Endless Analog - CLASP

[abbey road d enfer]

I wonder if it can "cleverly" "fill up" the tape. So what I mean is that if you are doing some vocals takes, will the CLASP sort of intelligently record on all tracks on a 2" tape or will it just keep recording and re-recording on track 1 until the user changes it. I mean like, how random access is it?

J

What's the point here? Whatever is recorded wherever on tape does not change anything in terms of tape or head wear.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Apparently these guys have succeeded in making their box appear much more magical than it really is.
In terms of audio, it's just a switcher, probably 48 DPDT relays.
In basic operation (I mean tracking)the signal from the mixer out goes through the tape machine (input>record head>tape>repro head> output) and the DAW is instructed to nudge it forward in order to compenste the machine's delay. Musician's cue is taken from the mixer out. CR monitor is taken from either mixer out or tape out. Ther is no need for any sophisticated control of the tape machine; most of the time, it will be recording. Now I understand they have included an EOT warning. Big deal...
Now, the most complicated part is handling punch-ins. Apparently, the CLASP box switches the cue source from DAW playback to mixer out, and the monitor source from Daw playback to...something else. Could this something else be the tape-delayed mixer out? No. Because DAW playback is not delayed (if it was, it would not work for the musicians). So I bet it just switches to direct (mixer out). That would mean that the magical CLASP effect cannot be heard during punch-ins.
That would be interesting to know; has anybody been given a demo of a punch-in/out situation? How is it handled? Is the tape recorder remote involved?
Now, the box has something else, it has the MIDI connection that allows it to know when the DAW punche in or out, in order to provide the necessary source switching.
In addition, it has the in-built facility of automatic delay assertion.
So' it's a nice packaged, hassle-free solution. Is it worth the price? For me, I don't see the point of spending extra money for dirtying my recordings, but I accept that others would want to.

 

[pucho812]

So' it's a nice packaged, hassle-free solution.

I agree.

 

[ENDLESS ANALOG]

Apparently these guys have succeeded in making their box appear much more magical than it really is.
In terms of audio, it's just a switcher, probably 48 DPDT relays.
In basic operation (I mean tracking)the signal from the mixer out goes through the tape machine (input>record head>tape>repro head> output) and the DAW is instructed to nudge it forward in order to compenste the machine's delay. Musician's cue is taken from the mixer out. CR monitor is taken from either mixer out or tape out. Ther is no need for any sophisticated control of the tape machine; most of the time, it will be recording. Now I understand they have included an EOT warning. Big deal...
Now, the most complicated part is handling punch-ins. Apparently, the CLASP box switches the cue source from DAW playback to mixer out, and the monitor source from Daw playback to...something else. Could this something else be the tape-delayed mixer out? No. Because DAW playback is not delayed (if it was, it would not work for the musicians). So I bet it just switches to direct (mixer out). That would mean that the magical CLASP effect cannot be heard during punch-ins.
That would be interesting to know; has anybody been given a demo of a punch-in/out situation? How is it handled? Is the tape recorder remote involved?
Now, the box has something else, it has the MIDI connection that allows it to know when the DAW punche in or out, in order to provide the necessary source switching.
In addition, it has the in-built facility of automatic delay assertion.
So' it's a nice packaged, hassle-free solution. Is it worth the price? For me, I don't see the point of spending extra money for dirtying my recordings, but I accept that others would want to.

@ Abbey Road d enfer

I appreciate your enthusiasm towards my complex system that I just spent the past five years developing to finally make available to analog enthusiasts. As far as what is happening under the hood and behind the scenes, CLASP is much more sophisticated much more complex than what you have described. Engineers and designers both that either own the system or that have had quality time with the CLASP respect the amount of engineering that has gone to designing the CLASP. It a system that you need to experience in person to appreciate.

As for 'dirtying the signal' ANY piece of gear inserted into the signal chain, analog tape, eq, compressor, etc. effects the signal or dirties it to a certain extent. Not ALL analog machines sound 'dirty' and there is a good reason that professional engineers, producers and recording artists want 'the sound of analog tape' what ever the reason from a technical stand point is irrelevant. The bottom line is that real tape is a sound that people find pleasing to the ear weather technically right or wrong.

Where are you located? We are happy to offer you a private demo of the CLASP. This will give you a better understanding of how it functions, what's really in it, and just how elegant a solution it is. PM me and we can set something up.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

  As far as what is happening under the hood and behind the scenes, CLASP is much more sophisticated much more complex than what you have described.

Are you gonna tell me that there is anything other than switching in terms of audio processing? If yes, I would be very curious about it.

Engineers and designers both that either own the system or that have had quality time with the CLASP respect the amount of engineering that has gone to designing the CLASP.

The OT is exactly about the the lack of explanation as to what the box does. How could engineers and designers judge its technical content?

