Tascam MX2424 Multitrack Recorder Spec development

[admin]

We are hearing very good things about Tascam's new multi-track I/O hard disk recorder. We will research supporting their format so files can be easily imported and exported to this device. We cannot comment further at this time.

Broadcast Wave File Support - This is a new evolving standard that we will review. So far, MTU has not had enough time to determine the magnitude of the development to implement this.

Open-TL Tascam Support - In my thirty years in business, I have never seen any product "take over a market" in a short period. Usually we all discover shortcomings of each new technology. DATs did not turn out to be the panacea we all "believed" they would be. ADATs were great for musicians who had no money and didn't care about quality. Some customers were demanding MTU support OMF not long ago. We researched this "track structure" and found it basically incompatible with Microeditor's "trackless" implementation. Thus, our core paradigm that gives you the freedom you enjoy, prevented compatibility. We spent thousands of dollars to provide MicroEDL supporting the CMX3600 Edit Decision List, only to have 3 sales. If Open-TL is compatible with Microeditor, and we have enough clients willing to pay for the investment, we will consider it.

[geezer]

----Having been one of the folks that goaded you into developing MicroEDL, I can tell you that I am still grateful. In recent times, I have been taking a look at other products on the market and have realized that MicroEDL is still a unique and superior solution to most other attempts at this.

As far as the "take over the market" with OpenTL and the Tascam MX2424, however, I think this is a reality....The cross-platform file format support by itself is such a clear and obvious solution to a problem that has existed for all of us....Sadie, Nuendo and quite a few others are already on the bandwagon with OpenTL, and this only a few months after the product release....I have never seen a product so well supported and so swiftly proliferated. It works too well, sounds too good and costs too little....Meanwhile, the Mackie hard disk recorder is still trying to explain why it can't record more than 16 tracks at once, much less deliver product!

I believe that this is going to define how we all work. The MX2424 is designed to have hard drives slapped in and out of it from and to workstations. It works. It is really exciting for me and almost everyone who has bought one....I just want it to be compatible with MTU.

[admin]

To all who want MX2424 compatibility with Microeditor, we need your help! The first step in making a project reality is to define what to do and how to do it. We don't have time now to build this spec. You can help us! With a spec, We can estimate the development costs, then we must determine how many are willing to pay how much for it. If you will cover our development costs, it will be considered.

Microeditor needs Multitrack capability for Studio users. The MX2424 is one way, and http://mtu.com/basics/news.htm#Multitrack (Multitracks - ASIO software interface for many multi-track I/O cards) to record multiple tracks directly is another way. Which will it be?

[font color=red]Post your votes and specs in reply to this thread.[/font] If the Geezer is the only one posting, this won't get done. Tell us the following:

1. What do you want us to do? - Start your post with either Do MX2424 or Do ASIO.

2. What functions - What you want to be able to do for MX2424 or ASIO.

3. How to do it - suggest how you think your function should be done.

[Darren Novotny]

I am a long-time MTU user / fan / supporter and silent forum observer, but feel it is now time to chime in. ****o Dave and fellow users. I have been anxiously awaiting multitrack recording capabilities. This is the first I have heard of the possibility of interfacing with the Tascam MX2424, but it seems like a very good option for consideration and would provide the ultimate in flexibility, at least for the way I work. I avoid using my ADAT's when ever possible, but have no choice when it's time to track a rhythm section. I immediately transfer these tracks to MicroSound and proceed with overdubs, vocals, edits, mix, etc. I have a Panasonic DA7, which has machine control for the MX2424. I have been looking pretty hard at replacing my ADAT's with the MX2424, but have not wanted to make a move until I know what MTU is planning to do. MicroSound will always be the centerpiece of my studio. If I understand the proposal, being able to remove the drive from the MX2424 and plug it into the workstation and open the files (tracks) directly into a Project, then count me in. This would answer all of my production prayers and still maintain the options for conventional tracking, location recording, and enable engineers not familiar with MicroEditor to work in my studio.

I'll be the first in line for this one!

PS: I have a MOTU 2408 too, but will make somebody a great deal on it if this proposal flies.

[Darren Novotny]

I realize I didn't give you much help with the spec as you requested. I'll study-up on how the MX-2424 handles audio files and get back with some specifics that I'd like to see. However, I think the ability to do basic tracking on the MX-2424, then move the drive to MTU and open a project would cover 95% of my needs. I would rarely need to move audio from MTU back to the MX-2424, if this simplifies the initial implimentation.

