Tape sync questions

[EmilFrid]

To the helpful people in here: i posted the sync circuit schemo early in the thread. If I were to experiment with external sync boxes, is there any way to do it via this sync input? I guess I'd need something generating a frequency from the code, in order for it to work. Other than this, I think connecting stuff to the sync input of the tape machine should be easy: short out the "int/ext" pins and hook up a frequency to "ext freq."

Edit: I mean, I know I need pulses, but maybe the interface of my machine, with a reference freq of 9.6kHz, will need those pulses to be modified.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

To the helpful people in here: i posted the sync circuit schemo early in the thread. If I were to experiment with external sync boxes, is there any way to do it via this sync input? I guess I'd need something generating a frequency from the code, in order for it to work. Other than this, I think connecting stuff to the sync input of the tape machine should be easy: short out the "int/ext" pins and hook up a frequency to "ext freq."

I wouldn’t be shorting anything without knowing what the outcome will be.
The user manual section 7.7 says the sync input is for smpte etc ( not sure what the etc means!). The int/ext is to select if sync reference comes from the machine or externally - this may be for a clock signal. You can’t just “hook up a frequency” the signal is expected to contain positional data like in a SMPTE time code stream. The sync input I don’t think can carry transport control information as would be apparent on the remote connector socket. The remote does start, stop, play, rewind etc and this won’t be carried in time code. That’s why they built synchronisers to carry all the functions of a controller and also read/generate motor tach info when SMPTE read off tape is not available when spooling. I imagine the synchroniser is connected to the remote controller input as it has all the required tally lines for operation.

 

[guy_4]

To the helpful people in here: i posted the sync circuit schemo early in the thread. If I were to experiment with external sync boxes, is there any way to do it via this sync input? I guess I'd need something generating a frequency from the code, in order for it to work. Other than this, I think connecting stuff to the sync input of the tape machine should be easy: short out the "int/ext" pins and hook up a frequency to "ext freq."

Edit: I mean, I know I need pulses, but maybe the interface of my machine, with a reference freq of 9.6kHz, will need those pulses to be modified.

Hello EmilFrid,

On your synchroniser you need two cables :
1/ the dedicated remote control cable for your Tascam 85-16, that will send transport signals, tallies, capstan Internal / External switching, and the 9,6 kHz signal that will control the capstan speed,
2/ A Mic cable that will send the TC Out track to the " TC reader " input of the synchroniser

When you'll switch " OnLIne " on your synchroniser panel control for the Tascam, the logic IC's inside will switch the Casptan Control from the internal circuit of the Tascam to the 9.6KHz sent by the synchroniser.

Best,
Guy

 

[EmilFrid]

Hello EmilFrid,

On your synchroniser you need two cables :
1/ the dedicated remote control cable for your Tascam 85-16, that will send transport signals, tallies, capstan Internal / External switching, and the 9,6 kHz signal that will control the capstan speed,
2/ A Mic cable that will send the TC Out track to the " TC reader " input of the synchroniser

When you'll switch " OnLIne " on your synchroniser panel control for the Tascam, the logic IC's inside will switch the Casptan Control from the internal circuit of the Tascam to the 9.6KHz sent by the synchroniser.

Best,
Guy

Thanks for the info. I will see what I can accomplish. This is so foreign to me, so I'm sorry for all the (perhaps) stupid questions.
Home sick atm but I will be back in the studio tomorrow night and have a look. There used to be a film studio on the same floor and I know they left some boxes behind...

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

Reaper as master will not issue any transport control commands either, only SMPTE code, so you would need a synchroniser that actually creates the signals for play, stop, fast forward and rewind and of course the capstan control and location chase from the SMPTE on tape. It will not be able to pass on record in/out from Reaper - this would be done from the synchroniser remote - the synchroniser itself would have a socket (that mimics the remote socket on the tape machine) so it’s own remote can control the machine if it’s a two part synchroniser. You would need to be sure that if you buy anything:
1 that it has all the components required to control the machine including the remote control panel or compatible to connect your existing remote (if you possess one) including the cable to connect to the tape machine that is correctly wired to tally to your machines remote input pinout, as guy 4 mentions above.
(Normally these signals come from a master tape machine to the synchroniser via the remote cable connection and some synchronisers will have their own remote control panel for dual machine control).
2 the chase of Reapers position and lock to play will always have a bigger lag time than two tape machines locking. Reaper doesn’t slow down after scrolling - fast forward or rewind is just the click of a mouse button to a new location - you will have to wait once you press play in Reaper for the tape machine to catch up - rewind or fast forward to position and then drop into play to sync up - for transitions from say start of song to end of song it’ll be a long wait for sync, and variable so you can’t set accurate pre-roll locator positioning as tape spooling time varies according to distance tape has to travel.
Edit: most importantly the synchroniser is able to generate commands from a simple SMPTE or MTC derived from Reaper.
A two machine synchroniser will learn each machine’s capability for braking and chase sync and will adjust to optimise lockup - can’t do that with Reaper as it can’t provide that sort of info.
Using the tape machine as master you don’t have this problem - lockup is instantaneous or close to it when you hit play on the tape deck as the software doesn’t need to chase.
It already works fine using SMPTE chase in Reaper as you previously posted.
Some people have expressed interest in the past in a software add on to output Sony 9 pin transport control functionality:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=58127
Maybe by now someone has come up with a solution

