Re: Dumping analog to digital question

[Mike]

(Art Rocker) wrote in
m:

> could I record 8 tracks, then
> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>


I don't understand what the difference is between doing that & just
bouncing tracks in the VS. ??

[MagicaIist]

>Mike wrote:

(Art Rocker) wrote in
m:
>
>> could I record 8 tracks, then
>> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>>
>
>
>I don't understand what the difference is between doing that & just
>bouncing tracks in the VS. ??
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bouncing tracks on the VS-840 is great in theory, but I have been unable to do
it EVER. Because I record using the machine's highest sample rate (it's called
Master mode), I am lucky if I can even fill up 6 of the 8 tracks before I start
getting "Drive Error" messages that shut down the machine. The Zip discs that
the VS-840 uses fill up very fast it seems.

Also, the way the guy on Ebay advertises the Tape machine-- warm analog, hot
levels, classic sound, compression--made me want to get it. I think Helium used
one of these to track their first record.

I need more tracks. I'll probably just get the Digi 001, but I like the idea of
tape after reading about that whole "latency" bull****.

Thanks,
Stash

[georgeh]

The Otaris had SMPTE capability IIRC. But that means you'd need to stripe
a track, so you could only record 7 on the Otari. You could probably find
a box (maybe an old JL Cooper) to convert the SMPTE to MTC so the VS-840
could chase the Otari w/o needing to stripe a track on that side.
That would give you frame accuracy (but not sample if that is important
to you).

(Art Rocker) writes:

>This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&category=15199

>In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.

>I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>VS-840 and so on, and so on?

>How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
>tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Art Rocker" > wrote in message m...
> Hello,
>
> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>
> http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&category=15199
>
> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>
> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
> VS-840 and so on, and so on?

I'm not a Roland user... I've just stumbled into them on occasion.

Wouldn't the dumping of all 8 tracks to a single track of the VS
make 7 of them load as 'virtual' tracks? Meaning that you could
only pick one of them from the respective VS track to play back
in the mix?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[P Stamler]

The guy selling the deck says (his spelling):

<<Extreamely low noise for an analog machine, noise reduction not required for
use with digital systems. >>

Uh-uh. This is an 8-track 1/2" machine, which means the signal-to-noise ratio
is about 3-4dB worse on each track than a professional (8-track 1", 16-track
2") recorder. Even with hot tapes, the signal-to-noise on each track, without
noise reduction, is going to be marginal, and once you combine 8 tracks (or
more) it'll be something on the order of a type I cassette deck. No, these
machines need noise reduction for adequate quiet, and that noise reduction, in
my experience, kills all that nice "tape warmth" everyone likes, when it isn't
also killing all the highs because the deck wasn't quite aligned right.

If you want more tracks, save up for a 1" 8-track deck, or stay with digital.

Peace,
Paul

[zionstrat]

(Art Rocker) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>
> http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&category=15199
>
> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>
> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>
> How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
> tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>
> Is this sort of thing at all advisable? I just want more tracks as
> cheaply and as simply as possible?
>
> Is the sound quality of this tape recorder any good?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Alvin

Alvin-
Sounds like the advertisers is putting a tremendous amount of spin if
it is pitched as an analog answer to more tracks- There are much
better ways to do this if that is your goal. It sounds like they are
taking advantage of the old myth that you need to record to analog
first before you transfer to digital for 'warmth'. As an effect,
analog is certainly one possibility, but not the best choice if you
are simply trying to get more tracks. Consider:

1. Do you want a linear format (tape?)- If so there are many digital
formats to choose from that would allow you to keep digital from the
first recording. I don't know the VS-840, but most modern gear will
synch with an Adat, DA88, etc.

2. If you are interested in nonlinear editing, you might be ready to
move up to a digital workstation that would probably expand your
mixing and editing- It might be worth synching or even dumping core
tracks before you start overdubs.

