Viable tape to digital sync options?

T

troutmask

New member
Hi,

I hope somebody can help me with this.

I want to know what the available machines for slaving a tape deck to a DAW are. I had somebody recommend the Timeline Micro Lynx in a previous thread, but finding a complete set (including the interface box, let alone the cables) seems to be a tall order (unless somebody happens to be willing to sell one for a reasonable price).

I appreciate any help you guys can give me on this.

Thanks
 
Yeah...the Timeline MicroLynx is the Swiss Army Knife of sync boxes...but they haven't been made in about 10 years, so the ones still in use are still in use...and you rarely see them up for sale as they were a specialty item and not something very common. Plus, some that do come up often don't the the power supply, which is not your typical wall wart adapter as it is a multi-voltage PS.

Anyway...I just acquired a MicroLynx box and controller, and will need to make the cable etc...so I'm not looking to sell anything at this point as I need to get my own sync options set up.

Another sync option would be some of the Fostex boxes which do come up much more often than the Timeline stuff...and there's a couple on eBay I saw two days ago....though there is a third piece, the controller that makes the two rack-mount units work. Of course, making them work with other recorders besides the Fostex also require specialty cables for the particular recorder, but they were able to work with a good number of recorders. There's also some other options out there...but again, these are specialty items and not getting as much call as they use to...so they are hard to find.
 
First off it's generally less expensive, easier and more reliable to sync you DAW to tape rather than the other way around, but it depends both on what kind of DAW hardware/software and what kind of analog deck you have... so what do you have?
 
Don't mean to hijack this thread - I was meaning to post a new thread with a very similar question, plus this might be useful to the OP...

I just got a second Fostex R8 so I can sync them together however I don't know exactly what I need to do this.

Do I need both a Fostex 4030 and a Fostex 4010? How about cables?

Anything else I need?

I would have to ship from US or UK or something as there are none here for sale in AUS.

Any other cheaper/more available synchronizer units I can use other than the Fostex?
 
Beck said:
First off it's generally less expensive, easier and more reliable to sync you DAW to tape rather than the other way around, but it depends both on what kind of DAW hardware/software and what kind of analog deck you have... so what do you have?
Click to expand...

Hi Beck,

The machine that I have is a Tascam TSR-8.

As for DAW hardware, my interface card is an Echo Layla 24/96 (antiquated, perhaps, but it still runs like a champ on my new Windows 7-based machine and I haven't seen any reason to upgrade it yet). The software I'm running is both Adobe Audition 2.0 and Cubase LE 4 (I don't believe that Audition supports sync options, but I'm pretty sure Cubase LE 4 does...though if I need to find a different piece of software to do this, I will).

I do understand the arguments for syncing the DAW to tape (stability seems to be the biggest argument), but my primary reason for wanting to do it this way is so that I can synchronize multiple tapes (if necessary) to the DAW timecode, in case I have something that spills over onto two or more tapes.

And Miroslav, thanks for the links. I'll have to investigate those further.
 
troutmask said:
Hi
I do understand the arguments for syncing the DAW to tape (stability seems to be the biggest argument), but my primary reason for wanting to do it this way is so that I can synchronize multiple tapes (if necessary) to the DAW timecode, in case I have something that spills over onto two or more tapes.
Click to expand...

I too use (3) Layla24 boxes and have my DAW (Samplitude) as the Slave and my Fostex G-16 as the Master....though my G-16 has a built in synchronizer card, so I'm just feeding MTC code from the deck to the DAW and it works fine.

So basically, all you need is something that will 1.) generate SMPTE time code so you can stripe one of your TSR-8 tracks, and then 2.) something that will take that SMPTE and convert it to MTC...and then feed the MTC to the DAW.
There are other boxes out there that can do that.

