Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Anyone: Quick Primer on Using Tascam MTS-30 With Tascam 38?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Marietta, GA- in the shadow of "The Big Chicken."
    Posts
    3,626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    7565044

    Anyone: Quick Primer on Using Tascam MTS-30 With Tascam 38?

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I have had the MTS for years, aquired it God-knows where, been sitting on it all these years.

    Assuming the Tascam 38 (8-channel open reel, 1/2" machine) will be repairable... how would I use the MTS-30 with it? If it helps, I don't see myself recording in more than 8 channels...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wales
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,378
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 105 Times in 96 Posts
    Rep Power
    2215120
    The MTS-30 will allow you to slave a sequencer, drum machine, DAW or suchlike to the tape deck, with the tape running as master.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Marietta, GA- in the shadow of "The Big Chicken."
    Posts
    3,626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    7565044
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmorris View Post
    The MTS-30 will allow you to slave a sequencer, drum machine, DAW or suchlike to the tape deck, with the tape running as master.
    Okay, I understand that, but (and this is a serious question, not being a wise-guy...) what good is that? Here's how I understand it, please correct any misconceptions I have:

    I have one to seven music programs recorded on the TASCAM.
    The 8th channel must be reserved for sync- right?
    I have a sequence saved on a MIDI-compatable sequencer.
    When I hit "play" on the TASCAM, the sequencer waits till it sees it's cue, and then chimes in, in perfect time.

    But, really, SO WHAT? I can not imagine any real need to do such a thing, except to show that you can. (EDIT: Read on, I think I get it a little later.)

    And going the other way only seems to make a little more sense to me:
    Sequence programmed into sequencer (I own a Ensoniq ESQ-1, btw.)
    After setting up the rig, tape machine is que'd up to record additional track(s), such as vocals and/or guitar. Sequence is started, and singer or guitarist follows rhythm established on sequence.
    Sequence is NOT recorded to tape, at this time.
    Up to 7 tracks are recorded on the TASCAM, saving the 8th for sync.
    (Actually, now it does seem to be making some sense to me...)
    EUREKA MOMENT (maybe): On mix-down to two tracks (all tracks, to stereo), all tape(analog) tracks are mixed down as desired, and all sequence (digital) tracks- could be more than one- say, one synthesysed piano, one synth'ed organ, one synth'ed drum kit, and one synth'ed percussion) as desired, too.
    Benefits: (asking, not telling) Up to SEVEN tape tracks are available for analog sources (voice, guitar, etc.)- put another way, only one is lost to digital sources. Otherwise, if digital sources were recorded to tape (four sources, in this example) that would only leave four tracks for analog sources.

    Did I get it right, or at least close?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wales
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,378
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 105 Times in 96 Posts
    Rep Power
    2215120
    Quote Originally Posted by stevieb View Post
    But, really, SO WHAT? I can not imagine any real need to do such a thing, except to show that you can. (EDIT: Read on, I think I get it a little later.)
    If you write the song on a computer, it's practically essential, at least to me. Then again, it forms the basis of my entire workflow. Maybe if I explain how I use it, it will make sense. This is how I do it - there are other options. If you do a lot of live playing, you can, as I think you said at the end, use 7 tracks for live instruments and also have the computer play along at mixdown. That does work, but that's not how I work.

    Firstly, I always write my songs on the computer first. I use a MIDI sequencer and I have it control a collection of about 6-8 synthesizers. Okay, at a pinch I could probably record all the synthesizer tracks to a stereo pair, but that would mean no subsequent mixing would be possible.

    There are two other limiting factors. Firstly, I have a couple of synthesizers that have quite limited polyphonic capability. A monophonic synthesizer which I like to use in both lead and bass roles, and an MVS-1 which has 28 notes of polyphony. Some of the voices are multi-layered so it doesn't actually take much use before it starts to run out. At this point, you have to multitrack it.

    The other factor is the amount of MIDI traffic involved in driving all the synthesizers at once. I have three MIDI busses, but with the whole composition running at full tilt (and they can use 16-20 MIDI tracks at once) it starts to drop packets and the timing goes out of whack. It also makes it more difficult for the sequencer software to cope if you have a slower computer. Again, the solution to both is to split it up into segments and record them track by track.

    So. You have a song with a bunch of tracks, say 6 instrument groups. It's being played automatically by the computer, especially if like me, you can't actually play an instrument yourself

    If you lay it down track by track, it has to start precisely on queue, and it has to remain in perfect sync or the tracks will drift apart from each other. That's where the sync box comes in, and believe me, I tried to do it without

    At the end of the session, I have a tape with something like the following tracks:

    1. Backup vocals
    2. Bass (Pulse Monosynth)
    3. Organ (Synth module)
    4. Mellotron (Synth module)
    5. Lead synth (Pulse again)
    6. Drum machine
    7. Lead vocals
    8. timecode

    ...and that means that not only can I use the Pulse for two different purposes, but I can also independently control all those instruments at mixdown, rather than programming the mix in at tracking. It also means I can add effects and processing tailored to each track as they're recorded. If they were all done at once I'd have to have several independent delays if I wanted a different delay time on the lead synth as opposed to drums etc.

    Anyway, that's what I do, and it would not work as well as it does if I didn't have the ability to lock the sequencer tracks up to tape via MIDI sync. Does it help?


    EDIT:
    If you want a real-life case scenario, I can show you one of my track layouts when I get home if you're interested.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tascam Midiizer MTS-1000 Manual & Cables
    By trancedental in forum Analog Recording & Mixing - Tape & Gear
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-21-2017, 15:08
  2. New To The Tascam TSR 8 - and MTS-1000
    By corganb in forum TASCAM User Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 10:39
  3. Tascam 388 capstan belt primer
    By shedshrine in forum Analog Recording & Mixing - Tape & Gear
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 17:41
  4. Tascam US-428 Primer!
    By sloom in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 16:49
  5. Tascam Midiizer MTS-1000 cables
    By EDAN in forum Analog Recording & Mixing - Tape & Gear
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 12:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •