Syncbox for Revox PR99

_DK

_DK

New member
The deck has 3 multi-pin connectors at the back for: external capstan control, parallel remote control, and fader start. Would I be using the one in the middle? :confused: Could someone recommend me a syncbox for this machine?
 
I'll clarify the question :)
I want to sync, and I've never synced anything before. The set up is (will be) Revox PR99 and M-Audio Delta 1010LT (to use with Cubase). Would it work? What would I need for it? The sound card does have some sync system of its own.
 
First and foremost, what are you trying to achieve? I'm not sure there ever was a box which could actually sync the PR99 as a slave, and even if there was it would be a pretty unusual thing to want to do. If you absolutely need this for some reason, you might be able to design one if we know how the external control works (this is most likely intended for the varispeed remotes).

For this kind of thing, the only real way would be to record the timecode on one of the tracks, say the right one, and use a generic timecode box like the Cooper PPS or Phil Rees TS-1. These can record and play back a timecode and output the result as MTC over a MIDI interface. If you plug that back into the computer and get your sequencer to slave to the tape timecode it should work, although to be honest it's a lot of effort for just one mono track.

There were sync boxes that could be used to control slide projectors, though.
 
What I'm trying to achieve is recording to one track at a time with a maximum track width (a half track 1/4" tape recorder) and then bouncing it to the computer and mixing several tracks afterwards. I'm now thinking of my other machine choices - Otari MX5050, Revox PR99, Fostex (can't remember the model #). For some reason I convinced myself that the best sounding deck would be the Revox.
In the perfect world I would get a 1" 4 track ATR, but that's $2000 at least. I'll get there eventually, but for the time being....
On the other hand, I could mix without even syncing the machine, right? Just record some beat at the beginning of the take, mike the headphones for 5 secs and then manually adjust the tracks on the computer. Would it be complicated? :D
 
_DK said:
On the other hand, I could mix without even syncing the machine, right? Just record some beat at the beginning of the take, mike the headphones for 5 secs and then manually adjust the tracks on the computer. Would it be complicated? :D
Click to expand...

People do this, yes. I've not tried it myself yet. Gives you the advantage that you can do two tracks at a time, as well.

Another option is to do most of it digitally and mix to tape.
 
As the Revox has separate record & playback heads you just have to record a signal from both in stereo to your digital system / DAW. The recorded tracks will have to be moved back to make up for the time difference due to the distance of the heads from each other.

Just record each track & then move back in your DAW by the distance between the record playback heads.

In effect this would be using the tape machine as an inline effect. Usually called layback tracks.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/58910-2-track-analog-tracking-into-pt.html
 
I've slaved a digital workstation to the Tascam 32, which is also half track, and bounced multiple tracks over to the workstation. It worked good, except with loud signals, like drums. The loud signals can easily bleed over to the midi striped track and interupt the signal. :eek:
 
_DK said:
I've decided to go with one of the suggestions from here http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/58910-2-track-analog-tracking-into-pt.html

Recording both tracks (2 mikes, for example) on tape as well as on the computer, then dumping the tape tracks on the computer after a few days, matching them all up and deleting the computer recorded tracks.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the scenario you describe above would work. All tape decks have minor speed fluctuations, and I think these would cause problems if you were trying to line up tracks that were longer than a minute or two.

I've read and re-read this thread a couple of times, and it's still not clear to me what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to add the coloration of analog tape to your digital recordings? If so, why not just mix down from your soundcard to the tape deck through an analog mixer? Or if mixing in the computer, dumping your final mix onto tape?

If you're trying to multitrack using a two-track recorder, you could try blocking the erase head with something like photographic film and doing multiple recording passes (with the erase head covered up, what you record won't be erased). I don't know the capabilities of your deck, but you might also be able to bounce from one track to the other while overdubbing.
 
The layback technique does work as long as the R2R recorder has been serviced & is working fine, if your R2R speed is not consistent you could have problems!

I've done this with a Revox PR99 & Studer A807 into PTLE.

The idea is to get the "sound" of tape onto the inital tracks / takes, not to add the tape sound to a project originally recorded digitally.
 
My goal is analog recording on a machine with good electronics and tracks wider than on an 8-track. I can't afford a 1" 4 track, so I went with 1/4" half track.
 
_DK said:
My goal is analog recording on a machine with good electronics and tracks wider than on an 8-track. I can't afford a 1" 4 track, so I went with 1/4" half track.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the equivalent of 1/4" half track be 1" 8-track? Does 1" 4-track even exist?
 
trancedental said:
The idea is to get the "sound" of tape onto the inital tracks / takes, not to add the tape sound to a project originally recorded digitally.
Click to expand...

Would you actually be able to tell the difference between digital tracks mixed down to analog and analog tracks mixed down to digital?

Hey, it's none of my business, but all this sounds like a lot of extra effort for not much in return. If I was determined to track on an analog recorder, I would get a second job for a few months and save up enough to buy a 1" 8-track. That's what multitrack recorders were made for!
 
Igor Alexander said:
Would you actually be able to tell the difference between digital tracks mixed down to analog and analog tracks mixed down to digital?

Hey, it's none of my business, but all this sounds like a lot of extra effort for not much in return. If I was determined to track on an analog recorder, I would get a second job for a few months and save up enough to buy a 1" 8-track. That's what multitrack recorders were made for!
Click to expand...

I can tell the difference between digital and analog tracks, but they still make fun of me at the local music store.
Recorders isn't all you need for life man :) For example, I also need a Fender Jazzmaster to be happy :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top