Hope this helps-

[Lowndes]

I think the seller is saying: lay down 8 tracks, dump to the digital
recorder - then while monitoring the digital recorder, record through the
deck, monitoring repro - while dumping into the recorder in realtime, making
the delay compensation afterwards. No SMPTE or sync needed. I wonder if
this would work

-Paul

"georgeh" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Otaris had SMPTE capability IIRC. But that means you'd need to stripe
> a track, so you could only record 7 on the Otari. You could probably find
> a box (maybe an old JL Cooper) to convert the SMPTE to MTC so the VS-840
> could chase the Otari w/o needing to stripe a track on that side.
> That would give you frame accuracy (but not sample if that is important
> to you).
>
> (Art Rocker) writes:
>
> >This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>
>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&category=
15199
>
> >In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
> >tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>
> >I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
> >this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
> >transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
> >8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
> >VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>
> >How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
> >tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>

[Aaron J. Grier]

Art Rocker > wrote:
> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
[link to MX5050mkIII 1/2" 8-track removed]
> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.

you'd be bouncing tracks with the help of a second multitrack.

> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
> VS-840 and so on, and so on?

sure. you could also do it with another VS-840 or any other multitrack
machine.

> How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
> tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?

in the case of the otari you'd stripe one of the tracks with SMPTE, and
then chase the VS-840 to it as you dump out more tracks to the otari.
then you do a "pre-mixdown" and chase the VS-840 with the signal going
from the otari through your mixer to a single track on the VS-840.

be aware that the SMPTE stripe will burn one track on the otari leaving
you with only 7 tracks available for bounce mixdown. (and SMPTE has a
tendency to bleed to an adjacent track on these narrow format machines,
so depending on tape and calibration, you might only have 6 usable
tracks in practice.)

> Is this sort of thing at all advisable?

if you have to ask, it's probably not. I would suggest investigating if
there's some way you could expand your roland unit (add a hard drive?)
so you can bounce "in the machine" and failing that, getting another
digital multitrack (maybe another VS-840?) and use it to bounce with.

> I just want more tracks as cheaply and as simply as possible?

stay away from analog, then. (: tape machines are not for the faint of
heart, and unless you are willing to learn the ins and outs of deck
maintenance or hire a technician, you will either get frustrated, or get
****-poor recordings. you cannot just buy a tape deck and expect it to
work reliably or consistently without any maintenance. analog decks
need much more care and feeding than their digital bretheren. (or
should I say "digital analogs"?)

> Is the sound quality of this tape recorder any good?

I'm fond of mine. I've recently been running it without noise reduction
with 406 tape, and the tape hiss is noticable and inoffensive, provided
I lay off heavy compression on mixdown. your mileage would vary
depending on what tape you use and how the machine is calibrated.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

P Stamler > wrote:

> The guy selling the deck says (his spelling):
>
> <<Extreamely low noise for an analog machine, noise reduction not required for
> use with digital systems. >>
>
> Uh-uh. This is an 8-track 1/2" machine, which means the signal-to-noise ratio
> is about 3-4dB worse on each track than a professional (8-track 1", 16-track
> 2") recorder. Even with hot tapes, the signal-to-noise on each track, without
> noise reduction, is going to be marginal, and once you combine 8 tracks (or
> more) it'll be something on the order of a type I cassette deck. No, these
> machines need noise reduction for adequate quiet, and that noise reduction, in
> my experience, kills all that nice "tape warmth" everyone likes, when it isn't
> also killing all the highs because the deck wasn't quite aligned right.
>
> If you want more tracks, save up for a 1" 8-track deck, or stay with digital.

Come on, Paul. His "Extremely low noise" line is bull****, but you
make it sound like a 1/2" 8-track is unusable. I've made lots of great
records on this format, without noise reduction, and noise is NOT a
problem. 1/2" 8-track at 15ips is a LONG way from 1/8" 4-track at
1.875ips and really not very far away from 2" 16-track at 15ips.

Aside from that, it sounds like the original poster has no idea what
makes an analog recorder desirable and undesirable, and should probably
not bother with this stuff unless he wants to open a great big can of
hassle, expense, maintenance, and general failure to do any recording
while he finds out what analog recorders are all about.

ulysses

[Mike Caffrey]

In article >,
(georgeh) wrote:

> The Otaris had SMPTE capability IIRC. But that means you'd need to stripe
> a track, so you could only record 7 on the Otari. You could probably find
> a box (maybe an old JL Cooper) to convert the SMPTE to MTC so the VS-840
> could chase the Otari w/o needing to stripe a track on that side.
> That would give you frame accuracy (but not sample if that is important
> to you).
>

You'd only need to stripe for overdubs.