What you get with the Timeline boxes and some of the Fostex boxes is the ability to sync any which way AND have full remote/punch-in...etc...type of control. You don't really need it just for doing "sync-dumps" from tape to DAW. Yeah, if you are doing really long pieces (20-30min and beyond)...there will be some sample-level drift between the 2/3 tape dumps, and you can edit that into shape if needed, otherwise it ain't no big deal for basic Rock/Pop 3-5 minute songs.

Some will point out that making the DAW a Slave means that the DAW is constantly adjusting/re-sampling to the tape's wow/flutter and speed fluctuations, because the SMPTE/MTC is not the same resolution as sample-level stuff....but I think you can enable/disable that in the DAW, I can in mine, and since my G-16 has the built-in synchronizer, it keeps the G-16 pretty steady transport-wise, and it's not just reading the SMPTE of the last track, but is also controlling the tape movement.
Having the DAW as Master allows the DAW to run steady, but then you have the tape trying to keep pace as Slave, and you still end up with drift issues, which IMO or going to be worse that letting the DAW be the Salve.
 
You won't have drift issues with the tape deck slaved. Depending on the transport there ARE lag issues when shuttling the DAW transport and waiting for the tape deck to lock in, but those things come down to your transport and your synchronizer. With my Tascam BR-20T and my TimeLine Micro Lynx it doesn't take but a couple seconds for the tape deck to lock to subframe accuracy and chasing a moving target even is quick and gentle...drift? Nah...i can run reel after reel with only an occasional subframe error that resolves in a flash. I believe the TSR-8 has very similar transport logic to the BR-20T.

Choose this day how you will sync. As for me and my studio I will slave the tape deck. :D
 
sweetbeats said:
You won't have drift issues with the tape deck slaved.


I believe the TSR-8 has very similar transport logic to the BR-20T.
Click to expand...

Yeah...a lot depends on the tape decks logic/sync capability....though with the whole mechanical thing of tape transporting, there is room for constant error. This is a quote from Bob Olhsson on another website were there was a discussion about DAW/Tape sync:

The problem is that most tape machines were never really designed for sync. (Exceptions are the Otari MTR-90 and the Nagras.)

Analog tape machines never run the same speed twice. You can use a synchronizer on the capstan but that's generally at the expense of introducing lots more wow and flutter. For music the best sounding approach is generally trigger sync with the analog machine running on its own internal clock.
Click to expand...

What he is implying there (as I read it) is that if the tape deck just runs free on it's own clock...it's more stable than when its capstan is synchronizer driven...though of course, everything still depends on how solid the mechanical transport really is.
IWO...no matter how rock-solid the sync signals...you ALWAYS have the same mechanical issues regardless which is Master or Slave.

Though another quote from same discussion agrees that the DAW may be better off as Master, but it also raises the point that the tape may have higher W&F when chasing, but agrees that the DAW is pretty steady to chase...so it again all boils down to the mechanical transport quality.

A more interesting approach that was suggested and I've tried it and it does work, just need to get your head around it as it's a little different and requires NO sync, and in some ways similar to the CLASP system but without the need of the CLASP system...is this (also from another website):

1) Arm tape and DAW for record
2) Start the tape recording and then start DAW recording
3) Lay down 4/8/16 tracks and stop recording on both
4) Overdub next 4/8/16 tracks with above method while monitoring from DAW

You don't need sync as the DAW is the master recorder and playback unit at all times...but you have your tape sound.
 
Speaking of the Timeline MicroLynx unit.....

Sweetbeats - I recall you were trying to rig up a power supply for it, how did you make out with that?
It appears that finding the OEM power supply for these things is almost impossible....BUT....after some hard searches, I may have come across a perfect matching substitute PS, and the only thing one would need to do is cut off and swap the connector to a 5-pin DIN connector, which is what the MicroLynx needs.
The voltages all seem to be there, exactly the same as on the OEM power supply:

5V 3A
12V 2A
-12V 0.3A
plus 2 RTN/Ground connections.

If it does match up (I will confirm tonight)....this would be almost an unlimited source for them. I already found one supplier that has 10 in stock, and a few other sources that have them.
Stay tuned..... :)
 
sweetbeats said:
Choose this day how you will sync.
Click to expand...

