The Tascam MidiStudio 688 dedicated thread

RootsRenegade wrote:Using the tape outs to DAW, i believe it can be done only by selecting tape as the input and re-recording the changes i make... but i am not sure if i can, through the tape outs and while the tape is playing back, make changes with the mixer and affect what goes to DAW. I will make some lab tests to check that out, i'll tell you the results.

ok let me tell you the options i see right now

1) you want the tape effect but you want to mix in the daw...you said you add compression, reverb etc in the daw, so even if you call it 'mastering', you are still mixing in the daw (taking many tracks and producing a stereo pair)
to do this, record your 8 tracks to tape. under my assumptions, the mixer should not effect this at all so tweak it how you like out the monitors.
then take the tape outs and route those to your daw. now you have tape tracks that you can further mix in the daw. the tascam mixer will not affect the tape tracks at all in this case, it will just be the pure tape sound.

2) you like the tape effect, and you really like mixing on the tascam.
record to tape, and now play the tape back in the tascam, monitoring the tape through the channels, and record the stereo mix to your daw...now you have a stereo track that you can properly master in the daw.
the mixer on the tascam will obviously have an effect now as it all goes to stereo.
you could augment this idea by using a combination of the stereo outs (for main mix, full tape-mixed effect), and the group outs / tape outs for anything you would further like to send to reverb / compression / etc in the daw.
im not sure, but maybe the group outs are 'post fade', so you could tweak eq etc on the tascam and then record individual tweaked tracks to daw.
i personally would want the dry tape tracks...you can always re-do eq later.

for the most flexibility, go with option 2. this way, you can mix it as good as you want on the tascam, but you would still have the individual tape tracks in the daw if you wanted to do something with them as well.

i personally really like the idea of mixing to stereo live and just leaving it at that. but if you keep those extra tracks in daw, you can always remix the tape tracks digitally later.

1) I really like and want the tape effect.

2) I really like and want to mix on the Tascam.

Conclusion: I want to mix on the tascam, then record (my mix) to tape.

I don't get the point of your second option. The only difference between recording to DAW the stereo mix through L/R channels or recording to DAW all 8 tracks individually is that with the stereo mix, i have limited options when in DAW. The stereo mix plays the 8 tracks anyway, no difference in sound.

you could augment this idea by using a combination of the stereo outs (for main mix, full tape-mixed effect), and the group outs / tape outs for anything you would further like to send to reverb / compression / etc in the daw.

Why would i have to track out the stereo mix PLUS the individual tracks that i want to "tweak" in DAW ? It creates limitations for nothing, as i would be stucked with a already glued stereo mix. The reverb / compression / etc. will be done one track at a time, not on an entire stereo mix anyway.

the mixer on the tascam will obviously have an effect now as it all goes to stereo.

Same effect as 8 individual tracks. Same sound, same thing. In DAW, it would be 1 stereo track versus 8 individual "treakable" tracks.

i personally would want the dry tape tracks...you can always re-do eq later.

No point in re-doing EQ, but if i really have to do it, i have excellent pluggins to do it in DAW, on the specific tracks that need it... not on the entire stereo mix.

for the most flexibility, go with option 2. this way, you can mix it as good as you want on the tascam, but you would still have the individual tape tracks in the daw if you wanted to do something with them as well.

I agree with option 2, except i don't see the point of sending the whole stereo mix in DAW through L/R channels PLUS all 8 individual tracks (sending only a couple of them would again, create limitations in my possibilities once in DAW).

i personally really like the idea of mixing to stereo live and just leaving it at that. but if you keep those extra tracks in daw, you can always remix the tape tracks digitally later.

Me too, i want to mix live on the Tascam before it gets recorded on tape. I will always have that stereo mix on tape, but what i really want is to track out all 8 individual tracks to Cubase so i can work on them individually and then, create a digital stereo mix.

Hey tapedeck, please continue to share your ideas, questions and tips in this thread. Thanks man.

