional materials to the original stereo signal layed down on tracks 1 and >> 2. > Track Contents > ----- -------------------------- > 1 Program Material 1 - left > 2 Program Material 1 - right > 3 Blank > 4 Sync Tone >> ... Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record >> one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). > Track Contents > ----- -------------------------- > 1 Program Material 1 - left > 2 Program Material 1 - right > 3 Program Material 2 - left > 4 Sync Tone >> Bounce >> those three tracks down to two > Right here is where I believe your flaw in logic occurs. At >this point in time, all four tracks are filled up. To what two tracks >do you propose to bounce tracks 1 - 3? The play/record head is busy >playing those tracks and cannot be used to record a mix of those very >same tracks' material. Now if you had a SECOND four track and recorded >a mix of tracks 1 - 3 onto the second deck's tracks 1 and 2 (WHILE >RECORDING SYNC FROM TRACK 4 ONTO THE SECONDS MACHINE' TRACK FOUR), then >indeed track 3 of the second machine will be available for adding new >material. But this requires A SECOND MACHINE! Not very cost effective. >Better just to buy an 8 track. >> ... Additionally, this will only work if the recorder i s >> able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. > All multitracks can do this but not in the way that you propose. >Fill tracks 1 - 3 and play them while recording their mix onto track 4. >This opens tracks 1 - 3 for new material while a mono mix on track four >exists of the original material. This is the only way that machines >like this operate. A single play/record head CANNOT play AND record all >on the same track. A single track either plays or records, NEVER both. >Some tracks can play while others record. That is the basis of ALL >multitrack machines. I hope I was clear and removed any confusion that >may exists about how multitrack machines operate. >Bill Fox Bill, Again on low end machines this is the case but on upper end professional equipment, as well as upper end digital workstations, it is possible to play and record on the same track simultaneously. I direct your attention specifically to the Sony APR-24 and the Spectral Synthesis AudioEngine system... Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 09:13:22 EST From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: Multitrack Operation Please forgive me as I'm probably beating a dead horse... Jon's last posting: > have come to the same conclusion that this will only work on a four track > machine with three heads of which I do not believe exist in a consumer > version. But doesn't the record head preceed the play head even in pro gear? The record head can play a track for syncing purposes while simultaneously recording on a different track; but not on the same track. The third head is the play (only) head. Or am I totally uninformed about high end pro gear? (I know I'm at least partially ignorant as I've never even heard of the Sony APR-24 and the Spectral Synthesis AudioEngine system you mentioned!) I've never had the opportunity to work with upper (or any) end digital workstations. (I assume you mean direct to hard disk recording.) Lovely, but beyond my modest means for now. (It is to drool.) Anyways, as you've probably all surmised by now, I was directing my comments in terms of low to mid priced gear as that is what I thought the Rev. Bob is using. My Tascam 38 falls into that range, is a three head machine, and cannot play a track while simultaneously recording new material on that same track. (The heads are ordered erase, record/play, play.) Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 08:58:58 EST From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Tape Sync David HAUBENSACK wrote: > There's only one point that I didn't really understand: do I > need a sequencer to play back what's on the sync track, or > is the sync box taking the function of the sequencer (in play > only mode)? I suppose yes and that the sync box has a MIDIIN > to record once what's on the sequencer and a MIDIOUT to play > back any times you want what's on the sync track. Hi David, Please let me clear up a misconception you seem to have. The sync track does NOT contain any MIDI data - otherwise it might be called a MIDI data track! The sync track only contains timing information. For "dumb" FSK sync, that's 24 ppq (pulses per quarter note). For "smart" FSK, I believe MIDI SPP (Song Position Pointer) information is included. This means that you still need the sequencer during playback because the MIDI note on/off/velocity etc. is still in the sequencer, NOT ON THE SYNC TRACK. With "dumb" FSK, you must always start at the beginning of the song since there is no position data in the sync track. With "smart" FSK, you start your tape anywhere and the sync box will detect where that is from data in the sync track and then tell the sequencer where to start playing its sequence. The MIDI input on the sync box is connected to the sequencer's MIDI out, as you surmised. But that is only so the sync box knows how long the sequence is. During playback, the sync box's MIDI