Tascam ATR 60 8 - Is it worth it? Help with functionality, please

Sorry and no offense too, but amplitude is amplitude and RMS is RMS. When we have a sine wave with 1V amplitude, RMS value of this signal is 0.707Vrms. For example with +4dBu = 1.23Vrms = 1.73Vpeak

No. Amplitude is the distance from a negative peak to a positive peak. You still measure amplitude if you are referencing the RMS wave...that IS the measurement from the peak of the RMS wave. So there is raw peak-to-peak amplitude, and RMS peak-to-peak amplitude, but we typically leave off the "peak-to-peak" reference when discussing measurement of RMS waves to avoid confusion. The signal levels specified in the Tascam manuals assume RMS values. SO...you ALWAYS should be using a true RMS measuring voltmeter with sufficient bandwidth capability to measure signals across the audio spectrum when working with a tape machine. If the Tascam manual cites a 1.23VAC amplitude, that means 1.23VAC RMS amplitude. And if you are using a true RMS measuring meter then it will be measuring the RMS amplitude of the signal (unless you switch it to measure raw peak-to-peak).

I think I am writing clearly. I do not do anything with ATR input channel sensitivity for now. Nothing. I just try to tell you that my 0VU input level is 1.4Vrms. It was measured between 2 and 3 pin of XLR connenctor.

I looked at the manual for your Fluke 177. Be aware it is only rated to be accurate (and only moderately accurate) from 45Hz to 1kHz. I would not use it to measure tone outside of that frequency range, and 1kHz is at the limit of its rated range, so likely to be the least accurate.

Your meter is an unbalanced meter. You do not measure between pins 2 and 3 of the XLR connector, you measure between pins 1 and 2, OR pins 1 and 3. Also, to be most accurate you want to take those measurements with the signal connected to the ATR or "loaded". This means you need to have a 'Y' cable connected, unless you can get to the back side of the XLR jack on the ATR while the XLR cable is connected and measure at the solder lugs or the jack PCB of the connector.

So re-check your measurement with the voltmeter probes connected to the proper pins and see what the level is at 0VU. Also, just to verify, your tone is what frequency? 1kHz?

When I apply ES-50 SMPTE signal to THIS input, on my VU meter I can see signal around -3dB. This is too much. SMPTE signal should be lower, around -10dB. I try to set it with VR1 trimmer, but still to high. Thats all. It was only information about how big signal from ES-50 is. I just curious why it is. It lets say rhetorical question.

I agree -3VU is too hot, it should be around -10VU, but first we need to really know to what signal level reference your VU meters are calibrated, and I'm not yet confident 0VU equals 1.4VAC RMS based on the meter you are using, and the way you are measuring the signal (measuring across pins 2 and 3, and measuring the tone with the signal unloaded.

VR1 is...on the ES-50? An output level trimmer? You probably clarified that earlier but I haven't read your entire post before last yet because if you are having level issues I thinks its important to first establish the source of that problem, and before we can do that we have to know how your ATR is setup. And that's why I'm saying all this stuff about how to measure, clarifying terminology, and making sure you understand the limits of your voltmeter.

So its not a rhetorical question, because until we actually establish what 0VU represents on your ATR, and verify you are correctly measuring signal, and verify what that signal is (frequency), who's to say the ES-50 timecode signal output is too big?

That 1.4Vrms is not so common - yes - I will calibrate my ATR to standard 1.23Vrms later.

I'll be curious to know, after you load the input, measure between pins 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 of the XLR, and clarify what frequency tone you are using, what RMS amplitude equates to 0VU. Once we know that, we can continue onward. I'll look at your previous post in the meantime as soon as I can.
 
Ouch. I know why you and me are confused. Its lingvistical problem. In english you have terms like peak amplitude, rms amplitude and so on. But in my language we have "amplitude" (which means peak value of sine wave), "RMS value" and so on, so sorry about that.

Yes, Fluke has limited bandwidth but I wrote that I have oscilloscope too :) Testing signal is 1kHz.

