Sync two Tascam MKIII Portastudio 424 4-track

L

LurkerOfEmotion

New member
Greetings,
I own two "Tascam 424 MKIII Portastudio 4-track" machines. Till this day I only needed 4 tracks (I used ping-pong techniques to have 2 guitars, 1 bass and 2 mic drums + vocals).
This works fine, but I need more tracks and more flexibility. Till this day this was to record demos/rehearsals and not much more. I want to record in my studio an album 100% analog.
So I had this idea of recording drums on machine A (and probably the bass - I usually use the kick and the bass on the track to use it well with the compressor and all) and on machine B the guitars and vocals (I do layers most of the time or use keyboards to do landscapes).

From what I've read I think this is possible using a Tascam MTC-30 MIDI Sequencer (I never used a MIDI sequencer - only read about it).

My idea is the following: Machine A and B (the TASCAM 4-tracks) are sync with the MIDI sequencer and I 'export' them to a EXTERNAL 16 track Mixer that I have and then export from the mixer to my TASCAM MK II 112 Single Cassette Recorder (the MASTER).

My first question is : IS THIS POSSIBLE ? Because I don't have any money to buy a 8 track right now (and not for a long time) and I have two 4-tracks...it's very frustrating ......

My second question is: How exactly does a MIDI Sequencer works. To Record my tracks I just play drums first (hearing a metronome) and then base my bass/guitars and whatever on the drums tempo.
From what I've read it does transform a MIDI signal (guessing it should be a MIDI metronome) into a FSK signal so it can be heard/recorded on a track and then you will follow it.

My third question is: What MIDI Sequencer to buy ? Please something cheap, reliable and analog :P

I never tried this, but I'm predicting lots of headaches with 'out of tempo' tracks.

Please give me some light. I'm a bit desperate. Bear in mind I don't want any digital solution. The quest is to make a 100% ANALOG record. I've an DBX 119 Compressor a BOSS RX-100 (Reverb)+Analog delay(nothing special).....I really want to make this happen and run from that digital sound (I can do this but with the 4-track limitations....I need 8-tracks to do what I want now)

PS: Sorry for the bad english. I'm not very used to write in international forums. Please don't hesitate in correcting some crushing teeth mistakes..hehe
 
Hermann at Casa Casette tried to sync up his two Tascam 688 8 track cassette studios just recently with all the right sync'ing equipment and just couldn't get it to work well enough. Here's the thread with his conclusion Sync'ing cassette recorders and here's his thread with the story of how he did it how to sync 688's. Too hard I think. Maybe Hermann will add to this thread with his current experience?
 
Thanks for the topic-links Jed Blue.

From what I've read:

Bobby Darko said:
exactly my problem, I love just using 8 tracks, but some bands just need a little more. You should be able to hook up the TSR-8 to the 688 without too much problems btw. Just don't try two cassette based machines. Again, it does work, but not when you want to rewind and overdub a lot of times. Just be sure the tsr is the master and you'll be fine...and yes the 688's look cool together!! (I have 3 now!)
Click to expand...

It does work, you just need to have them ultra prepared (so you won't rewind and overdub it a lot) ?

Tricky...... So I guess the only solution is to mix them on Cubase/Pro Tools/Logic9

That sucks!!! Or you could export the Final mix from Cubase back to the Mixer and from the mixer to tape. But that's not exactly what I wanted. That will loose all the analog charm.

Isn't there any type of tape that is more resistant so it won't stretch after a little use?

Bobby Darko can you please give me an estimate of the time usage of both tapes ? (How much can you do with it so it won't start to get out of tempo).

I mean you don't have to mix them a lot. In the analog world the mixing is a bit limited (comparing to the timeless hours making that Kick sound nice in the digital world - because you can!), so I don't think it would have alot to be done.

But I get the problem... When recording (with all the mistakes and all) at some point one tape will be far more stretched than the other.

What did you do ? did you did TAPE-Computer-TAPE(final Master) ???
 
Understand this, that the 688 and 424 are very different with synchronizing.

When synchronizing one tape machine to another, or synchronizing a tape machine to the computer, one unit has to be the master, and one unit has to be the slave (in other words the slave unit is locked to the master unit). For a tape machine to be the slave it has to be able to be controlled. The speed of its capstan motor (the motor that controls the speed of the tape travel) has to be able to be controlled and adjusted to keep the tape of the slave machine synchronized with the tape of the master machine. That's what a synchronizer does.

The 424 does not have a capstan motor that can be controlled. The 688 does. That means the 424 can only be the master in a synchronization relationship. There is no way to synchronize your two 424's together. Plus, when you synchronize two tape machines, each tape machine gives up a tape track for timecode to be recorded on it. The synchronizer then reads the code off of both machines and then tells the slave machine what to do to stay synchronized with the master machine. So even if you could synchronize your 424's together you would only have 6 tracks left (3 on each machine).