 

[EmilFrid]

Reaper as master will not issue any transport control commands either, only SMPTE code, so you would need a synchroniser that actually creates the signals for play, stop, fast forward and rewind and of course the capstan control and location chase from the SMPTE on tape. It will not be able to pass on record in/out from Reaper - this would be done from the synchroniser remote - the synchroniser itself would have a socket (that mimics the remote socket on the tape machine) so it’s own remote can control the machine if it’s a two part synchroniser. You would need to be sure that if you buy anything:
1 that it has all the components required to control the machine including the remote control panel or compatible to connect your existing remote (if you possess one) including the cable to connect to the tape machine that is correctly wired to tally to your machines remote input pinout, as guy 4 mentions above.
(Normally these signals come from a master tape machine to the synchroniser via the remote cable connection and some synchronisers will have their own remote control panel for dual machine control).
2 the chase of Reapers position and lock to play will always have a bigger lag time than two tape machines locking. Reaper doesn’t slow down after scrolling - fast forward or rewind is just the click of a mouse button to a new location - you will have to wait once you press play in Reaper for the tape machine to catch up - rewind or fast forward to position and then drop into play to sync up - for transitions from say start of song to end of song it’ll be a long wait for sync, and variable so you can’t set accurate pre-roll locator positioning as tape spooling time varies according to distance tape has to travel.
Edit: most importantly the synchroniser is able to generate commands from a simple SMPTE or MTC derived from Reaper.
A two machine synchroniser will learn each machine’s capability for braking and chase sync and will adjust to optimise lockup - can’t do that with Reaper as it can’t provide that sort of info.
Using the tape machine as master you don’t have this problem - lockup is instantaneous or close to it when you hit play on the tape deck as the software doesn’t need to chase.
It already works fine using SMPTE chase in Reaper as you previously posted.
Some people have expressed interest in the past in a software add on to output Sony 9 pin transport control functionality:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=58127
Maybe by now someone has come up with a solution

Thanks. Yes, i know Reaper's transport buttons won't affect the tape machine without any special circuitry. It would have been cool to be able to make the tape machine tell Reaper where to start, but having Reaper send the running code to the tape machine. I realize this is a very complicated setup, probably too complicated. The fact that the tape machine has to rewind to find Reaper's position isn't something that would bother me though, as I'd have to wait for the machine to rewind anyway. I guess one way would be to move position in Reaper while still in pause and have Reaper send the new position only once to the tape machine, and after the tape machine is done rewinding, hit play in Reaper.
But as previously stated, this is just a weird topic bouncing around in my head, something I don't have to do but just find interesting. As you said, it already works well to have Reaper chase and for any serious work I'd probably leave it that way. Only problem I noticed last time I tried my setup was that Reaper drifted and re-synchronized a bit too much. Still works well, but there are some things to work out.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

Best bet is to set a pre-roll amount on your tape locator if using preset location points in Reaper to allow time enough for the two to sync properly. Because the tape takes a second or two to come to speed this may be the reason - if you have a fair few plugins, especially virtual instruments like software synths it’s wise if in mixdown mode to set your sample buffer size to highest possible if you’re getting glitching- avoiding odd buffer sizes that are not a multiple of 16 - if you’re on Mac you can use Activity Monitor to watch your CPU to see if it momentarily maxes out - this can cause glitches.
Also enabling multiple core use In Reaper, go to Options, Preferences, Audio, Buffering. At the top enable the check box “Auto-detect the number of needed audio processing threads”. You can also un-check this box and manually enter the number of core threads you want Reaper to use.

