Refer to the attachment below for what my Cubase Studio 4 manual states specific to synchronization and how it handles different types of devices and protocols, and then proceed.
I'll be interested to read what, if anything, Tim provides in response. I'm not sure if all of what is stated in the above 2-page excerpt agrees with what Tim has been saying and vice-versa, but I hope it does.
The thing that jumped out to me is how Steinberg decided to handle the integrity of the synchronized system components,
juxtaposed with the audio, and that is presented on the second page. They set the priority on the audio in a sense and basically, if I'm reading it correctly, the system components remain locked but the audio freewheels. I think it is safe to assume that, generally speaking, the audio sync issues will come out in the wash. In other words, over the course of a reel of tape, the sync between the analog audio and the digital audio will shift this way and that (secondary to the innate fluctuations of the mechanical transport and the digital audio "freewheeling"), but because the
system remains in sync (the timecode reference coming off tape as master and the digital clock reference of the DAW chasing), there shouldn't be overall drift from start to finish between the analog and digital audio. The digital clock reference will be able to stay in tight sync with the analog transport (depending on the quality/make/model of the transport), and depending on HOW timecode was striped to the tape (ideally in some fashion that is referenced to the digital clock during striping, which I believe Tim spoke of earlier), things should be suitably consistent between from start to finish, and any momentary fluctuations resulting from the mechanical transport's normal anomalies will be give and take throughout and we should end up satisfactorily spot-on at any given point in the timeline even though the *audio* isn't "locked". Its pseudo-locked because (if we did it right), the timecode reference striped to the tape was generated from a device referenced to the same clock reference as the digital workstation at the time of striping, AND during recording/reproducing.
Don't know if I have this right, and Tim I'd love you to pick it apart if I don't (if you can stomach having to continue corresponding with us "children"
) just so I can thoroughly understand.
The invitation to "pick it apart" is sincere and genuine and expressed with respect, Tim. The bit about "children" is a bit of a poke...no, its just a plain poke. Tim you've made this kind of statement in the past, and I (correctly or incorrectly) sense frustration and sometimes I have to wonder why you continue to hang out with the "children" if it is that much of a consternation. You've been a tremendous resource here, and other venues I'm sure, but the "I'm blessing you little people with my presence" tone, which is how it comes across to me, is a poor representation of the kind of person of you that *does* provide a great deal of resourceful and helpful information. I just think its unfortunate.
Anyway, if I've got it reasonably right with how Cubase operates as a slave to a mechanical transport, it would work quite well with the exception of certain material. For example, if this system arrangement had been used during mixdown of a combination analog and digital tracks on something like Steve Reich's Different Trains with Pat Metheny, I think there may be audible problems...phase distortion because of some of the tracks' rapid and repetitious layered parts. So that is one situation I can think of where the mechanical transport as master could pose a problem. The easy solution in that case would be to set the digital "transport" (or rather the digital transport's clock reference) as master. BUT...there would have to be some pretty weird circumstances, or rather
poor planning on the part of engineering or production, to cause the project to be at mixdown with a hybrid of digital and analog tracks. Realistically this wouldn't happen and naturally ISN'T how it happened. I'm just citing an example where IF that was the case, ATR as master could be bad if the system configuration and behavior was like it is (in my present understanding) with Cubase 4.
It would be interesting for me to scope and compare the output of a tone on my MRL test tape from my BR-20T when it is locked to its internal reference vs under control of the MicroLynx. I should be able to see differences in frequency and amplitude (secondary to speed fluctuations) and more importantly artifacts of cogging if present.