Tascam CM-16 Card for Midiizer

[themaddog]

Hello there,
Does anyone have any info on the Tascam CM-16 storage card for the Midiizer?

The Midiizer only allows you to save 8 songs, stored as tempo maps, for a drum machine.

I've tried searching on the internet but haven't found any info.

I'm not sure, because I'm not well versed on the MIDI side of things, but if anyone thinks it would just be easier to have my computer trigger the drum machine, let me know. I would imagine my setup would be as follows:

Tascam MSR-16 --> Tascam Midiizer --> Cool Edit Pro 2.0 reading MTC --> Boss DR-670

Thanks for your insight,
-MD

 

[Dr ZEE]

Tascam MSR-16 --> Tascam Midiizer --> Cool Edit Pro 2.0 reading MTC --> Boss DR-670


-MD

Have no experience with any from the "chain/list".
Except I used to have few years ago Dr-660, which I'd guess is similar to 670 (?). Also I never cared to "master" this machine as a user, never learned how to program it etc., I even had no patience to read through that thick book-manual . I simply used to use it from time to time as a midi drum-sound module.
What I remember doing though was this. If my memory is not completely corrupted, you can play the drum machine's pattern (or programmed song), while MIDI out from the machine connected to midi IN of computer software midi-sequencer (I was and am Cakewalk user), and record the midi-track in your software. Then you connect the MIDI out from your computer (sequencer program) to MIDI IN of the Dr-660/670 , and play back the recorded midi track, and so this way now your drum machine is simply "acting" like a sound module for your midi-track. You get the same pattern/song as you would play the machine as you "normally do".
Now, why I am telling you all this ...heh heh
Since you've asked about "if anyone thinks it would just be easier to have my computer trigger the drum machine".
I don't know if "easier" would be the right word here. This would depend on what's easier for you - to "simply" program your drum-machine and then "hit play", or would it be easier for you to deal with computer software based sequencer.
Since I was pretty comfortable with Cakewalk it sure was easier for me.
The cool thing is, that you are completely "free" to program your song (drum pattern(s)) any way you want, and have all the "tools" awailable what ever your midi-sequencer software provides, and then you can save your "drum tracks" as midi-files (or your sequencer-program project files).

OK, now, let's say, you've got that part going. So, let's say, now you program your midi tracks on your computer midi-sequencer and using your drum machine as sound-module. The next thing is to sinchronize your computer sequencer to your Midiizer.
If I knew midiizer or cooledit (which I don't) I could tell you how to do it in details, but I can't. But here's general idea.
If I understand correctly, you have MTC out from midiizer. That would mean, that your midiizer will be "master" and your software sequencer will be "slave".
I used to sinchronize akai digital recorders via MTC to Cakewalk (as midi sequencer) all the time. The way it works: midi out from "master" to midi IN of your computer sequencer, then you need to know how exactly set your software to "slave" to MTC. See Cooledit guide or ask someone who knows that software. So you set your sftware to "slave" to a "master" via MTC. When you do that, you software may get into some sort of "waiting for START mode", so then you press play on your master machine (that will be MSR - through- midiizer), and maybe after a short period of time you computer sequencer will start playing, in sinch with MSR, and it will be playing the midi-track, and your drum-machine will be acting as a sound-module (midi synthesizer).
Now there's one detail here.
For such set up you'd need to connect MIDI OUT from computer interface to MIDI IN of the drum machine. You don't need to have MIDI OUT from machine to MIDI IN of the computer interface for playback.
Then you'd need to connect MIDI out from Midiizer to MIDI IN of the computer inteface. BUT! I don't know if you also have to connect MIDI OUT from computer back to MIDI IN of midiizer? I think you have to, but I have no clue, really.
So if you do have to connect you midiizer "both way" with the computer midi-interface, then this would mean that you would need at least two MIDI ports interface for your computer, so you use one port for sinchronizer and the other port for your drum-machine (sound module). Now I may be wrong on that one, but I always used to use "dedicated" midi-port for MTC.

What computer midi/audio interface do you have?

ok, I gotta stop here

frankly, this midi blah blah gives me acid reflux

 

[themaddog]

The computer sound card I'm using is the M-Audio Delta 44, while on the MIDI side of things I'm using the M-Audio Uno.

I've successfully synced the MSR-16 (master) to Cool Edit Pro (slave) through MTC, and have been able to act Cool Edit Pro as a SMPTE master and the MSR as the slave. Obviously, it is much more efficient to have the MSR act as the master.

The only thing I'm concerned about is how well the Uno will both sync to the tape machine and record/playback the drum machine consistently, but I will soon find out. For one, when it comes to using a MIDI keyboard, it hasn't exactly been the best product in terms of latency which, so long as it plays back consistently laggy, shouldn't be a big deal. Which MIDI interface did you/do you use?

Doc, thanks for all of your help. You were able to articulate what I was thinking, in terms of connecting the drum machine, better than I could explain it.

-MD

 

[trancedental]

The only thing I'm concerned about is how well the Uno will both sync to the tape machine and record/playback the drum machine consistently, but I will soon find out. For one, when it comes to using a MIDI keyboard, it hasn't exactly been the best product in terms of latency which, so long as it plays back consistently laggy, shouldn't be a big deal.

-MD

The drum machine should work with MIDI Tempo sync from your computer sequencer software (you decide the exact tempo & any changes from software) which you would control the overall tempo, start / stop times & enable the drum machine to play it's internal patterns. You will need to set up the drum machine to recognise MIDI tempo & disable midi note data from being sent to the machine. Options for this should be in the manual.

MIDI keyboards with latency probelms might be a problem with your computer & / or software?

 

[sweetbeats]

Obviously, it is much more efficient to have the MSR act as the master

MD, why do you say that?

 

[themaddog]

MD, why do you say that?

1- If the MSR-16 is a slave to the computer, it will take a few moments for the MSR to sync up to the computer. So, if we start at the beginning of a song, the MSR will need, at minimum, a few seconds of "play" in order to match where the computer is playing from. If the computer is a few minutes ahead or behind of wherever the tape machine is, the tape machine could take a long time to catch up. This can make overdubs and punching pretty complicated.

2- If the MSR-16 is the master, you don't need to use an accessory 2 cable, which can be a pain to find or make.

3- In my setup, the MSR-16 acts as a master, sending MTC (not techincally SMPTE) to the computer. The Tascam Midiizer, if I understand the manual correctly, cannot take incoming MTC and convert it to SMPTE for the MSR to follow. As a result of this, in order to get the MSR (through the Midiizer) to slave to anything, it needs SMPTE coming in, which has to be through an audio cable, not a MIDI cable. Doing it this way, you will always lose a channel from your computer's sound card, as it will always need a dedicated output sending out the SMPTE time code.

Just my insight!
-MD

 

[sweetbeats]

I understand.

I'm going for slaving the the atr to the DAW as I don't want the accuracy of the DAW to depend on the inaccuracy of the mechanical motor in the deck.

1. Okay. Yes. The recommendation I have received in my situation is to pre-roll by at least 5 measures or so in order to allow time for the synchronizer to resolve and lock.

2. Pain yes...hence why I had to make one...fun project that requires persistence and patience, and I don't know if it works yet...

3. My understanding is that you cannot stripe MTC on the deck as the resolution of the MTC is too fine to come out accurately. The Midiizer (an MTS-1000 is it?) takes SMPTE code from the deck and converts that to the MTC to which the the computer slaves.

 

[Beck]

I do it the same way... everything is slaved via SMPTE to analog. Most software sequencing and digital recording software will follow MTC, which is basically a MIDI interpretation of SMPTE.

Many hardware sequencers and drum machines aren’t compatible with MTC, so if you have one it needs MIDI Clock with song position pointer. I used to have an MTS-1000 but I don’t remember if it could send MTC out of one MIDI out and MIDI Clock w/SPP out of another. I kind of think not since the two MIDI sync associations for tape are SMPTE/MTC and Smart FSK/ MIDI Clock w/SPP

If you want to sync a DAW and a hardware drum machine to analog, in most cases you will need a device that converts SMPTE to MTC for your DAW and then your sequencing software will send out MIDI Clock w/SPP to your hardware sequencer or drum machine.

Your options will depend on your DAW’s hardware and software features.

 

[themaddog]

I understand.

I'm going for slaving the the atr to the DAW as I don't want the accuracy of the DAW to depend on the inaccuracy of the mechanical motor in the deck.

1. Okay. Yes. The recommendation I have received in my situation is to pre-roll by at least 5 measures or so in order to allow time for the synchronizer to resolve and lock.

2. Pain yes...hence why I had to make one...fun project that requires persistence and patience, and I don't know if it works yet...

3. My understanding is that you cannot stripe MTC on the deck as the resolution of the MTC is too fine to come out accurately. The Midiizer (an MTS-1000 is it?) takes SMPTE code from the deck and converts that to the MTC to which the the computer slaves.

In terms of the accuracy/inaccuracy, you may want to try slaving the DAW to the ATR and listen for any problems.

1/2- Pre-rolling by 5 measures ought to help, but you'll have to mark where that is each and every time, and put the tape machine in roughly the same neighborhood. I have done it this way, when I was first trying to get everything synced up, and believe me, it is a pain.

3- I could be way out of my element of understanding here, but I think MTC is purely a digital language and has to be run over MIDI cables. Therefore, the only way to have a Midiizer (MTS-1000) or a tape machine use it, it needs to be converted from SMPTE, which is still a digital language (like a modem), but is in "sound" form. MTC is essentially a form of SMPTE that operates totally through MIDI, meaning that it doesn't need to use up a channel on your soundcard, and instead can be operated over of your many MIDI channels.

-MD

 

[sweetbeats]

The whole DAW master or atr master argument is about as worthwhile as a poopy flavored lollipop...its like arguing about analog vs. digital, but I'm committed to getting the atr to slave.

Some interesting stuff in this thread over at gearslutz, as well as this thread and this thread over at the Tascam Forum.

In terms of the accuracy/inaccuracy, you may want to try slaving the DAW to the ATR and listen for any problems.

