Tascam 58-OB Story...

[sweetbeats]

ausrock,

One thing I heard about when I was hunting for one was that the foam cut-out in the case gardually deteriorates with time until it become quite sticky and a PIB

Yeah...uh...I will watch for that. I did notice that the foam in the case of theone I got looks good, but is a little punky in a couple of spots...not sticky, but just a little discolored and deformed...mmm...thanks for the tip.


cjacek,

Hey, you've made my day [on the packing issue]!

I thought that might get your attention!

Hey, would you mind posting a picture of the packing job?

No prob. I'll do that in the next couple days.

Also, thanks for the link on the article. I've only peeked at it so far, but it looks like a good read.

I had intuitively figured what the scrape filter was for, and then on a re-read of the 58 manual I actually found some explanation, but the quote you posted gives an even better picture. Neat little addition to the transport. The longer I work with the 58 the more impressed I am at how it handles tape, keeping in mind that I have never been physically exposed to a true pro atr machine , but the 58 does seem to have a lot of niceties in the tape path. I haven't really looked/worked closely with my 48 that I got with my 58 because what work I've done has been focused on the 58...the 48 has mostly sat partially disassembled until the time comes to give it the attention the 58 has received, but last night as I got my recently acquired 48 "parts or repair" deck out of its shipping caccoon I noticed, for the first time, more differences between the 58 and the 48: the 48 has only two tape guides, and the tension arms are far less sophisticated, and of course the aforementioned lack of the scrape filter. Not that the 48 doesn't handle tape well...as I mentioned in a previous post, the wear pattern on the 48 heads is wonderfully even, and though not abused, I can tell it has not been respected to the degree that it should (more on that below) but has still run the tape evenly. The 58 tho'...I striped a reel with SMPTE this morning...it is the first time I have play-spooled a whole reel of tape, and my goodness...the pack on the takeup reel (a 3-screw thin-flange Tascam 1013 reel) was perfect! And that is with the tension arm adjusted so that the tape never touches the reel flange!

Han-D-Mag...another plug for this device. I finally got mine out last night to test and make sure that the one I got off of eBay is doing what its supposed to do...I didn't do my deck yet. I was actually testing it on the 6-in-1 screwdriver I tried to demag with my puny demag unit (which it still left magnetized). Good gracious. I got the Han-D-Mag within about 1"-1/2" of the screwdriver (and this is a big screwdriver with lots of metal) and it was like a tractor-beam. I had to firmly hold the screwdriver to keep the Han-D-Mag from picking it up...it even demagged the small screwdriver tip that was inside the thick steel reversible shank...yikes. That's what I'M talkin' about...get the Han-D-Mag folks. You need it if you want to actually demag your atr tape heads. There is enough metal there that the little $10 units on eBay (that look like an electric toothbrush) just won't do it.

Update on the "parts or repair" 48:

Pulled it out of the box last night and powered it up. It is missing the bottom feet, the bottom cover plate (the one that covers the panel with all the trimmer access holes), and a number of screws in addition to the reel table trims and the splicing block. Other than that it is complete. All VU meters light up, and all the indicator lights work. I pulled the top dress panel off...the brake problem is no more than mal-positioned reel tables. Duh. Problem is that whoever put the thing back together didn't do it gently when they put the reel tables back on...or the reel tables got shoved in at one point...one of the brake bands is kinked. Not sure if it is going to cause a problem or not. Anyway, all transport functions work, the capstan spins healthily (strong, smooth and quiet...actually seems to run nicer than my original 48), reel motors run but are noisy...not sure yet if that is due to the tables being mounted too low (they may actually be rubbing on the mounting face of the deck...I have a feeling that this deck may have been laid on its face at one point shoving the tables in, but the reel adapters are in fine condition so...)

So, overall I have what appears to be a functioning 48 for $128 shipped. It bugs me though to see a deck like this that has had rough (but not abusive) treatment...lots of fasteners missing, scrapes, scratches (no dents or dings though), the whole brake/reel table thing, *dirty* (has that pinch roller ever been cleaned??)...dirty inside too...not excessively so, but clearly not kept in a clean studio environment. It makes me further appreciate my 58 and original 48...I didn't realize what a good find they were as they barely had any dust on them at all, inside or out.

Next up: I will try to find some sacrificial tape (i.e. who knows if the tape path is hazard free...don't want to ruin good tape) to make certain that the transport does function and handle tape, and check and see what I/O issues there are.