RootsRenegade wrote:1) I really like and want the tape effect.
2) I really like and want to mix on the Tascam.

then record your tracks to tape, mix on the tascam, and bounce the stereo mix to your daw for mastering.

that is simple.

if you want as many options as possible, then record the stereo mix of your tascam to the daw (because you say you like the tape effect AND you like mixing in your tascam), and then route the tape outs to your daw as well so you wont have any limitations later and can use your digital eqs etc if you want to, on the tape tracks.

im confused you say you want to 'mix' in the tascam, but then you want to take the unmixed tracks out of the tascam and mix in cubase.

if they are individual tracks they are unmixed - you see?

if you want to eq on the tascam, then get those individual tracks to cubase, i think you could use the group outs.
at this point im guessing because again, i dont own this machine.

let me explain again how EVERY OTHER TAPE MACHINE i've ever seen or used works.

you record your tracks to individual tape tracks. these are recorded 'dry' with the mixer having no effect on the actual recording, except the gain knob. you can use the mixer to monitor though and tweak from there.
after recording, you switch the track inputs to the tape tracks, and now you can begin mixing with the mixer. this 'mix' (not individual tracks) then comes out the stereo outs, or group outs if set up, and you can take that into something else for mastering (another tape deck or a daw). in normal use (barring some complex routing/bouncing scheme), your tascam NEVER has a stereo mix on it - you have to produce this in realtime to another machine.

the point is, the tracks on tape are always separate and dry as possible, so you mix after you have recorded, however you want.

i'm still not sold that your eq etc has an effect on the tape during recording (unless you got some weird routing scheme happening). again though, show me otherwise (turn the fader down during recording and then check tape out afterward to see if fader had an effect) and i will totally accept it.

tapedeck wrote:im confused you say you want to 'mix' in the tascam, but then you want to take the unmixed tracks out of the tascam and mix in cubase.

if they are individual tracks they are unmixed - you see?

Yes, i get what you mean. Should i say EQ + pan + adjust channels level instead of mixing then ? Because even if they are individual tracks, when they play together, they sound like if they have been mixed together. I guess i don't know the right term to name individual tracks that have been arranged to fit together in a mix.

if you want to eq on the tascam, then get those individual tracks to cubase, i think you could use the group outs.
at this point im guessing because again, i dont own this machine.

The thing is this: When i "arrange my tracks" to "fit together" in a mix (which i understand is not a mix yet) and i record them on tape, i have to track them out to DAW through the tape outs so that the mixer doesn't "arrange my tracks" once more. With the goup outs, the mixer affects everything that comes through it, even if it is my tape playback. But with the tape outs, the mixer doesn't affect the tape playback. That is my understanding of the difference between tape and group outs and that is why, i believe, it is better in my case to use the tape outs. If i was to mix ("arrange my tracks") going out of the Tascam, i would use the group outs, but i want to record my "arrangements" on tape and not "arrange" the already arranged sound when going out of the Tascam.

Why ? I asked myself why at the very beginning of my 688 journey and this is why i choose to do so: I prefer to take the time to "arrange my tracks" with the MPC playing back one, two, three, whatever X times in a row instead of rewinding my tape, playing it, re-rewinding it, re-playing it while i try to "arrange my tracks"... anyway, that i how i chose to work.

i'm still not sold that your eq etc has an effect on the tape during recording (unless you got some weird routing scheme happening). again though, show me otherwise (turn the fader down during recording and then check tape out afterward to see if fader had an effect) and i will totally accept it.

This has already been tested with the routing i showed on the pictures in the beginning of this thread, scene #99 to be exact. Trust me, it is true. Now please accept it

RootsRenegade wrote:This has already been tested with the routing i showed on the pictures in the beginning of this thread, scene #99 to be exact. Trust me, it is true. Now please accept it

i looked at the manual and it still looks like the mixer would have no effect to the signal actually recorded to the tape.

anyway i want to ask you this - when you use the group outs going to cubase, are you playing the tape back or just playing the mpc into the mixer, and then passing that to cubase?

tapedeck wrote:i looked at the manual and it still looks like the mixer would have no effect to the signal actually recorded to the tape.

I have nothing to prove but would you believe me if i was to post my test or you would think it has been tricked ? You want to hear my test huh

anyway i want to ask you this - when you use the group outs going to cubase, are you playing the tape back or just playing the mpc into the mixer, and then passing that to cubase?