I think I'm starting to hone in on which approach is best, though I'd still like to get a little more feedback. I see that there are viable arguments for doing it both ways, so let me present the type of recording scenarios that would necessitate syncing in order to get feedback on what the best approach is.

Primarily, these scenarios would be:

1) Location recording of overdubs - my 'home' studio is based in my apartment, so there are some thing that I can't reasonably record on tape here (louder acoustic instruments like brass, for example). So what I would like to be able to do is be able to record things like that with my laptop interface while being able to dump those tracks back to tape at a later time. It isn't the best way of doing things, admittedly, since part of the reason why I'm moving back to tape is because I am dissatisfied with the sound of digital, but sometimes compromises have to be made...

2) Mixing - I started out with 4-track tape, where bouncing is basically a fact of life...and I do have some bad memories of that. While I am looking forward to eventually fully embracing the challenge that 8-track limitations will present for me, I'm a bit hesitant to jump in head-first. So being able to maintain sync between more than one tape while transferring to digital (if I choose to mix that way) will give me the flexibility of a digital mix system with the sound of tape (basically, a much less expensive CLASP system, as Miroslav suggested, but with the added benefit of having a multi-track analog back-up...since I am well aware of storage issues with digital systems.

What sort of sync experiences do people have in linking up a Tascam TSR-8 to a DAW, regardless of which is acting as the master?

Thanks
 
troutmask said:
Location recording of overdubs

So what I would like to be able to do is be able to record things like that with my laptop interface while being able to dump those tracks back to tape at a later time.


2) Mixing
Click to expand...

IMHO...if you really plan on doing a lot of location stuff...then just leave it digital and focus on a really good analog front end.
Then, if you have enough D/A channels...you could mix back out of the DAW to an all analog back end.
Recording to digtal and then dumping to tape, so that you can then dump back to digital in a sync setup....mmmmm....seems like a lot of effort for minimal results.

If you were always tracking to tape and then dumping...that's one thing, and then the sync stuff might come into play for your situation, but to keep your life sane-n-simple...put together a kick ass analog front end (mics/pres/comps/EQs) and a kick ass back end (use the same comps/EQs as the front end), and then that step of recording digital--->tape--->digital will be unneccessary and of little value....IMHO.
 
miroslav said:
IMHO...if you really plan on doing a lot of location stuff...then just leave it digital and focus on a really good analog front end.
Click to expand...

I'm really not planning on doing extensive location stuff, but I do want to be able to have the flexibility for when the situations present themselves.

Recording to digtal and then dumping to tape, so that you can then dump back to digital in a sync setup....mmmmm....seems like a lot of effort for minimal results.

If you were always tracking to tape and then dumping...that's one thing, and then the sync stuff might come into play for your situation, but to keep your life sane-n-simple...put together a kick ass analog front end (mics/pres/comps/EQs) and a kick ass back end (use the same comps/EQs as the front end), and then that step of recording digital--->tape--->digital will be unneccessary and of little value....IMHO.
Click to expand...

Most of my tracking will be done to tape, otherwise I would agree with you completely here. And as far as dumping the multitracks to digital to mix in a DAW, I'm increasingly starting to think that this is not the approach I should take, but I still would like that flexibility in case I get hesitant about my track-bouncing abilities.

So, in that regard, perhaps this is circumlocution on my part, but if there is anything that I want to bring to working with tape, it is adaptability without what I feel are the sonic pratfalls of working in an all-digital (or even mostly digital) environment.
 
troutmask said:
... as far as dumping the multi-tracks to digital to mix in a DAW, I'm increasingly starting to think that this is not the approach I should take, but I still would like that flexibility in case I get hesitant about my track-bouncing abilities.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really suggesting mixing in the DAW, rather using it for it's main power (IMO) edits & comps...though some ITB folks feel the main power is the tons of plugs for cheap.
I meant mix from the DAW back out through analog, but you need as many D/A channels as there are tracks you wish to bring out.