 

[cjacek]

Hey, thanks for sharing Cory.

I too had a 58-OB but now only own the 48-OB. As the owner of both and having compared the two, I must say that I really liked the tape transport on the 58-OB. Almost everything seemed 'overbuilt' on the thing, including larger motors (all 3) and power supply (obviously to accommodate the heavier duty motors) and the tape path, which, again, seemed really robust.

Both recorders shared similar quality electronics (which means top notch) and the overall built (other than the above mentioned things). The one thing which the 48 excelled at, was the input / output section on the back. That is also what the 58 engineers dropped the ball on, IMHO. The way they designed the I/O is a surefire recipe to disaster. I've mentioned this in several of my previous posts but it bears repeating that all of the RCA jacks ran the whole width of the machine, at the very bottom, which are attached to a long ass board, seemingly directly. One significant pull or twist or just your typical connect / disconnect, over time, on even one of the RCA's, will not only cause physical damage to the board (traces, solders etc...) but will also affect every other neighboring input. Look at the 48 Tascam and see how the RCA jacks are mounted... They are also bolted in so that not even a twist can affect the board that it sits on. The 58 jacks, on the other hand, just sit on the board without further reinforcement. But, wait, it gets worse.... If you have a bad RCA jack, than the corresponding XLR will also be affected. That is also the reason to not ever use the RCA jacks but rather the XLR's (for the 58). I've had this problem on my 58, where the disassembly of a good part of the entire machine, just to get to the board, wasn't something I was comfortable with. I've seen this exact same problem (audio problems), as caused by physical damage via the inputs, on several 58's and it's a bitch to really get in there to fix but the problem is that the fundamental flaw of the design is not corrected. That is why it's good to check, prior to buying a 58, the RCA inputs [and not assume it's oxidation when there's a problem] and only then try to use the XLR's or be obsessively careful with the RCA's. Wow! That was long winded.....

With regard to the lack of scrape filters on the 48... I think I read from a Tascam brochure that the motors used for the 48, were made in such a fashion as to function as flutter filters, without the need to mount these in the tape path.

Anyway, both the 48 and 58 are really good machines, with their pluses and minuses. Personally, I'd have married the pluses of the I/O section of the 48 into the 58. Then, I think, you'd have a critique proof recorder.

-----

 

[sweetbeats]

I recall hearing about the issue on the 58 with the RCA jacks. I think mine is okay though...don't use the RCA jacks, but I'm not having any problem with the XLR's. Its always something, isn't it?

I used to have an '81 Volks Scirocco S. Really enjoyed that car, and I liked how VW did a lot of things but they stuck the air filter under the fuel injection distributor...I mean the distributor was, like, mounted to the air filter cover along with the very large cannister style fuel filter...all those braided fuel lines...it was such a pain to get to the air filter and I can remember saying under my breath, with bloodied knuckles, "There had to have been a better way to do this!"

So I pulled the dress panel off and lubed the lifter linkages and bushings. I also *lightly* lubed the scrape filter bearings. It is much quieter now.

On the lifters though...I'm having an issue with the synchronizer not reliably reading code from track 8 when the lifters extend...in order for the synchronizer to work effectively I figure its got to be able to do that...right? So I was messing with the lifter adjustment. Question:

How far do your lifters lift the tape away from the heads? I was under the impression that they should push the tape completely off all 3 heads and completely out of all 3 guides. If I adjust the lifters so they push the tape away from all 3 heads, but not so far away that the synchronizer can't read timecode, then the tape still sits in the middle guide.

I could post some pics if that would help.

 

[cjacek]

[I don't have the 58 anymore] but from what I recall, the tape lifters 'lifted' the tape off just enough to not touch any of the parts you mention - and that's what you want it to do, really. As long as the tape 'clears' the heads and guides [by whatever small or large amount], then don't worry. Why, is your tape touching the heads / guides in FF / REW? If the lifters are not pushing the tape off sufficiently then there should be a pivot point somewhere in the mechanism with perhaps hardened grease that you should clean off and re-lube. I'm not sure if it's the same as in my 48, where it was indeed hardened and the tape lifters were sluggish [at first].

----

 

[sweetbeats]

cjacek,

The lifters *were* sticking, but that is not the case now. I lubricated them, but partially disassembled the linkage to do it thoroughly...so now I'm trying get them adjusted right.

Okay...I figured that the lifters would ideally push the tape off of the heads and guides, which I can get them to do. They respond and move really nice now.

My question then is how is my synchronizer supposed to read the timecode in FFWD or REW if the tape is too ar away from the repro head? Do I set track 8 to be monitored from the sync head (to which the tape *is* close enough when the lifters are extended)?

 

[pianodano]

cjacek,

My question then is how is my synchronizer supposed to read the timecode in FFWD or REW if the tape is too ar away from the repro head? Do I set track 8 to be monitored from the sync head (to which the tape *is* close enough when the lifters are extended)?

Lifter defeat. The synchronizer takes care of that.

 

[Beck]

cjacek,

The lifters *were* sticking, but that is not the case now. I lubricated them, but partially disassembled the linkage to do it thoroughly...so now I'm trying get them adjusted right.

Okay...I figured that the lifters would ideally push the tape off of the heads and guides, which I can get them to do. They respond and move really nice now.

My question then is how is my synchronizer supposed to read the timecode in FFWD or REW if the tape is too ar away from the repro head? Do I set track 8 to be monitored from the sync head (to which the tape *is* close enough when the lifters are extended)?

It uses a combination of counting tach pulses and reading directly from the tape sync stripe. One of the functions of the sync box is to send a "Lifter defeat" signal so the tape can make contact with the heads in fast wind modes. The tape is in contact with the heads a lot more.

By the way, this is one of the negatives of using the ATR as slave -- accelerated head wear.

 

[pianodano]

It uses a combination of counting tach pulses and reading directly from the tape sync stripe. One of the functions of the sync box is to send a "Lifter defeat" signal so the tape can make contact with the heads in fast wind modes. The tape is in contact with the heads a lot more.

By the way, this is one of the negatives of using the ATR as slave -- accelerated head wear.

Well, As I said, lifter defeat. My MS-16, which is controlled by a Microlynx, does very little fly by when seeking park position because the microlynx reads tc and interpets tach pulses so accurately at all transport speeds. It does not defeat lifters at FF/REW because it is computing tach pulses and calculates fairly accurately where the tape is at and only defeats the lifters in what could be called scrub for final positional park. It's fast as can be. Yes, some seeking and consequently some additional headwear is to be expected when chasing TC but surely no one would attempt a full chase lock of Sonar to tape. It will not work. Perhaps Sweetbeats can try a tune while having Sonar run in full chase lock and provide one of his comprehensive and detailed reports on the results.

Now maybe it would be possible when using Sonar for midi sequencing and only while triggering hardware external synths and keyboards, but I seriously doubt it. Even that would be iffy with Sonar unless it was being resolved by something like a Big Ben clock. But that begs the question, can the Tascam synchronizer Sweetbeats has resolve a clock ? Probably not.

Otoh, If he is only going to use Sonar as a sequencer, which is not what I remember him saying a year or so back, maybe he could just get something like a Roland MC500 MK II sequencer. That will reliably sync to tape with no problem. It's still one of the best ever made. I still have mine which I bought when they were introduced in 1988. It can only output dumb FSK for stripping tape (not cool) but it will sync to smart FSK.

Regards,

Danny

 

[sweetbeats]

Danny,

I'm using Cubase, not Sonor.

I'm not using the DAW for much sequencing. Mostly for audio. I want to be able to track certain instruments (drums primarily) to the atr and transfer them to a DAW project, but there will be more than 7 tracks, so I want to be able to build the project in the DAW without having to line tracks up. That make sense?

 

[pianodano]

Sweetbeats,

It won't matter which DAW you're using. It can not possibly run audio as a slave. It will play audio, but it won't be useable. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. Sync the tape recorder. It WILL work perfectly when properly set up.

I read on your other thread that you were having offset problems. As I explained over at Tascam forum, solo the recorder from the synchronizer and capture that location as the offset position. Always do that before recoding anything on a new section of tape where you intend to record a song. Write that offset down on the track sheet. I would bet there is some means of doing that easily with your synchronizer.

You should then set up a group of machines or whatever the Tascam unit calls them with your DAW as master outputing midi tc to the synchronizer which will hopefully internally translate that to SMPTE. Bear in minf that if there is NEVER any possiblility of syncing to video, the frame rate you stripped (30fps) will work for audio, but it is non standard.

Danny

 

[Beck]

Well, As I said, lifter defeat. My MS-16, which is controlled by a Microlynx, does very little fly by when seeking park position because the microlynx reads tc and interpets tach pulses so accurately at all transport speeds. It does not defeat lifters at FF/REW because it is computing tach pulses and calculates fairly accurately where the tape is at and only defeats the lifters in what could be called scrub for final positional park. It's fast as can be. Yes, some seeking and consequently some additional headwear is to be expected when chasing TC but surely no one would attempt a full chase lock of Sonar to tape. It will not work. Perhaps Sweetbeats can try a tune while having Sonar run in full chase lock and provide one of his comprehensive and detailed reports on the results.

Now maybe it would be possible when using Sonar for midi sequencing and only while triggering hardware external synths and keyboards, but I seriously doubt it. Even that would be iffy with Sonar unless it was being resolved by something like a Big Ben clock. But that begs the question, can the Tascam synchronizer Sweetbeats has resolve a clock ? Probably not.

Otoh, If he is only going to use Sonar as a sequencer, which is not what I remember him saying a year or so back, maybe he could just get something like a Roland MC500 MK II sequencer. That will reliably sync to tape with no problem. It's still one of the best ever made. I still have mine which I bought when they were introduced in 1988. It can only output dumb FSK for stripping tape (not cool) but it will sync to smart FSK.

Regards,

Danny

Heh, I totally missed your post #66. I was in the middle of posting when my son called to pick him up from church and I just left it up and finished it when I got back. In the mean time it looks like you made your comment about lifter defeat. Great minds, right?

One thing is sure… success with syncing the digital and analog worlds is indeed hardware and software dependent. However, as a rule I recommend using analog as master. And if one hasn’t purchased equipment for syncing yet I recommend that people seek out equipment that will allow ATR to be master.

I started using sync in about 1982… pre-MIDI days (Had some experience with SMPTE working in audio/video before that, but not in my home studio… couldn’t afford it). After MIDI was available I built a hybrid Analog/MIDI studio and then added digital audio to the system when that was affordable and usable. I’ve always had good luck with the JL Cooper stuff. I still have the PPS-1 V2 I bought in ‘89… looks and works like new.

The whole perspective thing is fascinating to me on this subject. Until recently I hadn’t thought of which to use as master as being controversial, but I guess it could be in web forum circles. Everything else is.

If there is a controversy it seems to come down to when the individual started recording with sync. If you started when tape was the norm and embraced MIDI technology early on the perspective will tend to be in terms of adding digital to an analog studio, since that’s how it started. If you are younger or just newer to recording with sync you’ll likely see analog as something to add to your digital setup, so it can be a real mind bender to think of the analog deck as the center of the studio, even as just sync master.

One can technically sync either way with the right equipment, but in my experience using the ATR as the master is easier, less expensive, more reliable, provides better system response and causes less wear and tear to the ATR heads and transport. That last point can’t be over emphasized since these days we should treating our ATRs with lots of TLC.

Pro Tools, Cool Edit Pro, Ubuntu Studio and many other popular programs are rock solid syncing externally to tape via SMPTE/MTC. IMO, this is one area where digital can be an asset. When used properly it’s more responsive than ATR-to-ATR or ATR-to-digital and helps extend the life of the ATR.

That being said, I don’t use Sonar so I can’t speak specifically to that… and I don’t want to interfere with Sweetbeats’ experiments because so much is learned regardless of the outcome.

By the way, yes the Roland MC500 MKII was a nice little sequencer. One of my favorites from back in the day was the integral 8-track sequencer on the Ensoniq ESQ-1 synth. It was very advanced for its time (1986)… even speaks MIDI SPP. I bought mine in January of ’87 and still use it. IMO, another testament to the glory days of pre outsource to Asia quality.

 

[sweetbeats]

As a good friend once said:

"Oh wow..."

Danny, I'm going to have to read your post a couple times. I wish I could visit your studio and see how your MS-16 runs.

Perhaps Sweetbeats can try a tune while having Sonar run in full chase lock...

Are you suggesting that I try to run the DAW as sync slave, or master?

can the Tascam synchronizer Sweetbeats has resolve a clock?

I'm not sure. Probably not. There is a 75ohm BNC connector on the back for sync'ing to video, and I'm figuring that will not know what to do with digital wordclock. The manual says "When composite video/sync reference is connected here, the synchronizer reads vertical sync as if it were timecode sync pulses, to achieve 'Video lock'. When this video sync is incomming, the integrated timecode generator uses it as the time base for generating timecode."

solo the recorder from the synchronizer and capture that location as the offset position. Always do that before recoding anything on a new section of tape where you intend to record a song.

I think I understand what you are saying. I guess I could dial in a 15 hour offset. Just seems silly though...I think I found in the manual where you can restart the timecode generator though. There is a jam/restart function where you can either "jam" the generator and force it to a particular time interval (and so I could jam it to 00:00:00:00 if I wanted to...), or it can be restarted to the position of the incoming timecode, which, if I'm understanding that correctly it means I could jam it to 00:00:00:00, stripe the track in the DAW, and then with that code playback coming into the synchronizer as the master timecode, start record on track 8 of the 58 and then restart the generator to the incoming timecode. Then both timecode tracks (the DAW and track 8 of the 58) would have the same phase.

Write that offset down on the track sheet. I would bet there is some means of doing that easily with your synchronizer.

Yeah. There are 20 autolocate memories which can be captured on the fly, and are maintained in the battery backed up memory.

You should then set up a group of machines or whatever the Tascam unit calls them with your DAW as master outputing midi tc to the synchronizer which will hopefully internally translate that to SMPTE.

No. The ES-50 only speaks SMPTE. That's why I'm having to manually "stripe" an audio track in the DAW with SMPTE.

It can not possibly run audio as a slave. It will play audio, but it won't be useable.

Danny, is this because the audio in the DAW will stutter/present dropouts in adjusting to the atr? Though I'm pursuing the goal of slaving the atr to the DAW, if the other way 'round won't work, how is it that so many do just that, and how is it that that seems to be the standard?

If you are younger or just newer to recording with sync you’ll likely see analog as something to add to your digital setup...

Beck, I agree with you as far is I am concerned. I think my mind is centered on digital and my heart is centered on analog, and yet as my mind and heart are inseparably interdependent, so I see the analog and digital worlds. I just know that everything is going to end up in the DAW. That's where my mastering tools are and such, and the clock in my Digimax FS is more accurate than the capstan motor on the 58...splitting hairs.

 

[sweetbeats]

cjacek, this one's for you!

Pics of the packing job on my "parts or repair" 48...

 

[cjacek]

Pics of the packing job on my "parts or repair" 48...

Cory, I must say I'm impressed by the packing. The seller pretty much recreated [to a reasonable degree] the factory packing [minus the protective plastic bag ]. It's miles ahead of the usual packing jobs I see [and corresponding shipping damage], so thanks for posting this.

Say, does the bottom [also] have a cutout for the connectors or is it just a flat panel?

This type of packing [for more critical, working units] plus strapping it to a wooden pallet, shipped freight, would be da bomb!

--

 

[sweetbeats]

No cutouts on the back. The feet on the back made their own holes.

Would have been nice to do that, but considering everything else I'm not complaining. I ended up PayPal'ing the guy another $25 for shipping.

 

[pianodano]

Sweetbeats,

As Beck said, Protools will sync fine as a slave. I did not mention it because you don't have it. Sonar surely will not. It has a setup option but it won't work. Or maybe I should say it will chase, but you (I) can't use the product it outputs. Cubase ? I have it installed but don't use it.

Try it the way some folks are now recommending and let us know.



Fwiw, a sample based recorder is depending on a absolute rock solid clock source. In chase lock mode, things get really screwy. Now you could use trigger and freewheel to keep the DAW stable, which means the tape recorder could set things in motion fine but the devices would slowly drift apart because the DAW would freewheel.

What will happen with a native DAW chasing and trying to lock, as the tape recorder capstan varies, WHICH IT surely WILL because of tape slippage and maybe a dozen other reasons, the DAW is going to have to speed up the playing of the samples or slow down. Tape recorder does the same thing, but it don't care. DAW otoh, it cares. bigtime. Noticeable pitch variations will occur. Heck, half the folks over at Gearlutz moan about jitter under normal conditions. Some samples may even have to be throw out to maintain lock.

All I know is that the machines I have used for many years have always been meticulously setup, maintained and babied. My brother has both A MCI JH24 and a Sony apr24 at his place. I don't use 2" tape because of the expense plus I really, really like the sound of my MS-16.

