Problem Syncing Slow TSR-8 to DAW

  • Thread starter Thread starter sherm_jonathan
  • Start date Start date
This post will probably cause all kinds of aggravation, dissension and derision and I appologize for that in advance, but I have to post it anyway.
Click to expand...

Danny, I'm glad you did. You do a better job of it than I could.

I'm not going to contest because my ideal is still slaving the deck but I (over the past) have chimed in on these threads where operators are having trouble with sync'ing with the ATR as the master, and I've done what I could to try and help with the setup as it is...I think a considerable barrier to slaving the deck is the cost of a synchronizer with machine control capability and an ATR with slave capability...plus the increasing difficulty in finding proper sync cables. You know well the woes I have gone through with my 58 and it turns out my ES-50/51 is, at best, a compromise if I'm working with a DAW/ATR sync relationship because the ES-50 needs to have two ATR's connected for the slave ATR to behave properly (remember my issue with the "runaway 58"?). So I try and assist people where they are at. It is a more complex and costly approach to slave the ATR. Lots of operators are slaving the DAW and it works. I must say though that, for me, I still believe the ATR as slave is the ideal for the simple reasons you noted regarding the DAW compensation. It has never made sense to me how anybody could be comfortable clocking their DAW and all things digital to a fluctuating mechanical device. This issue will never be settled, but I'm glad you put up what you did as I think its valuable for folks to know the compromise they are making. I'm sure there will be comments supporting how well it works to slave the DAW; that computer hardware has long since had the horsepower to "keep up" without readily audible artifacts, but the artifacts are there nonetheless...I'm sure there may be comments also about the additional wear and tear on the transport due to additional shuttling during lockup, but in spite of all that I still maintain that the ideal is to synchronize the entire system on an accurate digital clock, not the ATR.

I am still not convinced that MTC will be accurate enough to lock a computer to an analog machine...
Click to expand...

Alan, I am really struggling with why you are not convinced...its practically "household" methodology...people have been using PPS-1's, PPS-2's, MTS-30's to do that very thing for years (lock ATR's to computers).
 
pianodano said:
Imagine while synced, the DAW and recorder start to drift and the DAW is suddenly 15 frames behind and depending on the software error compensation tolerance, instantly the DAW must loose about 24000 samples at 96 K. Or vice versa, the recorder speeds up for a split second and now the DAW must throw in 24000 samples that doesn't exist. Contrary to popular belief, it is not as simple as slowing down or speeding up the audio playback of the DAW. For precision audio, the DAW must still reply on the most perfect clock you have instructed it to clock too if you really want high quality audio.
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious. What about a mechanical digital transport? For example, "The Power Cosmic", which IIRC was done with the drums and vocals on a 2" Studer and the keyboards on ADAT.
 
jpmorris said:
Now I'm curious. What about a mechanical digital transport? For example, "The Power Cosmic", which IIRC was done with the drums and vocals on a 2" Studer and the keyboards on ADAT.
Click to expand...


I would guess (but not sure) that a ADAT machine has the same capabilites as a DTRS machine such as DA-78 or DA-98 has. Yes they are digital but it's a totally different situation. Just feed them SMPTE, set the offset and it will lock and stay locked. DTRS machines have a built in TC track which is done when the tape is formatted. I currently have 5 DA-78's.

I do not know about Studer either but I will speculate that their later machines have built in synchronization capabilites so that a outboard synchronizer is not required. My brother has a Sony APR 24 which was the last iteration of a MCI JH24 2" machine. It has on board sync capabilties. Set the offset and nothing else is required except the incoming master spmte tone which it compares to the smpte stripe you record on track 24.

Yes, I do know that some success has been acomplished by many guys in syncing a computer to a ATR. I did qualify that in my post above because I originally tried to do it that way based on my 80's Roland and Commodore sequencer experiences. But they were not audio DAW/sequncers then either.

For sure Avid established the methodology in the beginning to allow Digi software to chase and lock. For a price. But then again, it had to be able to chase if they (Avid/Digi) were going to render pro tape recorders obsolete; which by the way, I suppose you could say, they did accomplish that.

And Logic is certainly a professional composers package for film work although I can't imagine why anyone would want to varispeed the video speed also while composing scores when running video within it.