But when I have completely isolated voltmeter (which Fluke really is, because it is battery powered) or isolated scope which I also have, I CAN measure voltage between pins 2 and 3 and that value is correct if it is properly loaded. It represents balanced voltage. If I measure between 1-2 and 1-3 pins I get halved value and both values are out of phase. So if I measure with scope or what between 1-2 and 1-3 I have 0.7Vrms. Between 2 - 3 pins I have 1.4Vrms as I said before. I know that is too much and I should set it lower to 1.23Vrms but that not important right now. So my 0VU = 1.4Vrms between 2 and 3 of XRL connector, loaded.

Tomorrow I will try record SMPTE and I hope SET-UP will be fine :)
 
I don't want to get into the conversation about the gear, since I don't own those models or have ever used them...
...but as someone who has gone through the process of acquiring similar tape deck equipment, and dealt with synchronization and all the technical stuff that comes with it...I will just say that it's good to put some realistic thought into why/what you are doing or trying to do... and decide if it will absolutely be necessary for your music making/recording needs.

I guess what I'm saying (and because I've been there too)...is you can easily get lost in the "what if" and then you loose sight of "what I really need".
As an example...I've known some folks who spent a lot of time interconnecting all kinds of tape decks, and getting them all to sync together, and being able to control them from a single source...etc, etc...but I never heard that they actually used the gear to make music. They were more focused in just making it all work, which can be interesting and fun...if that's what you like to do...otherwise, keep it simple, and remember you are dealing with very old gear.

So don't lose your mind over things that may not be needed, just because you can. ;)
 
I don't want to get into the conversation about the gear, since I don't own those models or have ever used them...
...but as someone who has gone through the process of acquiring similar tape deck equipment, and dealt with synchronization and all the technical stuff that comes with it...I will just say that it's good to put some realistic thought into why/what you are doing or trying to do... and decide if it will absolutely be necessary for your music making/recording needs.

I guess what I'm saying (and because I've been there too)...is you can easily get lost in the "what if" and then you loose sight of "what I really need".
As an example...I've known some folks who spent a lot of time interconnecting all kinds of tape decks, and getting them all to sync together, and being able to control them from a single source...etc, etc...but I never heard that they actually used the gear to make music. They were more focused in just making it all work, which can be interesting and fun...if that's what you like to do...otherwise, keep it simple, and remember you are dealing with very old gear.

So don't lose your mind over things that may not be needed, just because you can. ;)

:) I really love this old machines from my childhood and now it is time that my dream could come true. Second point is that I like tubes and old-school machines/HW in audio - I making them, repair them. I dont afraid of too much cables and problems. And last important thing is that I want to use it and record my band. After watching Sound City documentary by Dave Grohl in the past, I made this final decision. In my job I am SW developer and this job make me sick :D I studied electronics engineering and it was my hobby since when I was 4 year old :)
 
If you enjoy messing around with gear just to make it work...then have fun.
I just thought that if you're mostly looking to record...then focus on getting it calibrated and set up...and get to the music if you don't need to sync to anything right now.

Wish I could offer some info with your technical questions...but I don't have those machines. My tech time was/is with my Otari MX80 and using a Timeline synchronizer to lock to my DAW...but everything came together without a lot of headache.
 
The trick here is I don’t think the OP is using the ES-50 to synchronize the ATR60 with anything, but rather using it as a comprehensive transport remote and autolocator. Which is not an illegitimate use for one. I know I have a hard time not tinkering with stuff “just because it’s there” and wanting to see it work just because I have it. I know in my workflow I don’t use locate points a lot or do a lot of punching...if it was me I’d be figuring out how to be able to run the machine without a remote and have the extra track; not as big a deal to sacrifice a track for timecode on a 16 or 24 track machine but on a 4 or 8 track it’s a significant sacrifice. If the recording space has separate tracking and control rooms and/or even a machine room then that’s difficult to record if you’re by yourself, or trying to track your band and you’re doing dual-duty performing and engineering at the same time...it’s worth getting another buddy just to operate the transport. But I’ve never had the luxury of separate spaces, and after my limited time with the ES-50 compared to my limited time using a Micro Lynx, I’d not be messing with the ES-50. But that’s just me. The OP may be needing more than the ATR60’s simple onboard autolocator, or maybe it’s just not feasible to operate the transport without a remote control...or maybe he just wants to see the thing do it’s thing. I get that.
 