Like i said, i never tested the goup outs because i am still waiting for my interface to arrive. I only tested through the L/R stereo out. But my understanding of the group outs is this: it could be one, or the other, or even both at the same time, depending on my scene routings... but they would all be affected by the mixer on their way out.

That is exactly the difference with the tape outs. When in tape out, what goes out to DAW or whatever in not affected by the mixer.

hey man i would totally believe you, but you said yourself you don't really know the machine and the way you describe it is again, unlike ANY multi-track tape i've ever seen. why would the mixer settings be recorded to tape when the purpose is to mix FROM the tape afterwards - i just dont see how it makes sense.

again i want to ask you, when you recorded (from the l/r stereo out) were you playing the tape or were you playing the mpc live?

you dont need an interface to test the group or tape outs btw ;].

RootsRenegade wrote:That is exactly the difference with the tape outs. When in tape out, what goes out to DAW or whatever in not affected by the mixer.

good so we can agree on that - but if that is the case (that the tape out is not affected by the mixer) then why are you insisting that the mixer has an effect on the tape itself?

Me personally, I've always went with the group outs with no problems at all. Never dealt with the tape outs on the 688 'cause I'd toggle between using the mixer and recorder (use to that is).

Same with my big mixer, tape outs are channeled from the sub groups which get sent directly to the audio ins of my interface. So I tend to keep both mixers connected in a similar fashion.

I think going with the group outs on the 688 will kill a lot of the headaches you're experiencing. I'd give it a try before concluding that it's not something that won't work for you.

tapedeck wrote:hey man i would totally believe you, but you said yourself you don't really know the machine and the way you describe it is again, unlike ANY multi-track tape i've ever seen. why would the mixer settings be recorded to tape when the purpose is to mix FROM the tape afterwards - i just dont see how it makes sense.

Well, i am realising that i am getting to know the 688 pretty well now. I still have more lab tests to do though. This machine is very versatile in its possibilities. I can assure you i was able to record to tape changes i was making on the mixer while recording. I like the option of being able to mix while my MPC is playing in loop BEFORE i record to tape. Perhaps that is how it makes sense.

again i want to ask you, when you recorded (from the l/r stereo out) were you playing the tape or were you playing the mpc live?

I made this test while playing the tape back, to Cubase through a US-144.

you dont need an interface to test the group or tape outs btw ;].

Yes, i know. I was just waiting for my new interface + 8 cables snake to arrive so i can run deeper tests. They both have arrived today so i will be be making more tests very soon. I will post my results and keep updating this thread.

tapedeck wrote:

RootsRenegade wrote:That is exactly the difference with the tape outs. When in tape out, what goes out to DAW or whatever in not affected by the mixer.

good so we can agree on that - but if that is the case (that the tape out is not affected by the mixer) then why are you insisting that the mixer has an effect on the tape itself?

When plugged in tape outs, the signal is not affected by the mixer when the recorded tape cassette is playing back, while it is playing back.

tapedeck wrote:again though, show me otherwise (turn the fader down during recording and then check tape out afterward to see if fader had an effect) and i will totally accept it.

Again, i can assure you it is possible to record to tape the changes made on the mixer while recording.

dabmeister wrote:This might not sound important, but I've got better results using the line inputs rather than the supposedly balanced xlr inputs. There's no audible difference in the levels between the two. I thought the xlr inputs were "hotter" than the line inputs at first, but that's not the case with the 688, they're just balanced to help with noise issues. Everything level-wise about this recorder is -10dB consumer line level. I just didn't see the need to utilize xlr cables for everything that was to be connected. So with that being said, you're gonna get hum and noise whether you use xlr balance inputs or 1/4 in. inputs.

Aren't those line B 1/4 phone jacks unbalanced ? Why would i plug in my MPC's balanced 8 mixouts to unbalanced line inputs, when the 688's manual recommends to plug samplers in MIC XLR balanced inputs ? I don't get it.

From the 688's service manual specifications section:

ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Mixer section

MIC (Line A) input (XLR Balanced x 10)
Mic impedance......Less than 600 ohms
Input Impedance........2.8k ohms
Nominal Input Level........ -60 dBV (1 mV) to -20 dBV (0.1 V)
Maximum Input Level....... +2 dBV (1,26 V), trim min.