Anyhow for my part, man oh man is it a sickening feeling to hear music on a DAW running something like Sonar or Cubase totally fall apart at 2 to 3 minutes and turn into a varying rumble like a finger on a turntable or even the Chipmunks when the DAW is under the extreme stress of handling a couple disk drives streaming audio and demanding sample libraries, with a dozen or so audio plugs running and a couple dozen midi tracks (which are btw, independant of the audio clock) all while trying to sync to external devices. And it's a total disaster when critical and wonderfully inspiring performance tracks have just been recorded and you realize to late that you have just exceeded the practicle limits of the DAW and there is no longer a realiable way sync the two.

As I mentioned, it took me quite some time to come up with a system that works for me. And the abilty to control the entire studio from a roll around stand and a motif keyboard while never giving synchronization a second thought is wonderful in the extreme.

Regards,

Danny
 
Last edited:
Alan, I realize that but you can also do it with a SMPTE to MTC box if the DAW will chase MTC. That's all I'm saying. I agree that a SMPTE to wc box is nicer...but I'm still slaving the deck. ;):)
 
sherm_jonathan said:
Some of you may recall me from some threads ago asking how to sync my DAW to a TSR-8. Well, I did purchase a PPS-100 and sync the two. Problem is, I recorded 4 pieces of music in a session, each about 8 minutes long, on the synced TSR-8 and DAW. However, upon playback, the TSR-8 remained slightly slower, though measuredly so, so that at the end of each piece, the TSR-8 is about a second or so behind the DAW. Does this send me back to the drawing board, or is there a way to remedy this? Muchos Thanks
Click to expand...


Another thing to look at is to see if you have a mismatch between SMPTE rates. If one of the devices (or software) defaults to 29.97 FPS (frames per second) and another is set for 30 FPS, at the end of 8 minutes you'll have a time difference of approx 480 milliseconds... about half a second. That's a lot.
 
Danny,

Thank you for putting up that video...I'm itched to see your setup for a long time. I think there is credence in what you are saying considering the number of units that are being sync'ed in your control room...I'm sure I'm forgetting some units or need updated but what I recall is:

DM-24
MS-16
Sonar DAW
DA-78 (x3)
at least 3 synths

Did Toft ever get the firewire card out to the marketplace?

And the clock source for the DAW (and hence the whole shebang) is...?

I can tell you that MicroLynx wrangles the MS-16 really well...I'm sure it has much to do with the transport as well, but my ES-50 has the 58 overshooting everytime and so there is a lot of scrubbing...may be brake adjustment or settings in the ES-50 to adjust to the transport...It would probably help to have a second deck connected (since the ES-50 was never really designed to do what the MicroLynx, MTS-1000 and others were designed to do interfacing the ATR to the MIDI world). I believe, IIRC, the ES-50 doesn't complete its auto calibration to the transport without master and slave ATR's connected and thus far its only been the 58. Now I have the BR-20T with that center timecode track but the 58 has been on the bench for eons. It'll be interesting to see how the 58 and BR-20T work together.

Thanks again.
 
sweetbeats said:
Danny,

Thank you for putting up that video...I'm itched to see your setup for a long time. I think there is credence in what you are saying considering the number of units that are being sync'ed in your control room...I'm sure I'm forgetting some units or need updated but what I recall is:

DM-24
MS-16
Sonar DAW
DA-78 (x3)
at least 3 synths

Did Toft ever get the firewire card out to the marketplace?

And the clock source for the DAW (and hence the whole shebang) is...?

I can tell you that MicroLynx wrangles the MS-16 really well...I'm sure it has much to do with the transport as well, but my ES-50 has the 58 overshooting everytime and so there is a lot of scrubbing...may be brake adjustment or settings in the ES-50 to adjust to the transport...It would probably help to have a second deck connected (since the ES-50 was never really designed to do what the MicroLynx, MTS-1000 and others were designed to do interfacing the ATR to the MIDI world). I believe, IIRC, the ES-50 doesn't complete its auto calibration to the transport without master and slave ATR's connected and thus far its only been the 58. Now I have the BR-20T with that center timecode track but the 58 has been on the bench for eons. It'll be interesting to see how the 58 and BR-20T work together.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...


Cory,

I had hoped to do something better than that before now to show the system in action, but I just haven't had the time. I can't believe how slow You Tube was on the uptake. It took over 4 hours last night. I just thought it was important for guys to see what was the standard at one time and gain some insight as to how fabulously it worked. So thanks.

I do remember the problems you were having with your setup. I hope you can eventually get it working right.

RE the firewire card for the Toft. Nope. They have ditched the idea. They must be taking a cue from Tascam. BUt they did at last put out the meter bridge though. I received that about 3 weeks ago. It looks very nice.

I need to decide what to do about converters soon. I will probably go with Apogee or Lynx if I can swing it. I really want to be able to use the Toft as I had orginally intended by using the busses to get into the DAW and returns on 1-8. That leaves 9-23 for the MS-16 and the balance for permanent keyboards. But even that leaves me about 16 channels short so I may try to get another ATB16 someday if I can sell some things, But in the meantime, hey, that's what patch bays are for, right ?

Geez, I really can't remember what all is interfaced to what anymore. I do know for sure that it's a bunch of stuff. Here's a link to some of it. http://www.danskittlethorp.com/Studio.html

Danny
 
pianodano said:
Geez, I really can't remember what all is interfaced to what anymore. I do know for sure that it's a bunch of stuff. Here's a link to some of it. http://www.danskittlethorp.com/Studio.html
Click to expand...

Given the astonishing expense of the equipment there, I'm kind of surprised you're not using a 2" recorder there.

As for the problem of locking the deck to a DAW, the obvious solution that I don't think anyone has mentioned is to stripe a track of the DAW with SMPTE, rather than using any kind of midi->SMPTE bridge.
You'd still need something that can lock a TSR-8 against an incoming SMPTE signal, but the TASCAM ATS-500 will do that nicely, and IIRC the Lynx-2 can as well (the Lynx-1 doesn't wanna). These will be easier to find than an MTS-1000 and (hopefully) cheaper than the MicroLynx.
 
jpmorris said:
I'm kind of surprised you're not using a 2" recorder there.
Click to expand...

A Tascam MS-16 is a fine recorder and I am very happy with it for my needs. But fwiw, if I really need big drums, we have worked it out to where I can send a DTRS stereo bed to my brother, he transfers it to his 2" machine, records the drums, transfers the new tracks back to a synched DA-78 and then sends it back to me. He prefers doing it that way rather than emailing wave files. He is not into DAW's at all.

Danny
 
Danny, IIRC your brother operates an APR-5000 2"?

jpmorris...

As for the problem of locking the deck to a DAW, the obvious solution that I don't think anyone has mentioned is to stripe a track of the DAW with SMPTE, rather than using any kind of midi->SMPTE bridge.
Click to expand...

That's actually what I do with my sync setup since the ES-50 only speaks SMPTE. The nice thing about the SMPTE ~ MTC bridge is the obvious advantages to how most DAWs have lots of built-in MIDI timeline features that make it nice for navigating. I'm not into that but I know its there...I basically use my DAW like an ATR when it comes to tracking and I don't even like to do punch-ins...The problem in my case with my ES-50/51 like I mentioned is that the ES-50 depends on bi-directional communication with slave and master ATR's to complete its auto calibration and also to maintain chase in fast-wind, and since I've just been slaving a deck and running a "code-only" master the auto calibration doesn't complete, plus if I jump the DAW to a distal point in the timeline the 58 transport kicks into fast-wind (okay there) but then the ES-50 drops the code...stops listening to the master code coming from the DAW and the slave code from the 58 because once the slave transport reaches a certain speed the synchronizer stops listening to the code and looking for tach pulses. The ES-50 refuses to listen to the tach pulses from the slave ATR because it is searching for the reference tach pulses from the master ATR. Well, if there is no master ATR there are no tach pulses to reference so the ES-50 just gives up and freewheels in a runaway. SO...I've found work-arounds but they aren't ideal. The "code-only" master feature wasn't designed for what I'm doing I believe. I think it may be more for point-to-point operation rather than multitrack use/punch ins/shuttling. Danny is being nice...he's told me several times to just buck up and get a MicroLynx and frankly he's right...or an MTS-1000 but the MicroLynx is more flexible. I saw one for $200 with the controller in good condition some time ago on eBay but passed it up.
 
sweetbeats said:
Danny is being nice...he's told me several times to just buck up and get a MicroLynx and frankly he's right...or an MTS-1000 but the MicroLynx is more flexible. I saw one for $200 with the controller in good condition some time ago on eBay but passed it up.
Click to expand...
Maybe where you are. In the UK, they are both extremely rare and fantastically expensive. I've seen 24-tracks go for less money.
 
sweetbeats said:
Danny, IIRC your brother operates an APR-5000 2"?
Click to expand...

