I want more tracks, Part II

  • Thread starter Thread starter lo.fi.love
  • Start date Start date
lo.fi.love

lo.fi.love

Functionally obsessed.
OK, how about this one:

Again, I sometimes feel the need to add more tracks to my setup. I was thinking about using my MTS1000 to sync up my Tascam 48-OB with... drumroll please.. a Syncaset 238?

I was thinking that I could use the 238 for less fidelity-critical tracks... track things on to the 48 and then bounce to the 238.

Is this worth the hassle? Anyone?
 
i would only sync up reel to reel
sorry, but the 238 or 688 are great by themselves but i was not impressed with their syncing................but that's just me
 
So are you against the idea of dumping to a DAW?

I use my 16 track deck for all tracking....and have done as many as three separate dumps to DAW, which certainly solves the "more tracks" problem. :)

I only edit in the DAW and do some "spot" processing...them mix back out through an analog console with analog outboard processing.
It's basically an analog sound for the most part...but I can understand if you want to stay 100% analog.
 
Why track to the 48 and dump to the 238? Why wouldn't you just track the less critical stuff straight to the 238?

I have no experience sync'ing a cassette machine, but I have yet to hear of anybody that's been satisfied with the experience. I know a couple members on the forum here have put a noteworthy effort in to making it happen too.

Makes me wanna try it! :)

First I need a 238.

I wonder how much of it is related to the synchronizer. I mean, nothing against the MTS-1000 or the like, but I wonder if my TimeLine Micro Lynx would get things closer to working.

Hey...if you have the hardware, why not try it?

Do you have the interface cable to go between the 238 and the MTS-1000?

I think because one of those machines is parallel protocol and the other is serial you're going to have issues getting the MTS-1000 and the 48 to play nice, so I'd suggest using the 48 as a code-only-master if the MTS-1000 will do such a thing, and slave the 238.
 
But work with the 8 track for now... still good... more than 4...
 
+1 on save for a 16tk ;) Anything else will probably be a total faff. Don't blame you, I'm having lots of fun with 8 tracks but a 2" 16 track is where I'd like to land. Would be nice to have breathing room.

What is it that's running you short on tracks? Do you do a lot of summing on the way in, bouncing etc?
 
i think curtis racist is probably in need of expulsion from any forum involved with real humans, and not because he uses ableton. look at his other posts... hmmmmm and the username???? wtf?
 
Peck said:
save for a 16 track? That's what I'm doing. :)
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.

I was about to write a thesis on why I don't care too much for syncing two analog decks of any type. I was syncing analog and video decks before digital was even an option, so I've been there many times... both ATR-to-ATR and VTR-to-ATR. Basically it's a big hassle and results often fall short of expectations.

When I need extra tracks I bounce analog tracks to digital and begin tracking again to analog with the analog deck and DAW running in sync. It's still a bit of a hassle, but less so and the sync is rock solid compared with analog-to-analog.

The most hassle-free thing to do would be to get a Tascam MSR-16 or Fostex E/G-16. That's what I would do if I wanted to keep everything analog and also eliminate the hassle of having part of a project on one machine and part on another. You could go for 16-track on 1" as well, but because I have so much new 1/2" tape I'm not about to change to another width at this point.

8-tracks on 1/2" is the sweet spot for me for most of what I do. If you’re looking at just track width, 1/2" 8-track is the same as 2” 24-track. My studio is heavily MIDI-fied as well, so I always use track 8 for a sync track. Most of my tracks are virtual (MIDI devices playing in sync). So I really only have 7 tracks for analog, but I will bounce down to blend tracks within the analog deck (no more than one generation of bouncing as a rule). I'll fill up 5 tracks and then mix those down to two. I use the newly available 5 tracks for things I want to keep separate for final mixing, like lead vocal, rhythm and lead guitars. I’m so used to doing things that way I never feel limited. I just plan ahead and mix as I go.
 
sweetbeats..............on the 238/688 syncing.............arghhhhhhhhhhh it was horrible..........!!!!
i think it's tape stretch and/or age of components? best i could do on a tape was 15 secs off most of the time i'd be one min off on one deck.......... supposedly i was told there was "trick" to lock them..........nobody ever told me what it was...........lol
I tried everything on the two 238s it was not a good thing! they've now found good homes! they're awesome machines alone........
but i agree with Beck.........
Friends don't let friends sync analog decks!
p.s. make that into a tshirt and i want one! lol
 
you need more than 8-tracks simultaneously? a submix going in, or bouncing internally, would yield better fidelity than using cassette.
 
It's funny that nobody mentioned that the MTS-1000 is a bear to work with in the first place! I'm sure the Lynx would be much simpler and effective. :P
 
I have very good results with syncing and have been doing things that way since late 2007. But it is a hassle to set up, and it makes mixing rather annoying. What I do now is I record all the MIDI tracks to a larger multitrack (1" 24trk) and vocals and other 'live' stuff to my old TSR-8 against a scratch track. Since this is done in MIDI, the timing will be identical on both.
Then, when I'm happy with the vocals I do a synced transfer to the 24-track and mix on that. It also allows me to copy the same vocal to two different channels if I need to for some reason (I did that on the Keaton song) without any additional generation loss.
 
Last edited:
Peck said:
i think curtis racist is probably in need of expulsion from any forum involved with real humans, and not because he uses ableton. look at his other posts... hmmmmm and the username???? wtf?
Click to expand...

Not much to say re analog. Points for brevity, though.

Cheers,

Otto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top