And not to sound like I'm against any analog steps or that I'm pushing digital, as far from it, most of my rig is analog...I only edit/comp in the DAW...but I have to say that sometimes I think analog/tape folks over-play the "digital is bad" hand, as I honestly don't think it's bad at all, just different, but by incorporating it at the right point (IMO) of the production process and using a hybrid setup, you reap the analog AND digital benefits.
I personally wouldn't waste my time bouncing tracks in order to avoid using a DAW for expanding my track capabilities....I just don't see how the bouncing is better than dumping to a DAW (you're still tracking to tape)...and then as I suggest (and do) mixing back out in the analog world with analog outboard.
What I'm getting it is that I think some folks paint a much darker picture of ANY use of digital than it really exists, especially today.
I agree with what most pros say that even "poor" digital gear these days will trump "poor" analog gear, and good/great digital will beat it hands down. It's only when you have great analog that you can finally trump digital, but at some point when you have both analog and digital at about the same level...it's really just a question of differences that one can easily adjust for and still get what they want, and not so much some real sonic negatives.
I mean...I still think analog is more pleasing, but I also think that adding a DAW to the process allows for MUCH GREATER production possibilities and the ability to truly improve it via edits/comps that would be impossible with tape.
 
miroslav said:
Speaking of the Timeline MicroLynx unit.....

Sweetbeats - I recall you were trying to rig up a power supply for it, how did you make out with that?
It appears that finding the OEM power supply for these things is almost impossible....BUT....after some hard searches, I may have come across a perfect matching substitute PS, and the only thing one would need to do is cut off and swap the connector to a 5-pin DIN connector, which is what the MicroLynx needs.
The voltages all seem to be there, exactly the same as on the OEM power supply:

5V 3A
12V 2A
-12V 0.3A
plus 2 RTN/Ground connections.

If it does match up (I will confirm tonight)....this would be almost an unlimited source for them. I already found one supplier that has 10 in stock, and a few other sources that have them.
Stay tuned..... :)
Click to expand...

OK...so it's not a perfect match, but it's DAMN close!!!

The possible replacement that I found is:

5V 3A
12V 2A
-12V 0.2A
plus 2 RTN/Ground connections.

I don't know if it's much of a concern that this one is 0.1A less on the -12V leg....???


Also, on the OEM the Input is 100-250V 1.2A, but on this one it's 100-240V 1.0A

But here is what the MicroLynx manual says about the PS:

Power Supply Mains
Input 100-250 VAC at 50/60 Hz
15 W nominal, 30 W max.
Output +5 V, 3A max
-12 V, 3A max
+12 V, 1.0A max

This possible replacement also has a 30W max, so that's OK...but I'm just wondeing about Amp differences....?
 
Miroslav, I modded a standard atx computer power supply...dime a dozen.

I'm not gonna get into campaigning for one option vs the other as far as which device is the master. I WILL tell you why I prefer the daw as master and that is because I don't want to change the digital audio.

The best clock for my digital audio is my wordclock. I can't for the life of me, understand why somebody would want to take their digital audio and reference it to the mechanical transport. That's what you are doing when you use the deck as the master...the capstan shaft and its relationship to the timecode on tape becomes your clock master. In order to deal with the inerrant fluctuations (and it depends on the engine) of the mechanical transport on the tape deck the daw adds or removes samples to stay in step. OR...and I love this...it just doesn't stay in step in order to maintain the integrity of the audio. That's what the manual to my daw indicates.

I believe the oscillator in the Micro Lynx is likely as good or better than what is on the servo card on my BR-20T and that's where at least some of the concern over increased flutter in a sync relationship exists; introducing an inferior generator.