Good point. Would I be able to hear the difference in timing accuracy between slaving the atr to the DAW vs. slaving the DAW to the atr? Likely not, but with regard to accuracy alone, the DAW as master will be more accurate. I want to use the tools I have to their fullest. In my case it also will be nice to be able to remote control the transport of the 58 over firewire to my Yamaha 01X.

1/2- Pre-rolling by 5 measures ought to help, but you'll have to mark where that is each and every time, and put the tape machine in roughly the same neighborhood. I have done it this way, when I was first trying to get everything synced up, and believe me, it is a pain.

Ummm...shouldn't have to do that...SMPTE is by definition a "time code" and if the atr and DAW are striped simultaneously, they both contain the same series of code instructions. If I press stop, relocate the cursor to a new point in the DAW say 15 minutes ahead and press play the synchronizer will recognize the new time position of the DAW, and if the DAW is 15 minutes ahead it will tell the atr to ffwd to that point. Yes it will take some time for the atr to get there, but not much more than if I pressed ffwd on the atr first to find my point...either way, the tape has to be shuttled to the new point. The other option to simplify things is to use locate points...that's what an autolocator is for. If there are logical interval points or frequently visited spots in a project, locate points can easily be setup in the DAW and the identical points can easily be set in the autolocator for the atr...now indeed I'd have to be shuttling two devices (the DAW and the atr), but there is no guesswork of getting the atr into "roughly the same neighborhood".

MTC is purely a digital language and has to be run over MIDI cables. Therefore, the only way to have a Midiizer (MTS-1000) or a tape machine use it, it needs to be converted from SMPTE, which is still a digital language (like a modem), but is in "sound" form. MTC is essentially a form of SMPTE that operates totally through MIDI, meaning that it doesn't need to use up a channel on your soundcard, and instead can be operated over of your many MIDI channels.

MIDI timecode and SMPTE timecode both make sound, can be transmitted over digital or analog means. Both are generated digitally. You'll find SMPTE being transmitted both ways depending on the scenario, but once the SMPTE code is digitally generated it is handled as audio. MIDI on the other hand is, as you said, transmitted pretty much just over digital (MIDI) means. Both MIDI and SMPTE code can be printed as audio on an atr, but there's no reason to transmit MTC over analog because nothing in the analog world can do anything with it. As you may have read in the links above MTC is transmitted in 1/4 frame increments and is too fast for it to be read accurately from an analog source, so MTC lives in the digital world.

The question that is in my mind is, if companies like Tascam and MicroLynx felt that resolving the DAW to the atr was the best way and the industry standard, then why would synchronizers be produced that can receive MTC (a product of the computer age) and output SMPTE code AND send motor control information to syncable atr machines (like the ATS-500, MTS-1000, products from MicroLynx and others)? Because consumers wanted to slave their atr's to their DAW's or other digital equipment that is inherently more frame accurate than the wonderful mechanical monstrosity that is an atr.

That's what I'm going off of. The complicating factor in my case is that my ES-50/51 doesn't talk MTC (as it was designed primarily to lock two atr's together, or slave an atr to video production equipment based on the SMPTE standard). It does provide for a "code only" situation though where the slave device (atr) is connected via the motor controlling slave interface port and the master device (the DAW in my case) is connected only to the timecode input XLR jack. The ES-50/51 is complex enough though to have learning functions (it takes 1-2 minutes and runs the atr through performance tests so it knows how the transport, lifters, etc. function.)

Anyway, I definitely see more people slaving their DAW's to the atr, and are perfectly happy with it and in many cases, such as yours, are happier. To that I say more power to you. Me? I'm a glutton for punishment with a tired brain and solder-burned fingers who's looking forward to locking his atr to his DAW.

 

[themaddog]

Everyone has their own reasons for the way his or her studio is set up. Every set up is "the best" for that one person. Also, home recording is like any other hobby; ask ten different hobbyists the same question, and it's likely you'll get ten unique answers. Which is right, which is wrong, which is best? It's all irrelevant, but maybe you can glean some knowledge in the process.

It sounds like you know what you're doing, and that set up sounds like it will be nothing short of perfect for your needs. But, if someone were to ask me which is the quickest or easiest way to get into syncing a tape machine to a DAW, I'd still suggest slaving the DAW. The quickest and easiest way may not be the most efficient way for everybody, but for my studio this is the most efficient way to proceed.

I am really interested in hearing about your experience in syncing the Tascam 58, please let us know how it goes!

Best wishes,
-MD

 

[sweetbeats]

MD,

Everyone has their own reasons for the way his or her studio is set up. Every set up is "the best" for that one person. Also, home recording is like any other hobby; ask ten different hobbyists the same question, and it's likely you'll get ten unique answers. Which is right, which is wrong, which is best? It's all irrelevant, but maybe you can glean some knowledge in the process.

I agree completely with you, and if I didn't make it clear, that was my intent; to share and not to debate.

Slaving to the atr is easier, less complicated, less time-consuming to setup, and cheaper! And the differences may be entirely inaudible depending on the atr and its condition.

I will definitely be posting updates on my process. I'm planning on starting a new thread akin to Tascam 58-OB Story... for my process getting the 58 and my DAW sync'ed up.