[geezer]

----Having been using only MTU as a workstation with "real" multitracks and "real" mixers lo these many years, I'm not completely up on the multitrack workstation scene....However, from what I can see, THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR DECISION.

The MX2424 files can be imported into a number of programs now without the implementation of Open TL...It is very clear that importing into Pro Tools and Digital Performer are simple in the Mac Format, as well as others, and, although it is in progress, noone has implemented OpenTL yet...I don't think there is much stopping files from being imported into MicroEditor RIGHT NOW now from the FAT32 drives as long as you do hand placement in Meditor as far as timecode.....If Broadcast.wav is implemented (and I THINK you can use these as .wav without the time-stamping), then the hand-placement of timecode is gone....Does ASIO have built in timecode support?

Digital Performer is, I believe, an ASIO program and seems to be functional with the SDII files. The question is not compatability with MX2424 or not, but implementation of OpenTL or not....I don't claim to understand what implementation of OpenTL will require, but if you are already intending to implement an industry-standard file handling system then the MX2424 will be compatible in a reasonable way, because that is how it was designed....OpenTL will just make it more transparent.

[admin]

Jim and Darren, do either of you have an idea on how we can get hold of a MX2424 to do the interfacing and testing if we decide to do this? If we have to buy a $4,800 unit...

[Darren Novotny]

I don't have an MX-2424, but am strongly considering one. I would possibly be willing to supply a unit for testing for a reasonable period of time. Give me a call, or email me if you would like to discuss the options.

[geezer]

---You can definitely use mine. The only issue is scheduling.

I'm currently using mine for one purpose only: Reconforming 8 channels (6 channels of 5.1 mix, plus stereo mix) of 24 bit audio to the new, edited timecode for the DVDs I'm working on. I'll be doing one of these later this week and have to keep things on hold for a couple of days after, but there should be at least a 2 week hole after that.

I'm realizing that the external control/editing software for this thing (ViewNet) is good enough and being improved rapidly enough that most of my multitrack issues are not issues anymore. However, there will always be things I would rather do on MTU. Therefore, SOME FORM of file compatability is desirable, and, as I said above, that may already be there.

From all of my interactions with Tascam/Timeline, and from their stated goals, it is clear that they will be more than forthcoming, and would be very happy that you want to poke around the unit. Please let me know how I can help with your communication.

Please call or e-mail. The best phone for me is the cell: 304-261-9426.

[geezer]

---Just wanted to let you know that my research seems to be leading me heavily in the direction of Nuendo as the alternate software and, possibly, the Sek'd 16 channel TDIF card as the alternate card....the hope is that MTU/Krystal and these other puppies could co-exist on the same computer.

Nuendo is supporting the MX2424 fully.

----As I use the MX2424 more, it is pretty obvious that it performs most of the timecode related and basic editing (cut and paste, crossfades) functions just fine, and very easily. There are ways already to export/import from the MX2424 that I think will work with MTU now to achieve some of MTU's power with these files, but this would be enhanced by MTU's planned multi-track support and the possible addition of OpenTL support.

On the multitrack front, here is what MTU needs to be able to do that it doesn't now do and that the MX2424 will never be able to do on its own:

1)Import/export AT LEAST 8 discrete digital tracks time-locked to each other with sample accuracy, whether from files on hard drives or through a third party I/O. (This part the MX already does), and-
2)Mix all internal segments and files so that they may then be assigned to AND MONITORED by AT LEAST 8 discrete digital outputs. I.E.- you have to have at least 8 "mix busses" or assignable output channels that you can direct segments to.

8 channels is the magic number for working in surround, and you have to able to monitor your work. This does not require internal surround software, however.

24 channels is the magic number for multitrack, but I don't see MTU becoming Pro Tools or, personally, trying to work with the program in that way....That doesn't mean, however, that 24 channels of assignable file or I/O destination wouldn't be useful.

ON THE SCSI FRONT- The MX is a SCSI-based machine, and is designed to either have hard drives plopped in and out or communicate with a computer via ethernet....SCSI drive bays will probably be the primary file transfer mode. I am assuming that the MTU stance against SCSI for MTU workstations will not interfere with having a SCSI bay on board for file transfers?