So...when sync'ing any two devices, something is the master, and something is the slave. Which makes more sense: to use the more stable device as the master, or use the less stable device as the master? I personally think it makes more sense to use the more stable device as the master, and when you layer in the factors of how one vs the other deal with keeping step I feel the analog device is going to have a more natural and transparent way of dealing with the necessary fluctuations...it is, after all, analog...as opposed to the digital device which will have to truncate or augment the sample stream to keep in step, or I suppose stretch or shrink the sample frequency, or (as with my daw) just do NOTHING in order to keep the digital audio whole. Obviously Steinberg thought it enough of a concern (what potentially happens to the audio when slaving the daw) that they chose to deal with it by not dealing with it. Kinda wierd, but reinforces my point.

Here's another way to look at it: you've got a relatively stable device (daw), and a relatively instable device (the tape deck). By slaving the stable to the instable you get two instable devices and they won't be exactly instable the same way. By slaving the instable to the stable the stable remains just that, and the instable remains just that although maybe less instable. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Please bear in mind that slaving the tape deck is MORE expensive, MORE complicated, etc. I have, on many occasions, advised an operator to go with making the daw the slave because it was a better fit for his/her budget/expertise/purposes. I will continue to do that. I'm simply explaining myself as to why I feel it is a better fit for ME to slave the tape deck.
 
sweetbeats said:
Please bear in mind that slaving the tape deck is MORE expensive, MORE complicated, etc. I have, on many occasions, advised an operator to go with making the daw the slave because it was a better fit for his/her budget/expertise/purposes. I will continue to do that. I'm simply explaining myself as to why I feel it is a better fit for ME to slave the tape deck.
Click to expand...

Yes...I always understood the concept of using the more stable device as the clock...however, it just worked out better with my Fostex G-16 for it to be the Master. I initially went the other way when I first set up my DAW, because it just made more sense to let the DAW be Master, but it was not as smooth.
With DAW as Master, with every move on the timeline, the deck would be jumping around trying to follow the playback head of the DAW. Yeah, I could just click on the "SYNC" button at the DAW whenever doing that...but it was one more step in the SOP, and the DAW makes all moves instantaneously, but the deck is always playing the catch-up game.

I did several tests both ways, and having the G-16 as Master ended up being much simpler/smoother and I never noticed that the DAW was working to keep pace. Mind you, I'm not going back-n-forth, it's a straight, one-pass dump, I just start the deck about 20 seconds before the actual start point to let it settle into it's pace...and I do feel that the transport and synchronizer of the G-16 is one of the more rock-solid ones, and I've heard other folks say that about the G-Series decks. They may not have the most stellar reviews for other things (like I wish they made the G-series as a 3-head deck with separate Rec and Rep heads), but everyone always says it is one of the smoothest transports made.

Anyway...IMHO, as I already said earlier, if there's a bit-o-drift or if the DAW pulls a re-sample (which by the way, I'm doing A/D at 24/88.2)....it's still quite good enough for Rock & Roll either way!!! :D
The real up-side of me getting the 24-track is that I will probably not ever need to worry about synchronizing again, as I've got enough tracks to just do a single, "sync-free" dump to DAW, but really, AFA both the my "new" 24-track and the G-16 I'm going to be using the "non-sync" method I mentioned earlier....so there's no need for synchronizers and it's so simple, it's silly-easy.
Of course, for people who can't use both DAW and deck simultaneously during tracking for whatever reason, then the sync may still be needed.

I plan to keep one (I now have two units and two controllers) of the Timeline rigs on hand anyway, for just in case...but I'm going to permanently move to the "non-sync" SOP as it removes both the re-sampling and W&F concerns, and just let both DAW and deck "run free"....which is similar to the CLASP system, and allows the use of the tape in an "as-it-falls" mode, with no concern for location on the tape...so you can then never worry about constant RW/FW when tracking takes...just let the tape run to the end, and only rewind then. :cool:
I really like this "non-sync" approach, it opens up a new way of doing things and getting the most out of the tape with minimal RW/FW.

Oh....which ATX computer power supply did you mod for the MicroLynx? It must have been one capable of multiple voltages/amps, and not just any old PS...?
 