The trick here is I don’t think the OP is using the ES-50 to synchronize the ATR60 with anything, but rather using it as a comprehensive transport remote and autolocator.

Oh...well that's something altogether different...but then, why?
It appears to me that you can fully control the machine from the front panel, and arm tracks, etc.
OK...maybe the idea is to put the machine in some other room...maybe valid in a commercial studio environment where they have a dedicated machine room, etc...but honestly, I much more prefer my MX80 right next to me EVEN though I have a remote...but in my case, the remote is needed to arm tracks, you can't do it on the Otari deck.

AFA needing to auto-locate...I never bothered getting one for my MX80...it's of little use to me, and the MX80 has the ability to store 4 locate points, but I only use 2, at most...song start (which can be easily set by simply zeroing in the counter at that point)...and sometimes I'll use a second locate point if I need to reference something at another location on the tape...but honestly, unless you are doing video-post or needing to do endless punch-ins...there's little need for an auto-locator. It's more of a nice to have...not a necessity.
I also have auto-locate capability with my Timeline synchronizer...and I can also do it with my DAWm since it is synchronized with the MX80...and I rarely have a need to set up multiple locate points in the way I work.

Anyway...that was my earlier point...there are session "hands-on" needs...and then some "nice to have" ideas where you might use them once out of a hundred times just because it's a little more convenient.

But hey...don't let me stop anyone from trying to do whatever they think they need to do. ;)

PS...I wasn't referring to you when I said I knew someone who just spent his time tinkering...:)...it's someone who hasn't posted here in quite awhile.
Last I heard, he got tired of his whole multi-machine, multi-mixer, all synchronized rig...got rid of it all...and I don't recall ever hearing any music that came from that gear.
 
Oh...well that's something altogether different...but then, why?
It appears to me that you can fully control the machine from the front panel, and arm tracks, etc.
OK...maybe the idea is to put the machine in some other room...maybe valid in a commercial studio environment where they have a dedicated machine room, etc...but honestly, I much more prefer my MX80 right next to me EVEN though I have a remote...but in my case, the remote is needed to arm tracks, you can't do it on the Otari deck.

AFA needing to auto-locate...I never bothered getting one for my MX80...it's of little use to me, and the MX80 has the ability to store 4 locate points, but I only use 2, at most...song start (which can be easily set by simply zeroing in the counter at that point)...and sometimes I'll use a second locate point if I need to reference something at another location on the tape...but honestly, unless you are doing video-post or needing to do endless punch-ins...there's little need for an auto-locator. It's more of a nice to have...not a necessity.
I also have auto-locate capability with my Timeline synchronizer...and I can also do it with my DAWm since it is synchronized with the MX80...and I rarely have a need to set up multiple locate points in the way I work.

Anyway...that was my earlier point...there are session "hands-on" needs...and then some "nice to have" ideas where you might use them once out of a hundred times just because it's a little more convenient.

But hey...don't let me stop anyone from trying to do whatever they think they need to do. ;)

PS...I wasn't referring to you when I said I knew someone who just spent his time tinkering...:)...it's someone who hasn't posted here in quite awhile.
Last I heard, he got tired of his whole multi-machine, multi-mixer, all synchronized rig...got rid of it all...and I don't recall ever hearing any music that came from that gear.