Line B input (1/4 phone jack x 10)
Input Impedance........20k ohms
Nominal Input Level........ -10 dBV (0.3 V)
Maximum Input Level....... +12 dBV (4.0 V)

I am still not sure if those Line B 1/4 phone jack inputs are balanced or unbalanced but according to my research, i believe they are unbalanced.

These are the infos i found:

Instrument level is a fairly weak signal. An electric guitar or synth puts out an instrument-level signal. It's about 50 millivolts, or .050 volt.

· Line level is a moderately strong signal. An electronic device puts out a line level signal. Some electronic devices are a mixer, recorder, effects device, and a mic preamp

Geek speak: In unbalanced equipment, line level is 0.316 volt (also called -10 dBV). In balanced equipment, line level is 1.23 volts (also called +4 dBu).

REF: http://bartlettmics.com/newsletter/newsletter%204-11.pdf

and

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/a_beginners_guide_to_audio_connections

Can someone please confirm if those jacks are really unbalanced ? I want to plug my audio interface's balanced/unbalanced outputs to those 688's line ins so i need to confirm what cables i have to buy.

dabmeister wrote:Me personally, I've always went with the group outs with no problems at all. Never dealt with the tape outs on the 688 'cause I'd toggle between using the mixer and recorder (use to that is).

Same with my big mixer, tape outs are channeled from the sub groups which get sent directly to the audio ins of my interface. So I tend to keep both mixers connected in a similar fashion.

I think going with the group outs on the 688 will kill a lot of the headaches you're experiencing. I'd give it a try before concluding that it's not something that won't work for you.

Sure, now that i have the interface + cables i was waiting for (688 to audio interface), i will most definitely try every options before choosing which outs i will be using and in what circumstances it is better to use one or the other.

RootsRenegade wrote:You say you use the 688 only as a mixer these days and that you don't use the tape recorder anymore. I understand you mix on the 688 and then send all this to your DAW of choice via group outs. So, how do you do the panning on the mixer regardless of the tape recorder ?

Thanks !

balanced is only going to make a big difference if you are running very long cables. you should be fine with the line inputs - pretty sure the 8-outs are unbalanced anyway.

also, if you are using the group outs to get your 'mixed + panned + eqd' signal into the computer, realise that you are effectively cutting your 8 channels into 4 stereo channels...ex if you have hihat and snare going to group 3-4, hihat panned slightly left and snare panned slightly right, both those channels will have both hihat and snare on them. if that's what you want, cool, but earlier when i was suggesting just using the stereo out you were saying it wouldn't allow you to change it later, and you're going to be hitting that same snag here, albeit on a smaller scale.
this is only a problem because you said panning - if you could skip the panning and pan in the daw, you could still have 8 separate but mixer-affected tracks.

i also think we are still having some miscommunication re: recording mixer changes to tape.
if the signal out of the tape outs is the same regardless of the mixer, then how has the mixer been recorded to tape?
or are you talking about to a different tape, to another track, or to the daw?
when you use this thing, do you record your mpc, then rewind the tape, and keep playing back the tape, adjusting the mixer, and record that into the daw?
just curious your method at this point.
and i also want one of these machines now ;].

tapedeck wrote:balanced is only going to make a big difference if you are running very long cables. you should be fine with the line inputs - pretty sure the 8-outs are unbalanced anyway.

Yes, i know it is only going to make a difference if i run very long cables. And yes, the 688's RCA outs (tapes outs AND group outs) are all unbalanced, we agree on that. The cables between my 688 and my interface are all 10' long so it should not be a problem.

The thing is, i want to keep a balanced signal when it is possible. I want to reduce the chances of picking up noise in the signal as far as possible in my setup chain. Since my interface's outs can send both balanced and unbalanced signals, i want to confirm if the 688's Line B 1/4 phone jack inputs are balanced or unbalanced. This information will tell me if i am going to buy balanced or unbalanced cables.