• Set “Thread priority” to “Highest (recommended)” and “Behavior” to match the number of core threads on your system setting this number to match the number above it, listed after “Audio reading/processing threads”.
• Enable the check box “Anticipative FX processing – superior multiprocessing and lower interface latencies”.
• Enable the check box “Allow live FX-multiprocessing on X CPUs”, and set the number of CPUs in this edit box to match the number of CPU cores listed or selected at the top of the dialog.
• Click Apply, OK.
• Right click on each plugin track holding plugins that you want to include in multi-core processing.
• Mouse down over “Track Performance Options”, Check “Allow media buffering”, Check “Allow anticipative FX”, Check “Enable track metering”.
• Save your project, Close Reaper, and Relaunch Reaper to make sure that the new settings are loaded.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

The fact that the tape machine has to rewind to find Reaper's position isn't something that would bother me though, as I'd have to wait for the machine to rewind anyway. I guess one way would be to move position in Reaper while still in pause and have Reaper send the new position only once to the tape machine, and after the tape machine is done rewinding, hit play in Reaper.

Yeah - the problem is Reaper needs to play and stay playing long enough for the tape machine to get there and start playing in sync - but then you need to re-locate to the actual desired start position with an anticipated pre-roll to allow the tape machine to relocate again. Ever diminishing returns.

 

[EmilFrid]

Yeah - the problem is Reaper needs to play and stay playing long enough for the tape machine to get there and start playing in sync - but then you need to re-locate to the actual desired start position with an anticipated pre-roll to allow the tape machine to relocate again. Ever diminishing returns.

Thanks a lot for those insights. I will follow you advice and do some experimenting. It's working quite well now, so if it gets better it would be close to perfection.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

There used to be issues with Rewire apps connected to Cubase etc. when the track position landed in an area where lots of VST instruments had to load simultaneously - any DAW with look-ahead features would overcome this for the DAW itself but not the Rewired device unless it had look-ahead, but the sudden CPU load from all the plugins could still cause hiccups - if you came in before they all started by a 1/2 bar or so, no problem if you were close to overload threshold. Tracks with lots of insert plugins, especially reverbs, cause the same. I usually minimise reverbs and send to them on an effects track allowing multiple tracks to access as they’re CPU heavy - I never insert them on a track or you end up with a bucketload of reverbs loading the CPU.

 

[EmilFrid]

There used to be issues with Rewire apps connected to Cubase etc. when the track position landed in an area where lots of VST instruments had to load simultaneously - any DAW with look-ahead features would overcome this for the DAW itself but not the Rewired device unless it had look-ahead, but the sudden CPU load from all the plugins could still cause hiccups - if you came in before they all started by a 1/2 bar or so, no problem if you were close to overload threshold. Tracks with lots of insert plugins, especially reverbs, cause the same. I usually minimise reverbs and send to them on an effects track allowing multiple tracks to access as they’re CPU heavy - I never insert them on a track or you end up with a bucketload of reverbs loading the CPU.

Since I never record digitally I only want to use this sync thing to be able to use software sequencers and drum machines, so hopefully overload won't be a problem. All my fx are hardware

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

Since I never record digitally I only want to use this sync thing to be able to use software sequencers and drum machines, so hopefully overload won't be a problem. All my fx are hardware

Nice and easy then. I work in a studio with 36Ch analog desk and analog hardware fx but we record to digital. It’d be nice to have a 24 track in there.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

In the ‘90s working with 2 x 24 track Studer A820 tape machines synched together for many years I got used to double editing - edit one you edit the other.
One song I recorded we had very little time so we just did 4 or 5 continuous takes, one after the other, no drop-ins. There were 13 people in the band. Then we used a song chart made from photocopied track sheets and chose the best parts, line by line from each take, to assemble into a song. Then I had to cut, number and then stitch all the bits together to make one song. 65 edits in total (times 2 as they were on 2 machines). Quite a challenge but really enjoyable - easy enough using the splicing blocks fitted to each machine. Chinagraph pencils and razorblades. Restriped SMPTE, set the offset - I had a ruler slap recorded simultaneously on both machines at the beginning of tape and used that to line them up, read the code from each and work out the required offset.

 

[EmilFrid]

In the ‘90s working with 2 x 24 track Studer A820 tape machines synched together for many years I got used to double editing - edit one you edit the other.
One song I recorded we had very little time so we just did 4 or 5 continuous takes, one after the other, no drop-ins. There were 13 people in the band. Then we used a song chart made from photocopied track sheets and chose the best parts, line by line from each take, to assemble into a song. Then I had to cut, number and then stitch all the bits together to make one song. 65 edits in total (times 2 as they were on 2 machines). Quite a challenge but really enjoyable - easy enough using the splicing blocks fitted to each machine. Chinagraph pencils and razorblades. Restriped SMPTE, set the offset - I had a ruler slap recorded simultaneously on both machines at the beginning of tape and used that to line them up, read the code from each and work out the required offset.

Pheew that is some serious effort. I bet you were sweaty after all was done!

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

Pheew that is some serious effort. I bet you were sweaty after all was done!

Yeah - 2 songs, 2 days, 2 different bands for an AC/DC tribute covers album for BMG. We did Jailbreak and Ride On. Lucky there was a swimming pool at the studio - I actually lived there in the main house on 72 acres in the Byron Bay hinterland.

 

[EmilFrid]

Yeah - 2 songs, 2 days, 2 different bands for an AC/DC tribute covers album for BMG. We did Jailbreak and Ride On. Lucky there was a swimming pool at the studio - I actually lived there in the main house on 72 acres in the Byron Bay hinterland.

Sounds very nice. Did you end up messing up any of those intricate edits?

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

Sounds very nice. Did you end up messing up any of those intricate edits?

Nope. Didn’t make a single mistake. The producer was Kevin “Caveman” Shirley and when he arrived for the session he asked how my tape editing skills were, I said pretty good and he replied great, they’d better be ‘cos we’ll be doing a lot of editing. Wasn’t wrong there. We had bits of tape hanging off dowels and sticks and mic stand boom arms all around the control room - each piece of tape numbered and with an additional A for machine A and B for machine B as the same place piece for both machines had to be inserted - the band didn’t play to a click, so there would be a few milliseconds difference for the same passage from a different take. Here’s one of the tracks - the one with 65 edits:

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

When I did the edits I had also noted the timecode position of each to be inserted piece into take 1 on the charts and manually took each reel through after editing to check I had the right bits in the right places - as they could no longer sync properly with timecode jumps everywhere! Because both machines had been SMPTE striped simultaneously the edit points were at identical positions for each reel. Started at the ends and worked back from there cutting the pieces out and rejoining tape to be able to keep spooling back.

 

[EmilFrid]

When I did the edits I had also noted the timecode position of each to be inserted piece into take 1 on the charts and manually took each reel through after editing to check I had the right bits in the right places - as they could no longer sync properly with timecode jumps everywhere! Because both machines had been SMPTE striped simultaneously the edit points were at identical positions for each reel. Started at the ends and worked back from there cutting the pieces out and rejoining tape to be able to keep spooling back.

Very impressive. You should teach this stuff. I'm confident regarding my splicing abilities but would enjoy some tips and tricks from a more experienced engineer. In a way, this has been approaching the domain of lost arts for a number of years now, but I am optimistic about the future of magnetic tape, as I see other engineers my own age fed up with screens and the capricious and impermanent nature of 1's and 0's, and instead diving into the analog realm. Some of them are bound to give up on it for a variety of reasons, but I see many sticking to it. I think this would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. And as for the bands getting recorded, they're pleased to know that their work has a greater chance of surviving for many years. They also tell me they enjoy the workflow – rewind time giving you a few seconds to reflect, the absence of a screen in the control room inevitably encouraging you to listen to, rather than watching, the music, and so on.

Funny thing is, people getting into tape for "warmth" or other sonic reasons are usually the ones eventually opting out, when they realize a clean, well-calibrated tape machine is hard to separate from a high resolution digital file. And then they might as well return to more familiar realms.

I'm not shitting on digital at all, but I see a lot of advantages to the analog process and in my world it outweighs the advantages of digital.


But I digress, maybe this discussion should be moved to a more appropriate part of the forum, as I feel we might be stealing the limelight from other threads that are more appropriate under the banner of "drawing board", hehe.

It's nice to hear your stories.

 

[RoadrunnerOZ]

In the early days of digital we were only able to compare analog to digital with the quality of what was available. I was lucky enough to have a ProTools HD system which used a Yamaha 02R as a front end as well as an MCI JH24 plus two Studer A820’s and could compare the two recording formats with each other. The consensus at the time was that the digital recording was very clean but sounded “clinical” by comparison to the same recording done to tape - seemed to lack warmth. Natural tape compression and the effect of saturation in my mind at the time made tape a superior medium. Comparing CD masters with two track 1/2” masters or vinyl gave the same impression. Also at the time CDs were coming in you could buy the same product on vinyl and on CD thus also compare.
Roll on 30+ years and we have great digital gear with really top end preamps etc. and we’re still using plugins to emulate tape, various preamps and compressors and so on.
I use a 36 channel Neve 5106 desk in the studio - all recording and some mixdown is done through this beast - recorded drums need virtually no post treatment other than a little EQ - nice pair of Coles 4038 ribbon mics for overheads really adds to the mix.