Oh I didn't assume you were talking about me, but even if you were that totally wouldn't bother me. What you said resonated with me and at least some of what I think the OP is trying to work through resonates with me as well. Sometimes I truly wonder if maybe I actually like tinkering more than making music...but I *really* enjoy making music and playing...but...I *really* enjoy tinkering and making something the best it can be. Phuggit I dunno... :drunk:

So anyway I really appreciate your input on this thread...I think its relevant and at the very least worth thinking about. I think part of what's missing here is we don't really know what the OP's setup is as far as a recording space, how he is involved in the performance and recording engineering and if those two collide. Like in my case I'm glad I have the full-function remote for the Ampex MM-1000 when I get around to putting that thing into operation because I'm thinking realistically its going to HAVE to go into a different room...its a loud beast. But the ATR60 series are quiet machines...and the ATR60-8 can be rack-mounted in something with wheels...so there's all sorts of solutions and I know I could totally get away with using the onboard basic autolocate functions (you basically have two locate points with RTZ and one STC point)...but now I'm thinking I'm not sure if you can use those to auto-punch in and punch out...and maybe the OP likes to create some crazy Skinny Puppy stuff...but then I guess that would involve a razor blade more than an autolocator. But...yeah...I'm like you. Like, if I jack a take, I'm not going in and trying to fix with a punch...I'm going to do the take again. The whole concept of fixing things with punches came about in the days when the big studio charged hourly and people didn't want to pay to keep doing take after take to get it right. That's not my circumstance and I'd rather have a contiguous take. OTOH I have done all sorts of manipulation when I'm working on a DAW project, depending on the project. So its not like I'm against it...use the tools you have. Its just that when I'm working with a tape machine I prefer just doing full takes.

So, enough rambling. I'd like to help the OP if I can. Hopefully he'll post an update at some point with how things are going.
 
So its not like I'm against it...use the tools you have. Its just that when I'm working with a tape machine I prefer just doing full takes.

I also have no problem doing a punch-in, but in general, I will rewind and redo the whole take...or most times, if I feel a punch-in is the better way to go because most of what I have up to that point is "gold"...:D...I'll find a point where I have a long enough break in the music. I'm rarely trying to do split-second punch-ins.
The reality for though is that since I dump the tracks to a DAW...split-second punch-ins with the tape deck are simply unnecessary. It's much easier to do 2-3 full takes, and then just comp in the DAW...and THAT'S where the synchronizer makes it all possible...doing multiple dumps locked to the DAW.

It would be good to know what the OPP has in mind overall...is it about staying analog and with tape only...doing a hybrid analog/digital, tape/DAW approach...etc.

My main point was that it's easy to get lost in technology for the sake of technology....like back in my earlier days of using my Fostex G16 tape deck, locked to my Cubase sequencer, running on an Atari computer. I spent such a ridiculous amount of time getting that all set-up, and then doing a lot of work within the sequencer so I had full G16 control, being able to even arm and trigger tape recording from within the sequencer, via MIDI commands, not to mention having mute/level automation of tracks during mixdown using Niche modules...etc...etc...and it was all so cool, and I was totally amazed by it...and then, I realized that I hardly ever needed all of that. IOW, once I started focusing on recording music, all that connectivity and functionality was basically unnecessary 90% of the time. It was easier to just reach for a button or a fader instead of all that synchronization and automation. :)

I remember a bunch of years back some guy, might have even been a guy up in Canada, was totally excited that I had all those Niche modules and he bought then all from me. All I could imagine was that he too went through that same "gee whiz" phase as I did. :p

These days, I can't say enough about the value of going hybrid with tape and DAW to the guys who want to work with tape. I know there is some old-school appeal of reliving the old tape-only days...but if you need any kind of editing precision and/or lots of tracks...it's so much easier when you add a DAW to your tape rig...so in that regard, the need for some synchronization is quite valid.
 
Some of the ATR series machines had switches either on the R/P cards or on the motherboard to select +4 or -10 levels. I will look in my manual later today. The ES 50 TC generator output is +4 DBM. The balanced I/O on the ATR is +4dbm, so the OP is missing something. Has the OP verified both the input cal.on the ATR and the TC gen.output levels? The ES-50 owner's manual describes the whole setup process. The TC generator free runs when you turn it on. You need to have BOTH the Master and Slave striped with TC before using setup- although you can loop back the TC generator output to the master TC in to fake the ES-50 out. The Setup process is for the ES-50 to "learn" the transport ballistics of both machines so it can control the slave response to the master in play. chasing in RWD, and how close to the master TC location the slave has to be before dropping into play to lock to the master TC the most efficiently. The ES-50 does not read TC in FFWD or RWD, it uses the "tach pulses" to approximate TC location before dropping into play to read TC for final lockup.
 