You could filll 8 tracks and then dump. At that point I'd strip and make a
submix back on to the analog tape. Then add 5 tracks and dump them in snyc
with the previously dumped tracks.

Or learn the head gap and transfer the tracks out of the digital machine
through the analog machine in repro and silde the tracks back so tey are
synced with the first ones.

Or track everything to digital and then run everything through the analog
machine with the heads in repro after all the tracking is done. Then all
the tracks will have been delayed identically. This gives you 2 extra
conversions which might outweigh the benefits of the analog sound.

Or keep it simple and track the rhythm section to 8 tracks of analog,
dump and record all overdubs straight to digital. Not all of your trakcs
will hit analog tape, but it will be enough that you'll hean an
improvment. Then you can mix to tape as well.



www.monsterisland.com

[Mike Caffrey]

In article >, Justin Ulysses
Morse > wrote:

> P Stamler > wrote:
>
> > The guy selling the deck says (his spelling):
> >
> > <<Extreamely low noise for an analog machine, noise reduction not
required for
> > use with digital systems. >>
> >
> > Uh-uh. This is an 8-track 1/2" machine, which means the
signal-to-noise ratio
> > is about 3-4dB worse on each track than a professional (8-track 1", 16-track
> > 2") recorder. Even with hot tapes, the signal-to-noise on each track,
without
> > noise reduction, is going to be marginal, and once you combine 8 tracks (or
> > more) it'll be something on the order of a type I cassette deck. No, these
> > machines need noise reduction for adequate quiet, and that noise
reduction, in
> > my experience, kills all that nice "tape warmth" everyone likes, when
it isn't
> > also killing all the highs because the deck wasn't quite aligned right.
> >
> > If you want more tracks, save up for a 1" 8-track deck, or stay with
digital.
>
> Come on, Paul. His "Extremely low noise" line is bull****, but you
> make it sound like a 1/2" 8-track is unusable. I've made lots of great
> records on this format, without noise reduction, and noise is NOT a
> problem. 1/2" 8-track at 15ips is a LONG way from 1/8" 4-track at
> 1.875ips and really not very far away from 2" 16-track at 15ips.
>
> Aside from that, it sounds like the original poster has no idea what
> makes an analog recorder desirable and undesirable, and should probably
> not bother with this stuff unless he wants to open a great big can of
> hassle, expense, maintenance, and general failure to do any recording
> while he finds out what analog recorders are all about.
>
> ulysses

But don't you think that's a lesson worth learning? Plus all the other
little lessons you learn through the process.



www.monsterisland.com

[MagicaIist]

> (georgeh)

advised:

>The Otaris had SMPTE capability IIRC. But that means you'd need to stripe
>a track, so you could only record 7 on the Otari. You could probably find
>a box (maybe an old JL Cooper) to convert the SMPTE to MTC so the VS-840
>could chase the Otari w/o needing to stripe a track on that side.
>That would give you frame accuracy (but not sample if that is important
>to you).
>
(Art Rocker) writes:
>
>>This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>
>>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&catego
ry=15199
>
>>In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>>tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>
>>I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>>this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>>transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>>8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>>VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>
>>How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
>>tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>
>

Thank you.