The cables from my MPC2500 balanced 8 mixouts to my 688's balanced MIC ins are 15' TRS to XLR. If the 688's Line B 1/4 phone jack inputs are balanced, i will be buying balanced cables to go from my balanced/unbalanced interface's outs to those inputs. Again, i want to keep a balanced signal when it is possible, as far as possible even though the 688's outs are unbalanced, minimising the chances of noise pick up in the process.

also, if you are using the group outs to get your 'mixed + panned + eqd' signal into the computer, realise that you are effectively cutting your 8 channels into 4 stereo channels...ex if you have hihat and snare going to group 3-4, hihat panned slightly left and snare panned slightly right, both those channels will have both hihat and snare on them. if that's what you want, cool, but earlier when i was suggesting just using the stereo out you were saying it wouldn't allow you to change it later, and you're going to be hitting that same snag here, albeit on a smaller scale.

Yes, i realise that and it is not what i want. What i really want is to have 8 distinctive channels going out of the 688 to Cubase so i can work on them separately in DAW.

this is only a problem because you said panning - if you could skip the panning and pan in the daw, you could still have 8 separate but mixer-affected tracks.

True, this could be a solution. I thought about it but was hoping for a way to do it on the 688. If not possible, it may be the solution i am looking for.

i also think we are still having some miscommunication re: recording mixer changes to tape.
if the signal out of the tape outs is the same regardless of the mixer, then how has the mixer been recorded to tape?

When recording to tape from whatever the source (re: programmed scene), the changes made on the mixer do affect what is recorded to tape WHILE it is being recorded. When recording to tape, you also have to select the record function buttons (inputs) that will be used in the recording session (see where on this picture):

On the right side of the machine, starting from the bottom, look for the record function 8 buttons.



Those (depending on what inputs you want to record) have to be pressed/alight when recording to tape. When those are alighted, the changes made on the mixer WHILE recording TO TAPE do affect what is recorded TO TAPE.

When you want to listen back what has been recorded to tape, you have to either re-press (turn off) those record function buttons and hit play or keep them alight and press the insert button (see monitor mode), below button #2 of the record function buttons, then hit play.

Perhaps those record function buttons are the ones who allow the mixer to affect what is being recorded to tape.

are you talking about to a different tape, to another track, or to the daw?

I am talking about all 8 tracks coming out the 8 mixouts of my MPC, being all affected by the mixer WHILE recorded to a single tape. Nothing to do with DAW at this point.

when you use this thing, do you record your mpc, then rewind the tape, and keep playing back the tape, adjusting the mixer, and record that into the daw?
just curious your method at this point.

I take the time to "arrange my tracks" while the MPC is looping (with the 688's record function buttons alight so the mixer affects the 8 inputs and i can monitor the GRP/TRK 1-8 meters, adjusting the levels and tape compression levels on individual tracks) instead of rewinding my tape, playing it, re-rewinding it, re-playing it while adjusting the mixer.

and i also want one of these machines now ;].

Haha, awesome !

yeah I could use a tape deck like that... would be cool if there was a model that took two cassettes and recorded 8 tracks at once without bouncing to 4 tracks (not sure how they have that set up)

RootsRenegade wrote:I take the time to "arrange my tracks" while the MPC is looping (with the 688's record function buttons alight so the mixer affects the 8 inputs and i can monitor the GRP/TRK 1-8 meters, adjusting the levels and tape compression levels on individual tracks) instead of rewinding my tape, playing it, re-rewinding it, re-playing it while adjusting the mixer.

that's what i thought you were doing - unless you have the tape signal routed to the group outs, and the tape is running, you are actually bypassing the tape altogether.

if the tape is running, and the TAPE (not the channel) is routed to the group outs, then you will get the tape effect - after a short delay (physical location of the playback head is after the record head...distance = delay).

so if you are really just monitoring the mix with the record buttons enabled, you are not getting any 'tape' effect at all.

to do that, you record to tape first, then go back (rewind) and do a mixdown.

if you are somehow monitoring the actual tape output while the tape is actually running, that's cool though. how do you cope with the delay?

also i might have been incorrect - maybe the 8 outs on a 2500 are balanced - apparently the site says one thing but the service manual says another.
still for this application, i dont think it's going to make any difference what cable you use.

mr_debauch wrote:yeah I could use a tape deck like that... would be cool if there was a model that took two cassettes and recorded 8 tracks at once without bouncing to 4 tracks (not sure how they have that set up)

It can record 8 tracks simultaneously.