Yeah I advised the OP about how the ES-50 roughly monitors tape position in fast-wind using the tach pulses from the counter roller.

But...hm...I think the way the OP wants to use the ES-50/ES-51 is like an AQ-65; as a transport remote and autolocator. Is that not possible with an ES-50? I know if you only have the slave machine connected it won’t complete the setup process properly and you end up with that slave machine going into runaway status if you put it into fast-wind. Can he use it that way if only a master machine is connected? Will it get through the setup process?
 
But...hm...I think the way the OP wants to use the ES-50/ES-51 is like an AQ-65; as a transport remote and autolocator. Is that not possible with an ES-50?

You know...the more I think about it, even if you can use the 50/51 to remote control the transport and auto-locate...how do you then remotely arm tracks on the deck?
You still need to be at the deck to do that. OK, maybe there's some half-value...you go to the deck, arm the track...then walk back to your remote and engage REC, but that might only be beneficial for doing lots of punch-ins on the same track. If you need to switch tracks, you're still at the deck.

Did they ever make an actual remote for that deck?

In my situation, I'm usually doing multiple takes. So if I'm like at my Hammond, I have the remote there, and I need to be able to arm a track, record a pass, arm the next track, record a pass...etc...etc...if I want the full benefit of a remote.
 
The RC-65 is the correct transport remote, and then there is a kit to relocate the arming panel from the transport to a cart with the RC-65.
 
Sweetbeats seems to have a lot of good advice- you need to follow what good people tell you and discard what people that spout junk say.
I talk from a technical level that might be going over people heads but then that is what happens when you work on this stuff 12-14 hours a day but I know a lot of equipment well.
 
The tape deck will respond to the Es-50/51 transport functions without running setup- but no track arming. I did use the TC gen to Master TC in to test the ES-50/51 with one tape machine when I used to work on them many moons ago.
 
Sweetbeats and all others,

I take no offense at the ADAT comments, I was only giving a possible suggestion as an alternative and as I think I stated, I saw an HD24 unit on ebay and would consider this a much better option than the ADAT units even though it is not analogue, but it does avoid all the problems with finding and buying tape and also gives 24 tracks rather than the eight of either the ADAT machines or the Teac unit.

Sweetbeats, sorry for not responding sooner but I have been flat chat over the past few days. I wont bother to start a new thread because I can start and close it with this (LONG !!!) communication.

Re you request for info on the 8-track recorder, I have included at the end of this reply a photo (not a very good one !!!!) of the unit.

To answer your questions

The deck (an EMI Data Deck) was initially purchased by the local racing authority (about 1965) for their data logging, but between the time it had been ordered and delivered it had apparently been decided to go in a different direction. I happened to be in the Chief Engineer's office (on an unrelated matter) and saw the cardboard box containing the deck sitting in a corner. I asked what it was, what is was going to be used for, etc and was told that it was going to be dumped. I asked if I could have it and the rest is history.

I was responsible for building all of the electronics --- uses a most innovative circuit design --- I was very good at this type of design !!!!!

You will notice that the unit has no Vu meters, this is because at the same time a new console was also designed and built for a new studio I was constructing and as the recorder was going to be used exclusively with that console, it was decided (to save some money !!!) that the output stage of the console would be the input stage of the recorder, hence the console's meters were the recorder's meters as well.

For the heads I used what was, at the time possibly the most popular multi-track recorder brand's heads, those being Scully. The heads were placed such that the erase and record heads were mounted on a block (situated just above the bottom spool in the photo) and because of space limitations the playback head was placed almost directly above this block (just under where the top spool would be).

The result of this unusual head spacing, was that the distance from the record head, past the silver tipped roller (on the LHS) to the playback head was exactly 15 inches (this became most important later when the machine was put into use, but was not planned in the design stage), because at 15ips (the then standard professional recording speed) the time taken for the tape to travel between the record head and playback head was exactly 15 inches or exactly 1 second (or multiples or divides of that at the other speeds).