[MagicaIist]

>Lowndes" advised:



>I think the seller is saying: lay down 8 tracks, dump to the digital
>recorder - then while monitoring the digital recorder, record through the
>deck, monitoring repro - while dumping into the recorder in realtime, making
>the delay compensation afterwards. No SMPTE or sync needed. I wonder if
>this would work
>
>-Paul
>
>"georgeh" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The Otaris had SMPTE capability IIRC. But that means you'd need to stripe
>> a track, so you could only record 7 on the Otari. You could probably find
>> a box (maybe an old JL Cooper) to convert the SMPTE to MTC so the VS-840
>> could chase the Otari w/o needing to stripe a track on that side.
>> That would give you frame accuracy (but not sample if that is important
>> to you).
>>
>> (Art Rocker) writes:
>>
>> >This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>>
>>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&category=
>15199
>>
>> >In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>> >tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>>
>> >I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>> >this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>> >transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>> >8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>> >VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>>
>> >How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
>> >tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>>
>
>

I think what might be easier, as far as "synching" things up, would be to
get rid of my VS-840 all together and buy an Mbox. Then, if I got one of these
analog 8-tracks, I could fill 'er up, dump it to pro tools, and "nudge"
everything around so it lines up.

At least, that's how I understand pro tools to operate. I have never used
anything other than my VS-840, a Fostex cassette 4-track, and an old Akai
"sound-on-sound" reel to reel 2-track.

Basically, I just want more tracks because I record alone and I want to layer
stuff.

Thanks.

[MagicaIist]

>"David Morgan \(MAMS\)"

observed:

>"Art Rocker" > wrote in message
m...
>> Hello,
>>
>> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>>
>>
>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&categor
y=15199
>>
>> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>>
>> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>
>I'm not a Roland user... I've just stumbled into them on occasion.
>
>Wouldn't the dumping of all 8 tracks to a single track of the VS
>make 7 of them load as 'virtual' tracks? Meaning that you could
>only pick one of them from the respective VS track to play back
>in the mix?

No. All 8 tracks would just come into the recorder as one big signal. I would
probably record the 8 analog tracks to a pair of the Roland VS-840's stereo
tracks, in which case it would be just like mixing down to 2-track stereo.

Incidentally, I have never used the virtual tracks. I basically just use the
thing like a glorified cassette 4-track. As I said, the Roland will start to
lock up after you fill 4 tracks (they didn't tell me that when I was one of the
last 4 guys in North America to walk into Mars and pay $1000.00 for this
machine). Fooling with the virtual tracks would just make things even worse
with the limited space on the 250 MB Zip disks.

Thanks for your help.

[MagicaIist]

(P Stamler)

advised:

>The guy selling the deck says (his spelling):
>
><<Extreamely low noise for an analog machine, noise reduction not required
>for
>use with digital systems. >>
>
>Uh-uh. This is an 8-track 1/2" machine, which means the signal-to-noise ratio
>is about 3-4dB worse on each track than a professional (8-track 1", 16-track
>2") recorder. Even with hot tapes, the signal-to-noise on each track, without
>noise reduction, is going to be marginal, and once you combine 8 tracks (or
>more) it'll be something on the order of a type I cassette deck. No, these
>machines need noise reduction for adequate quiet, and that noise reduction,
>in
>my experience, kills all that nice "tape warmth" everyone likes, when it
>isn't
>also killing all the highs because the deck wasn't quite aligned right.
>
>If you want more tracks, save up for a 1" 8-track deck, or stay with digital.
>
>Peace,
>Paul
>

Thanks for your help.

[MagicaIist]

>Justin Ulysses Morse

warned:

>P Stamler > wrote:
>
>> The guy selling the deck says (his spelling):
>>
>> <<Extreamely low noise for an analog machine, noise reduction not required
>for
>> use with digital systems. >>
>>
>> Uh-uh. This is an 8-track 1/2" machine, which means the signal-to-noise
>ratio
>> is about 3-4dB worse on each track than a professional (8-track 1",
>16-track
>> 2") recorder. Even with hot tapes, the signal-to-noise on each track,
>without
>> noise reduction, is going to be marginal, and once you combine 8 tracks (or
>> more) it'll be something on the order of a type I cassette deck. No, these
>> machines need noise reduction for adequate quiet, and that noise reduction,
>in
>> my experience, kills all that nice "tape warmth" everyone likes, when it
>isn't
>> also killing all the highs because the deck wasn't quite aligned right.
>>
>> If you want more tracks, save up for a 1" 8-track deck, or stay with
>digital.
>
>Come on, Paul. His "Extremely low noise" line is bull****, but you
>make it sound like a 1/2" 8-track is unusable. I've made lots of great
>records on this format, without noise reduction, and noise is NOT a
>problem. 1/2" 8-track at 15ips is a LONG way from 1/8" 4-track at
>1.875ips and really not very far away from 2" 16-track at 15ips.
>
>Aside from that, it sounds like the original poster has no idea what
>makes an analog recorder desirable and undesirable, and should probably
>not bother with this stuff unless he wants to open a great big can of
>hassle, expense, maintenance, and general failure to do any recording
>while he finds out what analog recorders are all about.
>
>ulysses
>

