Sweetbeats' thoughts on CLASP...

sweetbeats

Reel deep thoughts...
I just read a brief review in the latest issue of TapeOp (issue no. 80) of Endless Analog's CLASP tape-DAW integration system.

In a recent thread here the CLASP system was mentioned and I felt some disdain for it. I was bothered. I felt like tape was being "used" in a bad sense of the word...raped.

Maybe after some time my thoughts have had a chance to blend, and then reading the review brought them to the surface.

I like that the review highlights one contributor's appreciation of the system due to the amount of time spent trying to "make digital recordings sound like tape"...that having real tape available in seamless integration with the DAW saves time. Another contributor to the review underscores this with this statement: "As a businessman, it's about getting tones more quickly. When I cut to tape, I feel like I'm getting the tone I want instead of fixing it in the mix. Bottom line --- CLASP saves me time and maintains creative flow." (emphasis mine)

I see it as a real positive that with this system (and I realize its been around for awhile) the analog tape recorder is promoted as an essential part of the system.

A professional studio is a business. Time is money. So many innovations that are beyond common-place today were, IMO, developed out of this "time is money" drive: gapless punch-ins...autolocate facilities...even the growth in track count of tape machines...these all have ties to being able to do more in less time...to be able to track as different artists schedules allowed, or to be able to fix an otherwise "perfect" take without having to redo the entire take...and digital took those conveniences in the analog tape world and just set them completely on their ear.

CLASP is an admission that there is a market demand for tape; that there are production facilities that need to stay with or ahead of the "time is money" race to stay competetive but see tape as an answer to assisting in that through facilitating better sound.

For those who don't know, CLASP is essentially a system that allows an analog tape machine to be present in the DAW like a plugin...the CLASP system seamlessly maintains sync between the DAW and the tape machine. Audio goes into the machine from the front end and goes through the tape machine off the repro head and into the DAW. Tape is a realtime link in the front-end chain. The tape just keeps rolling and then the CLASP system automatically rewinds the tape and starts over again. The system can, furthermore, control up to three transports...managing sync offsets as well as latency compensation in the DAW.

Yes, in some ways it seems like a way for people to rape tape without having to touch it...the tape machine could be in another room and the engineer never has to look at it or change reels and for me that doesn't work...it misses a huge aesthetic of the analog tape process...BUT the tape machine becomes an indespensible component of a DAW system...invaluable...and the more this idea grows so will grow the demand for tape, and tape related services. AFAIC this can be seen as nothing less than a friend to those of us who enjoy tape machines and have ever had so much as a fleeting concern over the future of tape. I'm not suggesting this means a boom. I'm simply enjoying the validation from the professional digital production world regarding what we all already know about tape, and seeing this idea as a reinforcement of the future of analog tape technology.

We don't need to be validated, but if validation means some nutrition to the analog tape industry, I'm in. And anyway, its pretty neat technology.

BTW, CLASP is also a validation to the limited camp of us that believe the proper way to sync a tape machine to a DAW is to slave the deck.

Just sayin'. :rolleyes::o

See a real-world CLASP in action video demo via a youtube link in this thread put up by cjacek: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=313754. I guarantee it will be a pick-me-up for anybody who loves tape machines.
 
yeah, I saw some CLASP video or article a while back - and my thought was somewhat the same: "whats the big deal? - you're running your tape deck in the loop on the way in... " - I realize there's a few other conveniences and you could run it a few different ways... and if you're in a digital paradigm, it would make easier sense - in the "professional"/time-is-money studio perhaps it makes great sense for their workflow. it also means they don't have to make the decision "are we going to record digital or analog?" its "all the same" to them at that point.

I know for me, in fact my original intention was to run the tape as an effects loop on the way in tracking digital - and I did it a few times, its not hard to set up - you just check your actual tape delay compensation and enter that number in a delay compensation plugin, you run the loop as an insert on your interface like you would a compressor or eq, run the tape while you tracking (I guess you have to keep up on when the tapes gonna end, or only run it while tracking)... but I quickly realized:

WHY THE **** WOULD I EVER WANT TO TRACK ON A COMPUTER IF I DON'T HAVE TO???!!!

...and my conversion was near complete. :)
 
BTW, CLASP is also a validation to the limited camp of us that believe the proper way to sync a tape machine to a DAW is to slave the deck.

Just sayin'. :rolleyes::o

In most cases it's not really possible is it? I can see how it might be a good idea.
 
I looked at their website a while back, and remember this terrifying line:

"Clasp will make your worth 57 grand again!"

Or something to that effect...

NO DUDES! I WANT 'EM AS CHEAP AS POSSIBLE!

:spank:
 
BTW, CLASP is also a validation to the limited camp of us that believe the proper way to sync a tape machine to a DAW is to slave the deck.

Just sayin'. :rolleyes::o

But CLASP has pre-programmed info about the specific deck that is used with it, and it also constantly adjust to compensate for the decks assumed wow/flutter/etc.
In a typical SMPTE/MTC sync up between a DAW and tape deck you don't have that kind of functionality.

Like I mentioned in the sync thread...the only time where I had a computer actually control the tape deck was when I used the Atari/Cubase rig which had a specific driver installed for my tape deck and basically it was directly in control of the deck's built in synchronizer and all motor functions.
I was even able to arm tracks and control punch-ins/outs with the Atari/Cubase rig.

Heck...I still can...I still have the Atari/Cubase rig. :D
(I just don't use it any more)
 
CLASP is an admission that there is a market demand for tape; that there are production facilities that need to stay with or ahead of the "time is money" race to stay competetive but see tape as an answer to assisting in that through facilitating better sound..


sorry dude... just not true... it religates it to fx status... witness the release of the uad studer 800 thing that came out yesterday...
 
sorry dude... just not true... it religates it to fx status... witness the release of the uad studer 800 thing that came out yesterday...

No...TRUE...all I'm saying is that it USES TAPE...and TAPE MACHINES. Right...it relegates it to a plugin but I'm saying that is valuable if it stimulates some activity in the tape manufacturing industry and the availability of parts or service...
 
But CLASP has pre-programmed info about the specific deck that is used with it, and it also constantly adjust to compensate for the decks assumed wow/flutter/etc.
In a typical SMPTE/MTC sync up between a DAW and tape deck you don't have that kind of functionality.

Like I mentioned in the sync thread...the only time where I had a computer actually control the tape deck was when I used the Atari/Cubase rig which had a specific driver installed for my tape deck and basically it was directly in control of the deck's built in synchronizer and all motor functions.
I was even able to arm tracks and control punch-ins/outs with the Atari/Cubase rig.

I don't see what your point is...that's not unique to CLASP...every synchronizer I've owned or read up on with with machine control capability has presets for specific machines and/or a dynamic setup process to valuate a connected machine's characteristics.
 
In most cases it's not really possible is it? I can see how it might be a good idea.

Its totally possible for anybody that has a machine with external sync capability (i.e. Tascam machines like the 48, 58, MS-16, TSR-8, MSR-16 MSR-24, ATR60-series, etc.), and hardware that can provide that external control and read MIDI. TimeLine Micro Lynx...and others

Everybody understand...it is more expensive to slave the deck...

I haven't said otherwise. I'm not making an argument that everybody should do it, I'm just pointing out that it is the option that provides the best synchronization and maintains the integrity of your digital clock for the DAW. I'm also freely pointing out that you aren't likely to hear the difference, that slaving the DAW is a whole lot easier and cheaper, and that it works. I just believe that if audio integrity is your first concern, slaving the deck is better, but there is a price to be paid to do it.
 
No...TRUE...all I'm saying is that it USES TAPE...and TAPE MACHINES. Right...it relegates it to a plugin but I'm saying that is valuable if it stimulates some activity in the tape manufacturing industry and the availability of parts or service...


hey man please realize i would love to get an old 2" studer... but it's an FX history and curiousity... sure... people will pay $10k's of dough for a great deck and search fleabay for lightly used spools of tape...:rolleyes::rolleyes:
when there's a uad plugin that from what i've heard (from someone that aready has it) is the bee's knees...(thnx mom)
 
Shit, man, I'm over it. I'm just going to drop out and play my bongos in the dirt.

Seriously, though, I don't know why this kind of stuff grates me so much, but I'm really perturbed about this "tape as a plugin" hype. It seems disingenuous. So, the best way to get the "tape" sound using this setup is to bounce every incoming track offa tape first onto the DAW, and then at mixdown run everything through an analog summing box, and then... mixdown to tape, or what?

Gee, sounds like you just bought a nice invisible suit o' gold clothes for yourself, Emperor. Why put all that expensive kit in the middle when you can just go 100% analog and get the #$%^ing performance right in the first place so you don't have to edit later?

What in the cryin' world is going on here...

(OK, I admit I woke up in a bad mood today, but...)
 
Jeff

Now please tell us how you really feel!!

Wait a few days. The sun will come out.

I agree this is awful for Calif!
 
If this lousey, cold weather would improve it would be great for everyone.

Who turned off the sun lamp!!!
 
Shit, man, I'm over it. I'm just going to drop out and play my bongos in the dirt.

Seriously, though, I don't know why this kind of stuff grates me so much, but I'm really perturbed about this "tape as a plugin" hype. It seems disingenuous. So, the best way to get the "tape" sound using this setup is to bounce every incoming track offa tape first onto the DAW, and then at mixdown run everything through an analog summing box, and then... mixdown to tape, or what?

Gee, sounds like you just bought a nice invisible suit o' gold clothes for yourself, Emperor. Why put all that expensive kit in the middle when you can just go 100% analog and get the #$%^ing performance right in the first place so you don't have to edit later?

What in the cryin' world is going on here...

(OK, I admit I woke up in a bad mood today, but...)

Jeff, I hear ya. I was pretty much there before even AFTER the coffee.

But this has the potential of exposing more people to tape. And what business is it of mine if somebody else who is making music likes or doesn't like the physical sounds of the tape machine and loading and unloading reels and chilling out as the reels spin and all that you know? For me that's part of the experience but it doesn't have to be for everybody...what would that make me if I said that? I'd be no better than the close-minded that say analog is dead and digital is the only way.

And I appreciate LUNE pointing out that you can do much of what CLASP does with a basic sync setup and creative DAW configuration.

CLASP takes several technologies and unifies them. Its not "NEW TECHNOLOGY" per se, but surely it is new to many...facets of it. The big grand point of it...ITS PURPOSE is to resolve the issue that time is money for professionals and tape sounds better. It solves a problem in that for most studios there is a digital worflow and CLASP brings the analog tape recorder into that workflow.

Its about the sound. It should be. And CLASP says tape sounds better. That seems like a good thing to me, and I can still do it my way which is to be in the room with the tape machine and work it hands-on the way it was designed.
 
I don't see what your point is...that's not unique to CLASP...every synchronizer I've owned or read up on with with machine control capability has presets for specific machines and/or a dynamic setup process to valuate a connected machine's characteristics.

The point is that CLASP takes that info and uses it to sample-adjust/correct whatever comes off the tape...that is unique to CLASP...I don't think you get that with any other setup.
Also...I don't think that makes the deck the "slave" as in a typical master/slave setup.
I may be wrong...but from the way I read about CLASP...the tape deck is not even relevant AFA a typical style of sync setup because the tape is not being used in a typical linear fashion. CLASP just drops the audio onto tape and pulls it right back off from whatever section of tape it's hitting at the moment...and then it digitally sample-adjusts/corrects that bit of audio to fit in with the rest of the digital tracks.
 
Then I stand corrected. I was under the impression that CLASP exercised machine control on up to 3 machines.
 
Well I believe you are right about the machine control...
...but I still see that as separate from the actual tape deck’s need to sync-lock to the CLASP in the traditional Master/Slave way.

Since the CLASP system cares not where on the tape its dropping/retrieving the audio...then the tape deck doesn't actually need to chase lock back-n-forth.
They make a point of saying you don't need to keep RW/FW to specific time code points on the tape, it just runs all the way to the end of the tape, and the CLASP system just uses whatever empty piece of tape it finds along the way and records while almost instantly pulling the output off the PB head....and then sample-adjusting/correcting that bit of audio digitally in the DAW to line up with existing digital audio.

So yeah...CLASP may be controlling the transport of the deck...but it’s no more a slave than an outboard processor would be. The audio goes in and comes out. That’s it.

In a way..you are right...the CLASP system is "raping" the tape deck at will...the deck has nothing to say about it other than to “put out”. :D
 
Back
Top