He has both. A APR24 and a MCI JH24. Both are 2" 24 track. He normally keeps the JH24 patched in (a little better sound, but that's very subjective) except when he needs to synch up. But you gotta remember he lives in Florida near West Palm and they are plentiful down there because MCI and later Sony/MCI was made there.

He uses a Tascam M3700 mixer. Have you heard of those? That is a very nice mixer.
 
jpmorris said:
Maybe where you are. In the UK, they are both extremely rare and fantastically expensive. I've seen 24-tracks go for less money.
Click to expand...


Darn, maybe I need to list my spare Microlynx on UK Ebay. I bought that one because it had the clock and 3rd machine option cards installed so I have installed those cards in my other synchronizer. I just can't imagine now that I would ever need to sync 3 analog machines today, but who knows. Microlynx still sometimes show up in the $200.00 range here occasionally, but they are getting more scarce at that price now. I paid $500.00 for my 1st one about 3 years ago and it had no options at all installed. Then I got the 2nd for around 200.00. It's the one that had the expensive digi approved clock option card installed. I guess the guy didn't realize what he really had. I don't use the clock though. I had intended to clock the DM24 to it which in turn would clock the computer via the IF/FW. But like I said earlier, I would now like to sell the DM-24 soon and get dedicated converters. I will miss having 24 i/o's though, that's for sure.
 
He uses a Tascam M3700 mixer. Have you heard of those? That is a very nice mixer.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. The last of the larger Tascam analog desks right? Automation too. The king of Tascam analog desks AKAIK...

So you haven't put the meter bridge up on the Toft yet? What's in the bridge? LED meters? Analog VU's? A mix of them (pun intended)?

Hard to think of you without the DM-24. Its really been the centerpiece of sorts in a sense for so long, at least before the Toft came along.

There are a lot of great I/O options out there though, and as with anything digital the cost is going down as the features increase...really too bad Toft ditched the F/W option project...
 
Wow, I go away for 2 days and look what I miss! Basically, I went the cheapest route to try the syncing thing. And while there seems a lot of evidence that this isn't the best way, if it even is a way at all, Beck has given me a lot of things to try out before I fully give up hope. Interesting topic though...
 
sherm_jonathan said:
Wow, I go away for 2 days and look what I miss! Basically, I went the cheapest route to try the syncing thing. And while there seems a lot of evidence that this isn't the best way, if it even is a way at all, Beck has given me a lot of things to try out before I fully give up hope. Interesting topic though...
Click to expand...

Yeah, and remember your laws of physics, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." ;)

I don't agree with those that say to slave the ATR to the DAW, though some make a compelling case.

All major and several minor DAW programs are setup to slave by SMPTE/MTC to the ATR or VTR, but not the other way ‘round. It’s a tried and true method. Before the proliferation of music forums it wasn’t even really debated in professional circles.

There is a lot of reinventing the wheel going on these days, and I think people have to be fair and ask themselves, “How long have I really been doing this, and where did I get my information?”

As for me, I started using SMPTE in the late 70’s in TV production. Later in music recording I used various forms of sync, pre-MIDI and since about 1985 MIDI-based. MTC is a MIDI extension of SMPTE; specifically designed to drive hard disk based sequencers and digital recording systems. MTC wasn’t added to the MIDI spec until the late 80’s. It’s not to be confused with MIDI Sync and Song Position Pointer (SPP), which preceded it and has a different function.

Until recently the pro video industry was dominated by videotape. In A/V post-production the VTR is always the master, whether the slave multitrack is analog or digital. This is where it all started.

~Tim
:)
 
 
pianodano said:
Darn, maybe I need to list my spare Microlynx on UK Ebay. I bought that one because it had the clock and 3rd machine option cards installed so I have installed those cards in my other synchronizer.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't think anyone actually paid the asking price. I just haven't ever found one with a realistic price tag. Maybe I've just been missing them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top