Yeah, I'm all about avoiding hassle. It seems like digital just cannot be beat
when it comes to bang for the buck and convenience, even though, at the height
of quality sound, analog may still be worth the trouble.

Thanks.

[MagicaIist]

>From: (zionstrat)

advised:

(Art Rocker) wrote in message
>...
>> Hello,
>>
>> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>>
>>
>http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2541512110&categor
y=15199
>>
>> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>>
>> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>>
>> How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
>> tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>>
>> Is this sort of thing at all advisable? I just want more tracks as
>> cheaply and as simply as possible?
>>
>> Is the sound quality of this tape recorder any good?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your help,
>> Alvin
>
>Alvin-
>Sounds like the advertisers is putting a tremendous amount of spin if
>it is pitched as an analog answer to more tracks- There are much
>better ways to do this if that is your goal. It sounds like they are
>taking advantage of the old myth that you need to record to analog
>first before you transfer to digital for 'warmth'. As an effect,
>analog is certainly one possibility, but not the best choice if you
>are simply trying to get more tracks. Consider:
>
>1. Do you want a linear format (tape?)- If so there are many digital
>formats to choose from that would allow you to keep digital from the
>first recording. I don't know the VS-840, but most modern gear will
>synch with an Adat, DA88, etc.
>
>2. If you are interested in nonlinear editing, you might be ready to
>move up to a digital workstation that would probably expand your
>mixing and editing- It might be worth synching or even dumping core
>tracks before you start overdubs.

Good point. Everyone says that synching up Roland VS machines is a hassle, so I
will probably look for an "all-in-one" solution. The obvious answer would seem
to be another Multitrack unit such as the Yamaha AW16G, Korg D1600 & et cetera;
but for between $1,000 and $1,300 I am thinking I will go with a Pro Tools Digi
001 or Mbox for considerably less money.
I can't see the drawback to this solution yet (except for working around
latency), but I am looking.

Then again, I could just get another multitrack on Ebay, and do the "dumping"
routine, without actually synching the machines. In other words, fill up
machine A with my basic tracks, dump it to 2 tracks on machine B, then proceed
with 6 tracks of overdubs on machine B.

I wonder if the sound quality would suffer.

Thanks for your help.



>Hope this helps-
>


Indeed!

[MagicaIist]

(Aaron J. Grier)

advised:

>Art Rocker > wrote:
>> This guy is selling an 8-track reel-to-reel on Ebay,
>[link to MX5050mkIII 1/2" 8-track removed]
>> In his description, he implies that someone could record 8 tracks on
>> tape, then dump it to digital, and then do this all over again.
>
>you'd be bouncing tracks with the help of a second multitrack.
>
>> I have a Roland VS-840, but I really want more tracks. If I bought
>> this thing (or something like it), could I record 8 tracks, then
>> transfer the 8 recorded tracks onto track 1 of my VS-840, then record
>> 8 more tracks to tape, and transfer those tracks to track 2 of my
>> VS-840 and so on, and so on?
>
>sure. you could also do it with another VS-840 or any other multitrack
>machine.

Okay, this caught my attention. Say I got a second VS-840, how would I dump
tracks from VS-840 A to VS-840 B? What would be the best way, and also would
the sound quality suffer at all?

