I Sync Therefore I Am

[Beck]

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but the more i try to understand digital/analog hybrids and all this stuff the less i care to get what i want out of a recording setup. Its hilarious to me that in the year 2007 with all this shit people know about recording there is no easy way to record something the way you want. There is always a ton of hassle and then you end up sacrificing some flexibility in the end anyways. Actually i guess it ISNT hilarious to me, more painful really because it shouldnt take a million thought out calculations and strange processes and wiring schemes just to record a lousy tape while the computer records it.

It is UNBELIEVABLE how hard it is to have something be easy enough to use yet flexible enough to allow you some room to alter and adapt your recorded work. There are a thousand ridiculous pitfalls that logic should have eliminated in the design phase long ago.

OK im done

People make this too hard. I think it has more to do with not knowing what’s available rather than it not being available. I’ve been using some form of synchronization since 1984. IMO, forget the so-called “Front end” method of incorporating analog with your DAW.

Sure, people happily do it that way and simply adjust the timing on the digital side. However, as an analog purist I wouldn’t do it that way and don’t recommend it. Every time you manipulate a file ITB you corrupt it (again, this is from an analog purist approach, so you all will just have to live with the fact that’s who I am as you consider my input).

If you’re going to the trouble of going to tape first you’re not going to want to then hack the file to pieces with digital manipulation. You’ll be undoing some of what you went to the trouble of laying tracks to analog in the first place.

Everything in my studio runs in sync using SMPTE and/or MTC as one truly integrated hybrid system. For example tracks I lay down on my PC are just tracks. Same thing when I had an ADAT. There are no timing issues. My reel-to-reel, PC, and outboard MIDI devices all run in sync, so I can bounce whatever I track in analog to DAW and vice versa (if I so desired).

There are tons of inexpensive sync boxes for every configuration you can imagine and most good recording software is capable of master or slave… even Pro Tools Free, for gosh sakes.

The web is full of info on synchronization. Check out the EM article by Dan Phillips for starters.

http://emusician.com/tutorials/Get_in_Sync/

 

[Hi_Flyer]

Every time you manipulate a file ITB you corrupt it (again, this is from an analog purist approach, so you all will just have to live with the fact that’s who I am as you consider my input).

If you’re going to the trouble of going to tape first you’re not going to want to then hack the file to pieces with digital manipulation. You’ll be undoing some of what you went to the trouble of laying tracks to analog in the first place.

simply nudging a file in a DAW is not really hacking it to pieces. Its not really doing anything to it all other telling the DAW to play the .wav a little bit earlier.

On the other hand, taking that file and then running it through a bunch of plug-ins and digital processing is more along the lines of "hacking to pieces" in my book, which is I am trying to avoid.

When I was looking at ways to use the tape deck as a front end for a DAW, I considered trying to sync my 38 to my DAW with SMPTE or MTC or whatever. I think trying to sync everything together with external boxes and timecode stripes seems unnecessarily complicated, and more expensive. Some people on other boards said it would be too much of a hassle and not worth the trouble. They also said the transport on a 38 may not be up to it.

With my set up, I can route a signal straight to disc, and also route that same signal out to the R2R, print to tape, pull it off the repro head and send that to disk as well. Once in the DAW, one signal will be slightly delayed, but I have the original untouched guide track printed so I know exactly how far I need to "nudge" the analog track. Its pretty simple really. At least I think it is.

I don't know how much I will end up using the my R2R as a front end for DAW anyway. Tape is noticeably noisier than digital, and I'm worried about building up alot of hiss on a ton of tracks. At this point, I think what I will likely do is fill up the eight tracks on the tascam 38 with whatever (drums, bass) and maybe use the method described above for a lead vocal, maybe a guitar, but not go overboard. I think after my initial 8 tracks, the rest can go right to digital. At some point the cost of added noise will outweigh the benefit of the sound of tape. At least that is what I am thinking right now, maybe I'll change my mind...

Or the other thing I would like to try sometime is to mix and record an entire project on the R2R and not hit DAW-land at all. My band puts some stuff out on vinyl, so if I got a 1/4" mastering deck, we could record and release a record 100% analog record! how cool would that be??

 

[Beck]

We’ve all entered the world of recording from different directions, and therefore the things people say or believe are always going to sound strange to someone.

I didn’t get here by screwing around with PCs, but began professionally over a quarter century ago. Only then did I begin pouring resources into my own private studio. I've been evaluating new technology and updating when necessary ever since.

Synchronization is one the easiest things I do in my studio… easy as falling off a log. It sounds difficult to people that aren’t familiar with it, and as with everything there is a learning curve. But it has to be right up there on the list of things to know for serious recordists. Synchronization changed the recording world to a greater degree than the advent of digital as a recording medium. In fact the latter would not exist without the former.

The key point is that I advocate treating digital recorders of any kind like I do tape machines because I know what’s going on inside the box. The ease with which one can manipulate files ITB with the click of a mouse can be deceiving, as it offers no insight into what’s going on at the board level with processing and increased demands on the software. All things digital involve algorithms, which have finite capabilities.

More people are understanding that there are limits to resources when it comes to sound processing plug-ins and such, but fewer recognize that things like soundfile sliding, “Nudging” or even panning ITB = greater system demand on resources that could be better used to make as pure and unadulterated a recording as possible.

And since I consider digital in general sonically inferior to a good analog system, in my book the less that digital system is trying to manage at any given time the better. This is one area where ADAT has an advantage over DAW (if only they didn't have this annoying habit of eating tape).

Ironically, it’s the bells and whistles that have made digital worse than it would be otherwise. I’ve witnessed a corresponding decline in audio quality as features and conveniences began to trump sonic considerations in system design and purpose.

To be sure the negative effects which lead to “hacking it to pieces” are cumulative and I suppose it’s a judgment call for each of us where to draw the line. I represent an extreme view, but I’m not alone. (not that it would matter to me if I were)

This has come up here and in other forums from time to time and we're always outnumbered, as expected... but the company is good.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showpost.php?p=20351298&postcount=41