how can I combine my digital and tape?

[clevodrummer]

I would love to be able to track my drums on tape instead of my digital stuff and be able to somehow sync it all together for mixdown?

I have experimented with different ideas and maybe someone can give me some suggestions....I do not have a midi or timeclock or anything along those lines.

I am using the following:

Tascam 424mkIII ( hopefully for drums)

Korg D888 which is digital 8 track

Teac A2300SX

mixdown to masterlink..


I would love to be able to do 8 tracks on the Korg and 4 on the 424 for drums and sync them together..

I do not use Cubase at all which came with the software...dont have a decent pc with a working dvd deck...

got to be a way because I hate doing drums on the Korg...sucks out the life as compared to the 424.


thanks guys...

 

[sweetbeats]

Hate to tell you this but it looks as though it cannot be done with that combo of devices. The 424 will not accept machine control...it needs to be the master in a sync relationship with another analog machine or with a digital machine. The D888 is the same story. It only features a MIDI out jack and therefore cannot receive and sync to incoming MTC. Both are designed to be the master.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

[Beck]

Since neither the D888 nor 424MKIII can slave to time code it looks like your only option with what you now have is to record drums first to the 424MKIII and bounce that to the D888 before proceeding with other instruments. Or if your drums are a stereo mix you could use the A2300SX as well.

EDIT: yeah, what Cory said.

 

[themaddog]

I'm not sure how attached you are to the Korg, but you could accomplish this with a Tascam 788, a SMTPE-MTC converter, like the JL Cooper, and a MIDI cable. The 788 accepts incoming MIDI Time Code which it can slave to.

There are three disadvantages to this setup:
1- You'd have to buy or trade for additional equipment
2- You will lose a track on the 424 for SMPTE time code, meaning you'll only have 3 drum tracks that can be played simultaneously with 8 tracks on the 788 (not counting any virtual track magic, which I'm sure you're familiar with in using the Korg)
3- Some people believe that because tape is not as stable and steady a medium as a digital hard disk that the 788 will have some trouble syncing to the 424, creating digital artifacts. I've never had this problem, but it could potentially happen.

The advantage to this set up would be that the 788 will sync up nearly instantly with your 424 and you can also master in the 788, using the AUX In jacks of the 788 from the 424. Also, you could (in theory) record all tracks in the analog domain and bounce them over to the 788, so that everything touches tape before it gets recorded digitally.

Personally, if you like the analog sound that much, you may want to split the difference and try to go after a larger analog set-up, like an 8 track machine such as the 388, which has a built-in mixer similar to the 424 or Korg. You would increase not only the fidelity of your analog recordings but would have more options with 8 analog tracks, which sill could be synced up with certain digital machines down the line.

I know I'm an analog, but I'm a pretty decent fan of the 788 because of it's versatility and it's cheap cost. I bought one used from Daddy's Junky Music for my school's music program for about $150 with a 3 year warranty and the CD burner. With the chip upgrade from Tascam, you can also import and export .wav files to computer using the CD burner, but it is a little finicky and it isn't very fast.

-MD

 

[clevodrummer]

388

thanks for the info and I am always looking for a 388...If Im not looking for one I can usually be found looking "at" one on line...Beautiful machine and as far as Im concerned the Holy Grail of Fidelity for this home recordist..

I was thinking about digital technology this morning watching TV. I had my remote control in hand and couldnt find a comfortable volume with the volume bars on the screen...the sound from one bar to the next was uncomfortable to my ears, just going from one click was to soft on the first click but to loud on the next click.

With an analog volume control you could always find the perfect mix of simple volume...

Its weird, but I feel like something has been lost and through evolution we wont "hear"..

sorry if Im a bit "out there" on this.

 

[jedblue]

I was thinking about digital technology this morning watching TV. I had my remote control in hand and couldnt find a comfortable volume with the volume bars on the screen...the sound from one bar to the next was uncomfortable to my ears, just going from one click was to soft on the first click but to loud on the next click.

With an analog volume control you could always find the perfect mix of simple volume...

Its weird, but I feel like something has been lost and through evolution we wont "hear"..

sorry if Im a bit "out there" on this.

Man Clevo, I understand that all right. I am beginning to hate the digital TV sound now that pretty much all the channels here are now digital. Soon there'll be no analog at all. My biggest piss off about it is the volume differences from channel to channel. I can get comfortable with one channel then switch to another one and just about get blasted out of my chair. Cripes, you think there'd be some sort of transmission standards for digital tv volume? I guess not. Now we seem to have another volume war.. "our digital tv channel is louder than yours, loser"...


Ah well, that's progress I guess.