>> How could I sync the two machines up so that each time I dumped the
>> tracks, they were in sync with the previously recorded tracks?
>
>in the case of the otari you'd stripe one of the tracks with SMPTE, and
>then chase the VS-840 to it as you dump out more tracks to the otari.
>then you do a "pre-mixdown" and chase the VS-840 with the signal going
>from the otari through your mixer to a single track on the VS-840.
>
>be aware that the SMPTE stripe will burn one track on the otari leaving
>you with only 7 tracks available for bounce mixdown. (and SMPTE has a
>tendency to bleed to an adjacent track on these narrow format machines,
>so depending on tape and calibration, you might only have 6 usable
>tracks in practice.)
>
>> Is this sort of thing at all advisable?
>
>if you have to ask, it's probably not. I would suggest investigating if
>there's some way you could expand your roland unit (add a hard drive?)
>so you can bounce "in the machine" and failing that, getting another
>digital multitrack (maybe another VS-840?) and use it to bounce with.

Yeah, I am getting more and more convinced that tape, while fantastic sounding,
is just not worth getting into for home demos.

But your suggestion about a second multitrack is interesting. I could get one
on Ebay for a low price. Would you recommend that or getting an Mbox?

Also, if I got the Mbox, would I be foolish to continue doing my recording on
the Roland and dumping to Pro Tools only for editing?

The reason I would do this is because I am wary of the "latency" thing--I have
trouble enough staying in time when I track with a click, if I have to deal
with lags in my monitors, I will be screwed. Also, I am used to the Roland now
and could monitor with its effects.

>> I just want more tracks as cheaply and as simply as possible?
>
>stay away from analog, then. (: tape machines are not for the faint of
>heart, and unless you are willing to learn the ins and outs of deck
>maintenance or hire a technician, you will either get frustrated, or get
>****-poor recordings. you cannot just buy a tape deck and expect it to
>work reliably or consistently without any maintenance. analog decks
>need much more care and feeding than their digital bretheren. (or
>should I say "digital analogs"?)
>
>> Is the sound quality of this tape recorder any good?
>
>I'm fond of mine. I've recently been running it without noise reduction
>with 406 tape, and the tape hiss is noticable and inoffensive, provided
>I lay off heavy compression on mixdown. your mileage would vary
>depending on what tape you use and how the machine is calibrated.
>

Thanks very much for your help.

[Aaron J. Grier]

MagicaIist > wrote:

> (Aaron J. Grier)
> > you could also do it [mixdowns] with another VS-840 or any other
> > multitrack machine.
>
> Okay, this caught my attention. Say I got a second VS-840, how would I
> dump tracks from VS-840 A to VS-840 B? What would be the best way, and
> also would the sound quality suffer at all?

if the VS-840 has digital outs and ins, use those. otherwise just hook
the analog outs to the analog ins. the question is not whether the
sound quality will suffer, but whether you'll be able to notice it or
not. even with the analog, I'll bet you won't.

> Yeah, I am getting more and more convinced that tape, while fantastic
> sounding, is just not worth getting into for home demos.

the bang/buck of modern digital gear is just sooo good. and from a
$/song perspective, you can't beat CDRs or even zip disks. I pay ~$20
per reel of tape, and I get ~20 minutes of 8 track per reel. A zip disk
is less than a quarter that cost, and holds as much, I'm guessing. my
guitar player has a tascam 788 that we're using for recording practices;
it has a HD but can be backed up to CDRs. talk about cheap recording
media!

> But your suggestion about a second multitrack is interesting. I could
> get one on Ebay for a low price. Would you recommend that or getting
> an Mbox?

a computer is a whole other can of worms. it'll likely be as big a pain
in the ass as an analog deck will, just in different ways. whether or
not you can live with them is a matter of preference. (:

> Also, if I got the Mbox, would I be foolish to continue doing my
> recording on the Roland and dumping to Pro Tools only for editing?

I bet the Roland is a lot quieter acoustically in the studio than a
computer is. aside from that, the Mbox may give better quality
recordings than the Roland, but I have no experience with either one.

perhaps someone else here has direct experience with both and can chime
in?

> The reason I would do this is because I am wary of the "latency"
> thing--I have trouble enough staying in time when I track with a
> click, if I have to deal with lags in my monitors, I will be screwed.
> Also, I am used to the Roland now and could monitor with its effects.

then don't change. stick with what you know and get to the business of
recording instead of futzing with your gear.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov