Yes, thanks Corey! That clarifies so much!!! I may still get the sync box but I now see how this normally would be used.
I think what I was wondering about is if my machine has a little speed lag that if I try to record a drum machine sequence, then want to come back and place another sequence (that needs to be in time) on another track if they will match up.
That’s exactly why you get a synchronizer…to ensure that, over time, as you build your project, material captured on or generated by multiple devices can be and are repeatably able to be recorded and reproduced in relative synchronization. Digital stuff is generally going to be more stable in terms of accurate and repeatable reproduction, chronologically speaking, than an analog mechanical transport, because…mechanical. Your MS16 has a good direct-drive quartz-locked servo capstan so it’s good…but there are many more physical variables at play compared to something purely electronic and digital. My experience, with a servo system like the MS16 in a sync setup, is you can see the variation in speed but we are talking literally about +/-1 *subframe*…minuscule. But it is a bonafide fluctuation. But the Roland box does not have machine control capability, so the MS16 must be master. There are, as far as synchronization goes, two types of tape transports: ones that can be controlled and act as a slave in a sync relationship, and ones that cannot. Then there are also two broad categories of synchronizers: ones that can control tape transports, and ones that cannot…they just deal with MIDI sync. The MS16 is of the former type, and the SBX-80 is of the latter type, though it looks to be a pretty well-featured unit for being the latter type. This is okay for you…for most…it is WAY more complicated to slave a tape transport to anything. You have to have a more specialized/rare/expensive synchronizer, you have to have a slave-capable tape machine, and almost always you are faced with having to custom build very specialized cables, often with hard to find parts, to interface the tape machine or machines with the synchronizer. I still and will always maintain that slaving the tape machine to a sequencer or DAW is the better way to go from an audio standpoint, because when the tape machine is the master and the DAW (for instance) is slave, you have to ask yourself “how does the digital system deal with the fluctuations of the mechanical master transport?” And the answer is it varies…but it can’t or doesn’t varispeed to match the tape transport…the tape transport has infinite capacity for resolution when speeding up and slowing down. The digital system does not. There is a sampling frequency. Or some level of quantization. Most digital systems will add or drop samples to stay in sync. That means if you have real-world sources (mics, instruments) that were tracked to the DAW (for instance), they are converted to digital samples at a bit-depth and sampling frequency, and the DAW will just add or dip samples to stay synchronized. Your DAW tracks, which are already a digital facsimile of the real world sources from which they originated, are now being messed with…adding mystery samples or taking away essentially at random, to stay synchronized. How much of this goes on depends on the quality, capability and condition of your analog tape machine and tape. But regardless of that, for me, my personal threshold of tolerance for this concept is zero. Most other people disagree with me and I think for them and their circumstances the MUCH less complicated and simple path of setting the tape machine up as master does make way more sense. But I’m interested in making informed decisions about things, and so I compulsively tend to share this information when the subject comes up in front of me in order that others can also make educated decisions about what’s right for them. In your case, because you are talking about sequenced tracks and not real-world source material in a DAW, I would go the simple route, let the MS16 be master, and not think twice. The reality is, unless the tape machine is garbage or in garbage condition, the fluctuations I talk about above are so small it is HIGHLY unlikely anybody would ever possibly be able to hear them…I just can’t stand the IDEA of samples being added or removed.
Hopefully I’ve not confused things with TMI. How much does the seller want for the SBX-80? It looks neat. I recently re-discovered a multitrack HDD recorder I used about 20 years ago…I always thought it sounded really good and I used it enough to be good at navigating the pages and menus on it…it’s a Roland VSR-880. I bought one for really cheap WITH the desirable VS8F-2 add-on effects board…the LCD needed some repair, which I fixed…back in the day when I had one I didn’t really know much at all about electronics, I just knew it sounded good. First thing I did when I got this one is pulled the cover off and studied the guts. And I was also able to track down a service manual which is really hard to find for this model. Anyway, they didn’t really cut a lot of corners at all…some pleasant surprises too as far as the components choices and values and such, and the chassis design is great for servicing. I’m impressed with it. My point is I suspect the SBX-80 is built with the same level of attention to these things.