The MTS-30 is a MIDI synchronizer unit. It is not for synchronizing two tape machines together. It doesn't include the functions to control the capstan motor of a slave tape machine. It synchronizes a MIDI device (a sequencer or computer software) to a tape machine. The MIDI device is the slave, and the tape machine is the master.
 
sweetbeats said:
Understand this, that the 688 and 424 are very different with synchronizing.

When synchronizing one tape machine to another, or synchronizing a tape machine to the computer, one unit has to be the master, and one unit has to be the slave (in other words the slave unit is locked to the master unit). For a tape machine to be the slave it has to be able to be controlled. The speed of its capstan motor (the motor that controls the speed of the tape travel) has to be able to be controlled and adjusted to keep the tape of the slave machine synchronized with the tape of the master machine. That's what a synchronizer does.

The 424 does not have a capstan motor that can be controlled. The 688 does. That means the 424 can only be the master in a synchronization relationship. There is no way to synchronize your two 424's together. Plus, when you synchronize two tape machines, each tape machine gives up a tape track for timecode to be recorded on it. The synchronizer then reads the code off of both machines and then tells the slave machine what to do to stay synchronized with the master machine. So even if you could synchronize your 424's together you would only have 6 tracks left (3 on each machine).

The MTS-30 is a MIDI synchronizer unit. It is not for synchronizing two tape machines together. It doesn't include the functions to control the capstan motor of a slave tape machine. It synchronizes a MIDI device (a sequencer or computer software) to a tape machine. The MIDI device is the slave, and the tape machine is the master.
Click to expand...

What my dear friend sweet said, I have nothing to add to that.

BUT, if you want to record on tape just do it. In my opinion -but this is being debated everyday- the most important thing with analog recording is just that. Analog recording. I think a record that is recorded digitally and than run through a tapedeck is very different sounding than vice versa. The second sounding much more 'analog' than the second. I you have decent inputs etc on your pc the analog sound will be preserved. It's all about slamming to tape in the first round when you record your instruments. But as I said, this is my feeling about it.

What you can do: Record the first 4 tracks (always do a count before each song 1-2-3-4, make a mono mix to your second 4track on track 1, record 3 more tracks and then put all the tracks to your pc. You can line them up easily because you did a pre-count. Then mix the 7 tracks to taste. I'm sure you will preserve the analog feel this way. Just be sure to slam the %^&%^&%$ out of the tape. In the red is good (except for bass)!

ps. how does one chance his profile name??
 
Bobby Darko said:
What my dear friend sweet said, I have nothing to add to that.

BUT, if you want to record on tape just do it. In my opinion -but this is being debated everyday- the most important thing with analog recording is just that. Analog recording. I think a record that is recorded digitally and than run through a tapedeck is very different sounding than vice versa. The second sounding much more 'analog' than the second. I you have decent inputs etc on your pc the analog sound will be preserved. It's all about slamming to tape in the first round when you record your instruments. But as I said, this is my feeling about it.

What you can do: Record the first 4 tracks (always do a count before each song 1-2-3-4, make a mono mix to your second 4track on track 1, record 3 more tracks and then put all the tracks to your pc. You can line them up easily because you did a pre-count. Then mix the 7 tracks to taste. I'm sure you will preserve the analog feel this way. Just be sure to slam the %^&%^&%$ out of the tape. In the red is good (except for bass)!

ps. how does one chance his profile name??
Click to expand...

Thanks you Bobby Darko and sweetbeats. I really came here to get a good idea of everything. I admit I was in the dark in some parts (like I think I've stated from the beginning).

I'll try your idea out.

Just didn't get you PS Bobby Darko. What did you meant by that ?
 
haha, i just want to change my name from bobby to hermann without deleting my profile, it had nothing to do with the question, sorry about the confusion
 
If not just put 'call me herman' or something in your sig and will all start refering to you as that:laughings:
 
Well getting back to the point.

I haven't given up yet!. I mean there must be a way to synchronize two audio tapes given an initial tempo (like Bobby Darko, said previously to use when passing the stuff to digital).

I know a couple of Eng. that may help me with this. I will start asking around.

Just bear with my simple thought.....in all it's stupidity:

- Despite being manually impossible if both tapes (same brand and same machines) are on the same spot (counter/beg of tape....whatever) and the metronome begins exactly at the same time (recorded - 1,2,3,4,go)
If you press play at the same time....they must be sync.....Like I said manually that's almost impossible.

It can't be all that impossible. I mean in the mixing/mastering there will be one of the tapes that is more stretched...than the other (what happened to Bobbdy D.). But physically it should be mechanically possible.

This may sound silly....but I really believe in this.. If I came up with something and results I will write it here.

If not.....well I'll use the option Bobby gave me....which is not that bad ....but kill's 30% of the excitement to me. But I'm foreseeing the future.....and most probably will end like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top