Not ALL analog machines sound 'dirty' and there is a good reason that professional engineers, producers and recording artists want 'the sound of analog tape' what ever the reason from a technical stand point is irrelevant. The bottom line is that real tape is a sound that people find pleasing to the ear weather technically right or wrong. Don't misunderstand me; I loved tape machines, when they were the only choice.

I've never been so happy as the day I knew I could do high-quality recordings without having to suffer tape deficiencies. Tape noise, fluctuations and dynamics squashing have never appealed to me.

Where are you located? We are happy to offer you a private demo of the CLASP. This will give you a better understanding of how it functions, what's really in it, and just how elegant a solution it is.

Its an elegant solution to a non-existing problem for me. But I appreciate the fact that you spent some time designing and building it, and wish you good sales.
Now the real question is, will people buy more records if they are produced with CLASP? I don't think so. I was there when Aphex came. All my friends who were not in the audio business didn't know and didn't care about it; they continued to buy records because of the songs.

 

[MikoKensington]

I've never been so happy as the day I knew I could do high-quality recordings without having to suffer tape deficiencies. Tape noise, fluctuations and dynamics squashing have never appealed to me.

Wow.  Give this man some ADAT's and a D8B.

 

[Crusty2]

.
That would be interesting to know; has anybody been given a demo of a punch-in/out situation? How is it handled? Is the tape recorder remote involved?

I haven't seen the unit, but just thinking about it I would guess that the recorder is always recording, just like a slap machine would be; no timecode or sync needed - tape doesn't care where it is. The track (DAW, of course) you are punching into would already have the tape jizz recorded to it and be aligned with all the other pre-recorded tracks. When you are punching, the switcher box flips you to input and back to DAW monitor when you punch out, like you described.

I guess it's hard for some to understand why a lot of people would be excited about this box. But having many clients insist on recording to tape and then dumping into a DAW, having a box that can handle it so effortlessly would make it a must-have for many. I am of the "Let it die already" school, but the client is always right and those who are into old Neves and pultecs and plate reverbs are still very much into tape...

 

[Matthew Jacobs]

I wonder if it can "cleverly" "fill up" the tape. So what I mean is that if you are doing some vocals takes, will the CLASP sort of intelligently record on all tracks on a 2" tape or will it just keep recording and re-recording on track 1 until the user changes it. I mean like, how random access is it?

J

What's the point here? Whatever is recorded wherever on tape does not change anything in terms of tape or head wear.

Thanks Abbey Road for your reply and MikoKensington for your previous explanation.

I have never really worked with high end tape machines. My only experience is with a Fostex R8 that I own.

Let me kind of try to explain what I mean...

Let's say you have to record "a not so capable" vocalist and you have to do 100 takes. Now using the CLASP system, as MikoKensington explained "CLASP IN 1 goes to Tape in 1 to Tape out 1 to A/D in 1 to D/A 1 to CLASP DAW return 1 to CLASP Monitor out 1".

I'm just thinking, wouldn't "take 100" be much lower quality than "take 1"? One would have to change tape or change track to preserve quality right. This has to be done manually right? I was just wondering if the CLASP can do this automatically as it was stated that it is Random Access. So I was just wondering if it was that clever or would you still have to keep a eye on it and manually change recording path or tracks. Or are high grade machine so good, that the tape still sound good after 100 recordings --> erasing --> re-recording? (like I said my only experience is a Fostex R8 and it sure as hell wouldn't sound good after 5 takes let alone 100 takes...)

J

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I've never been so happy as the day I knew I could do high-quality recordings without having to suffer tape deficiencies. Tape noise, fluctuations and dynamics squashing have never appealed to me.

Wow.  Give this man some ADAT's and a D8B.

I mentioned high-quality recordings. Fortunately for me, I've gone directly from Studer/Ampex/Saturn to 24bit A/D. I've managed to stay away from the DASH/Prodigi/ADAT/DAT/1630/SoundTools/16bit DAW saga.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

  I'm just thinking, wouldn't "take 100" be much lower quality than "take 1"?

Technically speaking, it all depends... If these 100 takes are done in  a sequence that happens to be on a single run of tape, these recordings will be scattered on the tape and each one should be as fresh as can be. Now, since tape is gonna be used several times, it will deteriorate somewhat, but in fact much less than if the punch-ins were done on tape, all at the same place.

One would have to change tape

yes, probably after it has been run 50 or 100 times, depending on the operators thoroughness (and budget)

or change track to preserve quality right.

Tracks don't deteriorate by being recorded or erased. It's only the mechanical wear that matters.

This has to be done manually right? I was just wondering if the CLASP can do this automatically as it was stated that it is Random Access.

My understanding is that they use the term Random Access as in RAM, which the tape recorder is in this configuration. Access is random in the sense that the system does not need to adress a specific location on tape to achieve its functionality.