The actual speeds available in ips were -- 15/16th, 1 7/8th, 3 3/4, 7 1/2, 15, 30, 60, 120 (front switchable) and 11 1/4, 22 1/2, 45, 90 (selected from the rear of the recorder).

With all of these speeds coupled with the distance between the record and playback heads, the echo effects possible were amazing and resulted in effects that no other studio in the world (to the best of my knowledge) could achieve --- and effects that I doubt could be achieved today with most/any DAWs.

So consider the effect of (say) a guitar that had been recorded at 15ips which was then played back at (say) 7 1/2ips and an then a second guitar track then being recorded at this (say) 7 1/2 ips speed, while also looping the playback head of this second guitar track back into the new recorded track as it was being recorded.

Now the original guitar track would be heard at half speed and also an octave lower, so that when this overdub tack was being recorded while listening to the original track, it would now be possible for the guitarist to play twice the number of notes per bar. ALTHOUGH it was essential that the second guitar track was played in PERFECT sync with the original --- something that became VERY difficult and requiring only the best of guitarists (musicians), when the replay speed of the original 15ips track was played back and re-recorded at even lower speed.

Now when the recorder was returned to its normal 15ips speed, the 7 1/2ips overdubbed guitar would now be heard at an octave higher (more like a mandolin or similar) and the notes played at twice the speed. Add to this any looped echo that might have been recorded during this overdubbed recording and you can imagine quite an amazing sound would be heard.

Conversely if the original 15ips recording was played back at (say) 30ips and another guitar track was recorded at this speed (damn hard to get right !!!) when played back at 15ips it would be an octave lower in pitch and the sound quite drawn out, now also consider any loopng that might have been applied.

We used this effect mainly on guitars but also used it (with amazing sounds being produced) on flute and strings.

We were lucky to find a group of musicians who could actually handle all of this because what ever was being recorded by them was being heard through their headphones (echos and all). Most musicians (even the most highly sought after studio musicians) could not handle the recording method.

To give you an idea of what the recorder could do I have included a short snippet of a song (full song won a number of awards) that consisted of piano, 12string acoustic, 6 string electric and vocal and used all 12 speeds, with everything you hear being recorded as each track was being recorded --- there were absolutely no external or post recording effects used, everything was done within the recorder at the time of recording the individual track. The entire recording from memory took about 30+ hours to put down and consisted of the artist playing the instruments and singing with myself at the console making/recording all the sounds/effects --- 90+% of the sound was pure experimentation.

After the recording of the individual tracks (including a couple of track bounces to give us more tracks) all that had to be done was the actual mixing of the tracks to the stereo master.

I have "hopefully" uploaded a short segment of this track at the link below.

JJF by CSP | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Sorry if it doesn't work but I have tried about ten times and get an error message each time, so I have no idea how to upload it ----- bummer !!!

I have also included below the rather bad photo I took a few years ago of the 8-track recorder. The photo shows the unit with the head cover removed.

A coupler of things I did not mention was that there are two pinch rollers on either side of the capstan spindle (you can see one at about a 60deg angle just above the writing on the spool) and for tape tension there is a complicated system of two moving tension arms that unlike the tension arms on normal recorders always apply the exact correct voltage and therefore tension to the spools up to the point that the very last piece of tape passes over the capstan spindle --- providing that the recorder's piles don't play up !!!!!!!!!!!

You will also possibly note that the recorder can accommodate up to 14inch spools, although we only ever used 10 inch, so that a recorded tape could be taken by a client to another studio for extra recording if required.

View attachment 105561

You will also notice the glass door on the unit, this door is rubber sealed and inside there is a small pipe that by a clever blowing system (caused by the capstan motors cooling fans) causes a slight pressure build up and thus stops any dust from entering the tape area and possibly scratching the heads or falling onto the tape and thus damaging the tape (or heads) as the tape passes over the various components along the tape path.

Hope all the above answers your various questions.

David

So, I wish I could listen to I high quality version of the full track. The clip is intriguing to say the least.