For a bit of background,this whole tape recorder syncing stuff started by using a 60cyple power line pulse. It was a nighmare to use a china marker to mark the postion the tape should be parked at, park two machines at the mark and hit play on both machine at the EXACT same instant. they would lock fine but it might have been in phase or out of phase on the pulse. My understanding is is that SMPTE was still under patent at the time (remember it was perfected for film work) and mere music mortals couldn't afford the outrageous licensing fees. So work arounds were developed including FSK. The Sony apr24 which was the sucessor to the MCI JH24 natively synced to smpte. By that time patents were probably off. Simple on that one. Just hit the sync button and send it TC.

There where quite a few companies that developed some nice systems for syncing later but towards the late 80's "Timeline" had fully developed a hands down winner called Lynx and untimately, the ridiculously simple but eloquent "Timeline Microlynx". With the clock option card installed, their system was approved for use on Avid (digidesign) systems. Timeline was evidently also highly regarded by Tascam. If you look at any Tascam digital MX24 you will see the Timeline logo and port on it that very few ever people ever understood the purpose for. I suspect Tascam also licensed or reverse engineered the Microlynx and what you have is something along the lines of a Microlynx.

Lucky you, you no doubt know already that you are into some complex stuff when setting up syncing different systems, so good luck. RE Avid/Digi/Protools systems, it was imperative that options were available that allowed it to reliably lock to video from it's beginning. Otherwise it might not ever have been accepted for professional work.

Regards,

Danny

 

[sweetbeats]

Danny,

Awesome, awesome post. I get it now!

The historical bits are extremely valuable and really, really interesting. Its one of the best parts of these forums.

While my ES-50/51 is a bit antiquated (by virtue of the fact that it does not speak MIDI), I'm really impressed so far with how solid it seems to operate. In other words, the problems that I'm having are not related to a flaky synchronizer, its my setup and lack of knowledge at this point with the gear. I know the ES-50/51 was not built by Tascam, but outsourced. I have no idea who built it, but if Tascam was invested in synchronizer technology, I wouldn't be suprised if they were choosy about their suppliers. The innards of the ES-50 are very impressive. The quality of the PCB's and associated components are a cut above.

I'll keep at it. Your time in explaining things the way you have done is helping me keep my perspective and drive to stick with it.

Your inadvertant reminder to me about the link between Avid and Digidesign explains why their systems provide for successful DAW slave environments.

Grrreat stuff.

 

[pianodano]

Sweetbeats,

Silly me. I am kinda lost on what it is exactly you want to do now anyhow. Can you point me to the right post that really lays it out and the issues you are having ?

Danny

 

[pianodano]

Danny,


While my ES-50/51 is a bit antiquated (by virtue of the fact that it does not speak MIDI)

Is that the issue, ie: no way to convert ?

 

[sweetbeats]

Danny,

It is an issue.

You might recall some of our discussion from a year ago or so over at the Tascam Forum that, while you are sending MTC over (duh) MIDI to your MicroLynx to which it is locking your atr via SMPTE from the MS-16, I am sending SMPTE (recorded to a track in the DAW) from the PC over audio, to which the ES-50 is synchronizing the SMPTE from the 58. I think back when we were discussing this you figured it should work, but whether or not it would be frame accurate you didn't know. My tests so far show that I can get the 58 to phase-lock to the DAW with a variance of less than a frame (i.e. about 3 or 4 subframe accuracy over a 15 minute run), and it isn't drifting, just varying over that range.

Now that I've figured out how to jam and restart the sync generator in the ES-50 I *should* be able to record phase identical stripes in the DAW and on the 58 and chase-lock them with the same accuracy. Don't know yet how audio reproduction will sound, and I still need to work through the mechanical issues (58 does a crazy scrub-dance when I command it to locate to different offsets...). I think I'm going to have to try and manually calibrate the settings for the 58 in the ES-50 since the auto-calibration procedure requires two atr's to be connected. It errors out because only the 58 is attached. Once I build my MASTER I/F cable to connect my 48 with the ES-50 in addition to the 58, then I should be able to do a proper auto calibrate procedure, note the settings and then manually set the ES-50 for the 58 when I'm locking the 58 to the DAW.

Sorry...more than you wanted to know...did I answer your question?

I realize I could get a simple SMPTE to MTC converter, but I wanted to see if I could get it to work in a SMPTE exclusive environment first.