Miroslav, your point about the latency of the tape transport playing catch-up is probably the single greatest reason that most folks slave the daw, and also why I typically will push people that direction while trying to help them understand the pros and cons with regard to the audio and how its handled to keep step. If somebody is doing a lot of transport manipulation in the daw I can totally understand that it could become a productivity issue, particularly if the transport and synchronizer don't behave like my system...and in that case there is also the concern over increase tape path wear if the synchronizer and tape deck team have to do lots of sweeping. In my case I'm not a punch-in kinda fella and am mostly working with straight passes. And I kid you not, most people seem to suggest anwhere from 10 to 20 seconds or pre-roll to resolve the tape deck to the daw, but 3 seconds is overkill with my system, and when you watch my BR-20T resolve in the toughest of situations (which imo is jumping the daw transport like a minute back and then putting it in play mode so the tape deck has to chase to an earlier time and catch it on the fly...you have the challenge of overshoot and the moving target) it diminishes, at least in my mind, the arguments about expediency and tape path wear...i've got a video of my BR-20T in action doing just this and like a rally car driver the Micro Lynx knows how to handle the BR; racing to the corner, cranking the wheel into an oversteer power-slide right into the lane, hitting the right gear and launching forward with sewing machine fluidity (racing in fast wind right to the edge, slowing at the right moment and dropping the lifters and catching it on the uptake without overshoot, a little sweep-sweep, drops into play and in 1-2 seconds I've got subframe accurate resolution). not all systems can do that. I'm happy mine can, but I've experienced the polar opposite with another setup that elicited the proverbial "what a pita!". But for the right system, operator and situation I think setting the most stable device as master is an undeniable course. I think I'm in the minority.

miro, every standard atx computer supply is multi-rail with +/-12v and +5v rails. There is a jumper that needs to be installed to allow the supply to power up outside of the PC, and then I added fuse protection and of course modded the connector to incorporate the din-5 connector...removed all the extranneous output wires and added strain relief to the case. It helps to get a supply that has a built-in switch but its not necessary, especially if you have power distribution or sequening units in your studio. There are atx supply pinouts available online. I used a newish supply from computer scrap. It was free. Make sure you use cabling that can handle the fused power limits. Resist the temptation to hack a midi cable because the wire guage is too small.
 
OK...I'll look into the ATX stuff...not much ion a hurry at the moment about the PS for the MicroLynx as I have one, but since I have a second MicroLynx rig, I wanted to get a PS for it too so that it is a complete setup.


Anyway...I can guess that with the MicroLynx, it's a new ballgame AFA transport control, though mind you, my G-16 synchronizer is pretty darn smooth doing the same stuff you describe with your BR-20. Way back in MIDI days, I use to have my Atari Cubase sequencer synchronized with the G-16 (Cubase had even written a driver specific to the G-16)...and I could pop that sequencer around all day long and my G-16 would go with it (of course, you always have to wait for the RW/FW).
That said...it's that fact that every little move of the DAW playback head makes the deck follow, and if I'm the DAW and doing something basic for a couple of seconds (while deck is sync'd), just a bump of the DAW playback head, and the deck follows (even tough I'm not wanting it to)...so rather than have that situation even occasionally , I opted for the other way around..tape deck as Master, but yeah, I've asked a few other folks about which is theoretically best for Master, and we're all in agreement that DAW timing will always be more solid than tape deck.

When I said the deck as Master is "smoother" and less probalematic...I was mainly referring to that whole mechanical operation, as the deck doesn't move until you tell it, rather than jumping around chasing the DAW.
 
Oh...what were the Amp ratings of the ATX PS you used? I know that you know what you are doing...but I'm just curious if the ATX met or exceeded the required Amp ratings as mentioned in the MicroLynx Manual...?

If you don't mind...can you check the ATX model number for me? I figure why reinvent the wheel if you already have the mod worked out, and I'll just follow what you did.
I don't want to try something with a different PS and end up frying something in the MicroLynx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top