So I was just wondering if it was that clever or would you still have to keep a eye on it and manually change recording path or tracks.

I reckon the only important thing to keep an eye on is that the tape is rolling. That's why the EOT warning is there.

Or are high grade machine so good, that the tape still sound good after 100 recordings --> erasing --> re-recording?

There would be some tape wear, regardless of it being recorded and erased; a good tape should not present any significant sound degradation afetr 100 passes. Think of it, in the last century, when engineers mixed from tape, they had to play the same sections dozens and dozens of times (with the help of Autolocator) in order to achieve whatever level of perfection they had chosen to adhere.

(like I said my only experience is a Fostex R8 and it sure as hell wouldn't sound good after 5 takes let alone 100 takes...)

Which is not normal. Many people have accepted this as an  inevitable flaw of cost-effective tape machines such as Tascam and Fostex, but these machines need to be maintained, in particular the mechanical part of them, guides, tape-rollers, bearings, heads. Most of these machines are now more than 10 years old and have never seen the shadow of a maintenance engineer.
You would be surprised how well an R8 behaves when properly pampered.

 

[SSLtech]

I've never been so happy as the day I knew I could do high-quality recordings without having to suffer tape deficiencies. Tape noise, fluctuations and dynamics squashing have never appealed to me.

Wow.  Give this man some ADAT's and a D8B.

Let's not be so hasty...

LOTS of classical engineers JOYFULLY switched to digital even with its early limitations, because the dynamic range of analog tape is so lamentably inadequate for so many projects.

I'm afraid I'm mainly with Geoff, and I don't hanker dreadfully for the effects of tape for the overwhelming majority of my projects these days.

Keith

 

[SSLtech]

I've had dozens of people asking me what I think about this and I still CANNOT get excited.

It seems to be a 'facilitator' box. It doesn't actually achieve anything SONICALLY which you can't get with a 2" machine and some cables... but it makes monitoring easier, makes the delay-correction easier, and eliminates synchronization (which I've never needed to do anyhow... at least, not to do what this box does.)

It DOESN'T remove any digital conversion artifacts or issues from the signal path, and I believe Geoff is correct that the only thing in the signal path is switching.

The 'elegance' of the system is in making the path-routing switching automatic, and making the delay correction automatic.

But since I've never struggled with any of these things, I simply don't feel the need. -And since I do not hunger to return to limited dynamic range, alignment and path problems, head wear, intermodulation distortion, modulation noise and 'thousand natural shocks which tape is heir to' -to paraphrase the bard- I feel no hunger for the system.

In four words: -I don't get it.

Unless it's just a box to 'solve problems' for people who can't figure out ways to solve (what are far from difficult) 'problems' on their own.

...then I get it.

I just don't need it.

Keith

 

[ENDLESS ANALOG]

I've had dozens of people asking me what I think about this and I still CANNOT get excited.

It seems to be a 'facilitator' box. It doesn't actually achieve anything SONICALLY which you can't get with a 2" machine and some cables... but it makes monitoring easier, makes the delay-correction easier, and eliminates synchronization (which I've never needed to do anyhow... at least, not to do what this box does.)

It DOESN'T remove any digital conversion artifacts or issues from the signal path, and I believe Geoff is correct that the only thing in the signal path is switching.

The 'elegance' of the system is in making the path-routing switching automatic, and making the delay correction automatic.

But since I've never struggled with any of these things, I simply don't feel the need. -And since I do not hunger to return to limited dynamic range, alignment and path problems, head wear, intermodulation distortion, modulation noise and 'thousand natural shocks which tape is heir to' -to paraphrase the bard- I feel no hunger for the system.

In four words: -I don't get it.

Unless it's just a box to 'solve problems' for people who can't figure out ways to solve (what are far from difficult) 'problems' on their own.

...then I get it.

I just don't need it.

Keith

Thanks Keith,

It's not for everyone. The people that use it love it, but they also love the sound of tape. Weather it's right or wrong is not the issue it's just personal preference. We happen to love the sound of tape and so do our users. Peace

 

[bitman]

I almost have the clasp-like setup going in my studio without even trying.

The mics come in and are spilt. One side goes to the preamp/AD and the other part of the split is monitored for 0 latency monitoring. I run 1024 byte ASIO buffers so the delay through the daw is huge but that is so I can run lots of plugs through out the project.

For overdubs we monitor the mix off the daw but the daw (Sonar) auto-calcs the delay and lines up the incoming overdub signal to sample accuracy. I can tweak the delay by samples to help Sonar line it up.
This is a set and forget setting and works then all the time.

It seems that I could add a R2R into the path to the DAW and only need to increase the sample delay to compensate for the additional delay. 

I have a 2 track hung off the 2 buss. I might try it on the input to prove it.

And I thought this might be a ho-hum week.