out feeds the sequencer's MIDI in and controls the sequencer's start and stop functions and tempo. > Another question: can you use the pitch control of the TASCAM > to change the tempo of the sync track ? I suppose it won't > transpose any notes cos' only MIDI infos are present on the > tape. Correct! I've tried this with dumb FSK and a drum machine. As the tape speed is changed (within tolerances), the drum machine's internal sequencer matched the tempo! The analog sounds on tape, ofcourse, change pitch and tempo, but the drum machine's pitch remains unchanged as expected. Try recording the drums onto a spare track, vary the TASCAM's pitch control (while in record moede) and the play back at a constant speed. Tell me what you hear. And make a note of when you recorded at fast, normal, and slow speeds. (Get the July 1988 KEYBOARD magazine and read my Reader Tips on tape speed effects on page 16.) Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 09:55:59 -0500 From: David HAUBENSACK Subject: Re: Tape Sync > Please let me clear up a misconception you seem to have. The > sync track does NOT contain any MIDI data - otherwise it might be called > a MIDI data track! The sync track only contains timing information. OK, I got the point. But my problem now is to change my sequencer, because it doesn't accept extern sync. It's the Voyetra one, given with the SB card and it was just fine for me to learn sequencing but now I feel like I need more. But I'm attacking again: is there a way to record midi info on a track (with a special encoding) and to play back this towards your synth, without using the sequencer anymore. It would be a great solution if it exists, because I think that syncing a sequencer with a pulse is not easy... And it would really allow you to change the tempo of the synth stuff without transposing any note. David. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 07:46:45 PST From: metlay Subject: Re: Tape Sync > >> Please let me clear up a misconception you seem to have. The >> sync track does NOT contain any MIDI data - otherwise it might be called >> a MIDI data track! The sync track only contains timing information. > >OK, I got the point. But my problem now is to change my sequencer, >because it doesn't accept extern sync. It's the Voyetra one, given >with the SB card and it was just fine for me to learn sequencing but >now I feel like I need more. You do. There's nothing sinful about outgrowing the capabilities of your computer interface, and (especially for an IBM!) upgrading is inexpensive and usually (IRQ? what's that?) painless. >But I'm attacking again: is there a way to record midi info on a >track (with a special encoding) and to play back this towards your >synth, without using the sequencer anymore. It would be a great >solution if it exists, because I think that syncing a sequencer >with a pulse is not easy... And it would really allow you to change the >tempo of the synth stuff without transposing any note. It can be done, but not on a normal tape deck. MIDI's baud rate is 31.25 kbaud, which if translated to Hz is out of human hearing range. One company has marketed a little Walkman-sized tape deck that can actually record and play back full bandwidth MIDI for use as a playback medium (I didn't believe it when I heard it but it DOES work), but you can't do it on a track of a tape deck. Your thought that synching a sequencer with a pulse isn't easy is where you're tripping yourself up, David; in fact, it's QUITE easy, with the right interface and carefully-striped sync tone. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Metlay, you're an asshole. But you're MY kind of asshole." (drukmoid) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 06:27:10 -0600 From: Eric Stratton Moseley Subject: Re: Tape Sync David - I use Voyetra, and it does accept external sync. I don't use the SB card, so I don't know if that's the problem, but with the right interface you can use any extenal sync. Go to your "options" window to change the Clock Source from internal to SPP to SMPTE. You must stripe your tape for a sync track on your tape deck. Your manual will explain how. Maybe you need an upgrade - I don't know, but the Voyetra seems to do a lot as far as sequencing goes. Some of my students have done some pretty nice stuff with it, including pieces that needed tape sync. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 09:26:32 -0500 From: David HAUBENSACK Subject: TASCAM 464 Hi, I purchased a TASCAM 464 portastudio and I would like to get your opinions about it. I didn't purchased any sync module yet, so can you tell me how midi sync works with this model, and what sync box you choosed, with what sequencer ? Don't you find that the line-out or monitor-out levels are quite low, in comparison with any other line-level hifi product (cd-player or tape-recorder) ? Do you really follow the cleaning rules of the manual (demagnetisation, cleaning of head-system every time you use it) ? What model of type-II tape can you especially recommand, for its strength, quality of sound, low noise level, capability to be driven at high speed, unelasticity, etc ?... David. _____________________________________________________ | David HAUBENSACK, , | | Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique | | Cadarache, DEP/SIT | | 13108 ST-PAUL-LEZ-DURANCE, FRANCE | | tel: (33)42254292 fax: (33)42257298 | | ___ /\ | | /\ /\ /\ /\__\ /_/_ | | /_/_/ / /_/_ /_/_ /\__/\ | | / \_/ / /\__/\ \__/\ /_/_/_/ | | / / / / /_/_/ /____/ / /\____/\ | | \/ \/ \___\/ \___\/ \/ \/ | |_____________________________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 09:00:35 CST From: crispen Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 David HAUBENSACK >I purchased a TASCAM 464 portastudio and I would like to get >your opinions about it. I didn't purchased any sync module yet, >so can you tell me how midi sync works with this model, and what >sync box you choosed, with what sequencer ? David, let me see if I can save you from a monumentally stupid thing I did this weekend. I got a MIDI sync box on demo from my music store and hooked it up. I recorded the MIDI sync from my sequencer onto track 4. Then I played just the drum track from that sequence, using the tape out running into the MIDI/FSK converter to sync the sequencer externally. The sequencer played back, and I recorded the drums on tracks 1 and 2. It worked perfectly the first time. I was impressed. Now I went back to overdub some of the instrumental tracks from my sequencer, and it was only at this point that it hit me! I had my drums on tracks 1 and 2 and my sync on track 4. The tape heads will either play or record, but not both (is the Tascam different?). Just where was I going to record 2 more tracks? OK, sez I -- I'll record the track in mono and mix it down. But as soon as I mix it down to an offboard tape, I'll lose the sync track! Now unless I'm still being phenomenally stupid (after this weekend, I wouldn't bet the contrary) I've come to the realization that sync and 4-tracks don't mix, unless you can give up stereo. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 09:48:51 PST From: Casey Dunn Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 You said (Re: Re: TASCAM 464) > David HAUBENSACK > > >I purchased a TASCAM 464 portastudio and I would like to get [lament deleted] > OK, sez I -- I'll record the track in mono and mix it down. But as soon > as I mix it down to an offboard tape, I'll lose the sync track! Now > unless I'm still being phenomenally stupid (after this weekend, I > wouldn't bet the contrary) I've come to the realization that sync and > 4-tracks don't mix, unless you can give up stereo. > +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | > | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | > +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ so stay 'virtual' and use the analog "3-track" for analog thingies. c a s e y ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 13:05:01 CST From: crispen Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 Casey Dunn sez: >so stay 'virtual' and use the analog "3-track" for analog thingies. Yup -- I should have been clearer. Bill Fox was kind enough to write me a nice note on this subject (which I've copied but lost the header from) so, Bill, if my reply to that message should have gone to the list instead of to you personally, please pass it along. Here's what I was trying to say. For my application I want dense, layered sequences with precise control of instruments in the stereo field. Assume that I want a denser sound (or better panned or better balanced sound) than all my MIDI instruments can provide playing at once (essentially in "performance" mode). So I'm going to be doing things like recording one voice at a time into the mix or running duplicate sequences to fatten up the sound. For that application, an 8-track or two 4-tracks or a 5-track (actually somebody makes a 6-track, don't they?) would work splendidly with sync, but one 4-track won't. Reason: once I record my first stereo mix on tracks 1 and 2, I've already got the sync on track 4 and there's nowhere left to put another stereo signal. Now if I've only got a few voices in the song, or if I can bear having some of my voices mono'd together, or if I can push the button and get my rack'o'gear to produce exactly the sound I want to hear on the tape, then a 4-track would be fine with sync. If I can get my rack'o'gear to produce the sound I want with *two* passes through the sequence, then we're still OK (one real, one virtual). But as soon as I want to make a third pass through the sequence, I haven't got enough tracks. Sorry -- I was assuming that everybody wants really thick stuff that goes way beyond the polyphony limit of your synth(s) and has voices chasing around all over the stereo field. Apparently my tastes are a little odd, so keep that in mind while reading my previous advice. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 12:38:51 PST From: Casey Dunn Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 Synopsis: the rev bob chats about dense layered sounds...and laments the loss of channels when syncing. I wise off with a comment about using the "3-track" for analog and "virtualizing" everything else - the implication of a "sparse" mix not going past Rev.Bob. Then, Bob, it must be the influence of the old ones. Smartass comments aside, yes I've run into the same problem - dense sound w/out massive tracks. My glibness masks my own frustrations, in trvth, as I've found no way outside it. what paths are there? more tracks ($) yes there is at least one 6-track more voices resulting in -> more black boxes ($) resulting in -> more channels in the mixer ($) more help collaboration. bring your pit to someone elses pit... less concern with syncronicity "off line" edits; tape loops, spare cassette/RR decks wouldn't it be trick if these cheap 4-tracks could sync up to each other. the speed accuracy of the engines would be a problem, but then again this isn't "pro" gear. ha. casey ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:12:07 -0500 From: J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 Bob, Below is an interesting answer to your question of stereo with sync. It is prefaced by your response to Dave's message... David HAUBENSACK >I purchased a TASCAM 464 portastudio and I would like to get >your opinions about it. I didn't purchased any sync module yet, >so can you tell me how midi sync works with this model, and what >sync box you choosed, with what sequencer ? David, let me see if I can save you from a monumentally stupid thing I did this weekend. I got a MIDI sync box on demo from my music store and hooked it up. I recorded the MIDI sync from my sequencer onto track 4. Then I played just the drum track from that sequence, using the tape out running into the MIDI/FSK converter to sync the sequencer externally. The sequencer played back, and I recorded the drums on tracks 1 and 2. It worked perfectly the first time. I was impressed. Now I went back to overdub some of the instrumental tracks from my sequencer, and it was only at this point that it hit me! I had my drums on tracks 1 and 2 and my sync on track 4. The tape heads will either play or record, but not both (is the Tascam different?). Just where was I going to record 2 more tracks? OK, sez I -- I'll record the track in mono and mix it down. But as soon as I mix it down to an offboard tape, I'll lose the sync track! Now unless I'm still being phenomenally stupid (after this weekend, I wouldn't bet the contrary) I've come to the realization that sync and 4-tracks don't mix, unless you can give up stereo. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ Bob, I don't believe you are stupid, just think about it this way. You take the time to record the sync track so that you can at a later time sync additional materials to the original stereo signal layed down on tracks 1 and 2. Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Bounce those three tracks down to two and then record the other side of the second stereo source on track 3 again. Their will of course be a one generation signal loss on the original three tracks but if the levels are hot enough it shouldn't be noticeable. Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. I hope this helps!!! Jon Scampton J_scampton@acad.lvc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 08:42:34 GMT From: Ulli Hund Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 Organization: Westf. Wilh.-Universitaet Muenster, Germany. In article 1c0df@ACAD.LVC.EDU, J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET () writes: >Bob, > Below is an interesting answer to your question of stereo with sync. >It is prefaced by your response to Dave's message... > > >David HAUBENSACK >>... > >David, let me see if I can save you from a monumentally stupid thing I >did this weekend. Let me see if I can make you doing the same "monumentally stupid thing". I think Bob just did not understand how to use the sync track. >I got a MIDI sync box on demo from my music store >and hooked it up. I recorded the MIDI sync from my sequencer onto >track 4. Then I played just the drum track from that sequence, using >the tape out running into the MIDI/FSK converter to sync the sequencer >externally. OK. > The sequencer played back, and I recorded the drums on >tracks 1 and 2. Hey? Why did you do that? It is not necessary to record anything the sequencer plays, you can mix it into the cue mix. > It worked perfectly the first time. I was impressed. > >Now I went back to overdub some of the instrumental tracks from my >sequencer, and it was only at this point that it hit me! I had my >drums on tracks 1 and 2 and my sync on track 4. The tape heads >will either play or record, but not both (is the Tascam different?). Yes, it is. Have a look at the switches on channel 1-4. If they are on position "TAPE" the tape track #1-4 resp. will be given into the mix. >Just where was I going to record 2 more tracks? > >OK, sez I -- I'll record the track in mono and mix it down. But as soon >as I mix it down to an offboard tape, I'll lose the sync track! Now >unless I'm still being phenomenally stupid (after this weekend, I >wouldn't bet the contrary) I've come to the realization that sync and >4-tracks don't mix, unless you can give up stereo. >+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ >| Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | >| crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | >+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ > > >Bob, > I don't believe you are stupid, just think about it this way. You >take the time to record the sync track so that you can at a later time sync >additional materials to the original stereo signal layed down on tracks 1 and >2. Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record >one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Bounce >those three tracks down to two and then record the other side of the second >stereo source on track 3 again. Their will of course be a one generation >signal loss on the original three tracks but if the levels are hot enough it >shouldn't be noticeable. Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is >able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. s.a. > >I hope this helps!!! > >Jon Scampton >J_scampton@acad.lvc.edu I think you should have a look at the manual once again. The 464 is a great machine and it has a lot of nice features, as the cue mix. It offers the best a 4-Track-Recorder can offer. If you use tape sync together with a sequencer and some synthesizer you can do great things. (The simplest way to use it is recording everything a synthesizer can play on the sequencer and to use track 1-3 only for natural instruments, like voice/guitar. I hope I did not sound too offending, but I *really* like this tape and do not want it to sound bad. I am sorry if I did. Maybe you should give the Tascam another try. Have fun! Ulli ----------------------------- cut here -------------------------------- Ulrich Hund - Ingridpfad 12 - Lankwitz, Berlin 12249 - (0 30) 773 38 70 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: I do not work for or get paid by Tascam (but I would like to get paid...). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 04:36:33 -0500 From: David HAUBENSACK Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 > > > >David HAUBENSACK > >>... > > > >David, let me see if I can save you from a monumentally stupid thing I > >did this weekend. > > Let me see if I can make you doing the same "monumentally stupid thing". > I think Bob just did not understand how to use the sync track. > Hi Ulli, it seems that you're the only one in this discussion who dares reading user's manual. I understood that sync is great, and no need to record any synth (just at the end when mastering). Exactly what I need, cos' I want to record my voice, a guitar and my saxophone on the synth stuff coming from my sequencer. There's only one point that I didn't really understand: do I need a sequencer to play back what's on the sync track, or is the sync box taking the function of the sequencer (in play only mode) ? I suppose yes and that the sync box has a MIDIIN to record once what's on the sequencer and a MIDIOUT to play back any times you want what's on the sync track. Another question: can you use the pitch control of the TASCAM to change the tempo of the sync track ? I suppose it won't transpose any notes cos' only MIDI infos are present on the tape. David HAUBENSACK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 12:55:12 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: RE: TASCAM 464 (ACTUALLY YAMAH J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (John Scampton) sez: >Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record >one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Bounce >those three tracks down to two and then record the other side of the second >stereo source on track 3 again. Their will of course be a one generation >signal loss on the original three tracks but if the levels are hot enough it >shouldn't be noticeable. Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is >able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. That sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to ask you and Joel Stern who said something similar if you've noticed any flanging when you've done this. I know when I just duplicated the drum part of the sequence in mono on two tracks of my 4-track that there was a *very* noticeable flanging effect when I played the two tracks back. It sounded cool, and I almost bought the sync box for that effect (I mean, it's *analog* flanging]). But suppose a given signal in your sequence is 60% left. If you record the left track of the signal, then the right track (with the other 40% of the signal), I would expect the image of the signal to bounce around at random intervals. Does this happen? As you may know, I spent the $99 that I was going to buy the sync box with on an analog synth at a pawnshop, and it'll be a couple of weeks before I can buy it now, so I'd feel bad about taking the sync box out of the store on another demo (so I can try this myself instead of annoying you) without being able to buy it right away. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME]" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------------------ THIS IS A REPLY TO THE ABOVE MESSAGE SUBJECT OF THE REPLY: REPLY ------------------------------------------ Bob Crispen said: >I know when I just duplicated the drum part of the sequence >in mono on two tracks of my 4-track that there was a *very* noti >flanging effect when I played the two tracks back. It sounded c That sounds like it comes from the recording of identical material, slightly out of phase, on a track. When I use the technique I don't record the same thing twice. Also, the spatial distribution of the material should be stable if you're only recording the stereo image as it already exists on the source tracks. If the image bounces around I would think that that indicates a phase problem as well. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 08:50:19 CST From: crispen Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 (actually Yamaha MT120) J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (John Scampton) sez: >Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record >one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Bounce >those three tracks down to two and then record the other side of the second >stereo source on track 3 again. Their will of course be a one generation >signal loss on the original three tracks but if the levels are hot enough it >shouldn't be noticeable. Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is >able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. That sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to ask you and Joel Stern who said something similar if you've noticed any flanging when you've done this. I know when I just duplicated the drum part of the sequence in mono on two tracks of my 4-track that there was a *very* noticeable flanging effect when I played the two tracks back. It sounded cool, and I almost bought the sync box for that effect (I mean, it's *analog* flanging!). But suppose a given signal in your sequence is 60% left. If you record the left track of the signal, then the right track (with the other 40% of the signal), I would expect the image of the signal to bounce around at random intervals. Does this happen? As you may know, I spent the $99 that I was going to buy the sync box with on an analog synth at a pawnshop, and it'll be a couple of weeks before I can buy it now, so I'd feel bad about taking the sync box out of the store on another demo (so I can try this myself instead of annoying you) without being able to buy it right away. +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | "IT FOUND ME!" | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | Campus Crusade for Cthulhu | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 14:42:19 -0500 From: J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET Subject: Re: TASCAM 464 (actually Yamaha MT120) Bob, J_SCAMPTON%ACAD.LVC.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (John Scampton) sez: >>Instead of recording additional material in stereo, use track 3 to record >>one side of the second stereo source only (using sync to lock it up). Bounce >>those three tracks down to two and then record the other side of the second >>stereo source on track 3 again. Their will of course be a one generation >>signal loss on the original three tracks but if the levels are hot enough it >>shouldn't be noticeable. Additionally, this will only work if the recorder is >>able to play a track while recording a bounce at the same time. >That sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to ask you and Joel Stern >who said something similar if you've noticed any flanging when you've >done this. I know when I just duplicated the drum part of the sequence >in mono on two tracks of my 4-track that there was a *very* noticeable >flanging effect when I played the two tracks back. It sounded cool, >and I almost bought the sync box for that effect (I mean, it's *analog* >flanging!). I can't speak to the flanging you mention because I've never used the unit in question, I was just throwing out a theoretical solution, the flanging is a problem and obviously the solution given is not acceptable if this problem occurs... >But suppose a given signal in your sequence is 60% left. If you >record the left track of the signal, then the right track (with >the other 40% of the signal), I would expect the image of the signal >to bounce around at random intervals. Does this happen? As you may >know, I spent the $99 that I was going to buy the sync box with on >an analog synth at a pawnshop, and it'll be a couple of weeks before >I can buy it now, so I'd feel bad about taking the sync box out of >the store on another demo (so I can try this myself instead of annoying >you) without being able to buy it right away. Again, speaking in theoretical terms, the image should not bounce around because it is only one side of a stereo signal. Assuming the other side is recorded at the same level it should not matter at all whether a signal is dead center or hard panned because the original level between the two channels is maintained. I hope this helps Bob, I apologize for never using the machine in question and offering a solution, I've done the same thing with a 16-track MCI machine and have never had any trouble. Jon J_scampton@acad.lvc.edu ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************