I have a 14-track "portable" 1" IRIG format Ampex FR-1300 data machine on a shelf here at home. It actually works. Its a nice transport. IIRC the available tape speeds are 1 7/8, 3 3/4, 7 1/2, 15, 30 and 60ips. There's a zany spot in the corner of my mind to send the headblock assembly to JRF Magnetics and have John mount up a spare set of Ampex MM-1000 1" 8-track heads and scrape flutter idlers to the FR-1300 headblock and mate the transport with 8 AG-440B signal electronics modules I have here and sort of recreate the Ampex MM-800 that never went past the mock-up stage. It would take up a lot of rack space, but it would be more compact than the MM-1000. Its a silly idea, and yet I can't seems to bring myself to get rid of the FR-1300.

[EDIT]

Sorry for the hijack... :eek:
 
Sweetbeats,

If you have the electronics knowledge, I would see what it would cost for the heads and give it a go.

The deck that I used was also a data deck with the same basic speeds, but with the ability at the rear to change to the extra speeds.

If you get the machine going, and with a bit of production imagination when recording (the sort of thing that people like George Martin had when recording some of the Beetles songs), you will amazed at the sounds that you can achieve (as in the song sample I posted), although in my case it was where I placed the Replay head that allowed most of the effects.

AND, if using the various speeds (especially the slower ones) it VERY MUCH depends on the brilliance of the musician to be able to sync the playing to the beat of the slower speed, considering that a 1sec note at 15ips takes 2secs, at 7 1/2ips, etc and the new note when recorded at that slower speed, has to be positioned exactly or when played back at the 15ips initial recorded speed it will sound completely out of sync/time and even pitch/tuning if it picks up some harmonics of the original note. Why some of the stuff we did took hundreds of hours, but the end results were generally spectacular ---- and why we could often see the actual tracks engraved on the tape when finally finished and mixed.

Unfortunately because of copyright restrictions (even though I have/own the original multi-track and stereo master tape/s), I would not be able to publish the entire song, even though the LP that it was part of, is now very much no longer available. That LP by the way, possibly took us well over 1000hrs total recording time (fortunately we were not paying for studio time !!!!!) and at the next year's Record Awards it was generally considered to be the top LP of the year, but because of political reasons (ie not from one of the big five record companies) the award was given to another LP that was released on one of those company's labels ----as was the case virtually every year !!!!!

If ever you get the Ampex going, I will be most interested to know and hear any results, as well as trying to give you any recording (production) advice to get the various effects, because if you can, I doubt that any DAW today could produce the same sounds --- BUT I could be wrong as I don't use DAWs rather I use real desks and recorders !!!!!

David
 
Last edited:
OK - I finally have a time to play with ES50/51.

1. When I power up ES-50 and hit record I can record SMPTE signal to tape. I set level -20dB on VU so now it is really quiet.
2. When it is recorded I can see on the ES-51 display that timestamp is counting, when playback. So it works.
3. When I hit CW/FF mode I also can see that timestamp is moving so it works. It is also counting when I try to unplug TC IN on ES-50 so in CW/FF mode information is really from CP pin.

4. When I enter 4:00:00 on keyboard on ES-51 and press LOC button machine goes to that postition. So it works.

So I think that ES-50/51 works but I still get error when I press SET-UP key. After few seconds machine goes into play mode and after 40s stops and SET-UP LED is blinking what indicate an error. After few seconds it starts rewind in FF mode for few secs and stops. SET UP LED goes off.

Maybe I need to connect second slave device as someone here told me. That setp key works only with 2 machines.
 
I believe that’s correct. The setup procedure is for the synchronizer to learn the dynamic characteristics of both a master machine and a slave machine connected to the synchronizer. With only one connected it will error out of the setup procedure.
 
I believe that’s correct. The setup procedure is for the synchronizer to learn the dynamic characteristics of both a master machine and a slave machine connected to the synchronizer. With only one connected it will error out of the setup procedure.
Hello Sweetbeats, is it possible with an tascam es 50 to sync 2 atr60-8 ?
 
Back
Top