Clasp...any of you guys used it?

I think joey808 works with a Clasp system.

You can do that too and manually sync everything up. But Clasp learns your setup and then keeps everything in sync so you can have a truly multiformat system running at the same time.

I think basically, everything goes into pro tools via tape , so when recording or over dubbing it gets printed via tape. But everything you are hearing that has been previously tracked, is coming out of the daw.

Knopfler uses it.

Cheers

Wiz

And I thought some Tape sims are that good that something like clasp is no longer needed??
Anyone who still works wit tape can answer this dump question?

Of course you could record to multitrack tape, then copy over to ProTools or whatever. As long as you could sync, you could do it as many times as you need.

The CLASP lets you work essentially like you would with a DAW, but the tracks were first recorded to the tape recorder, then played and copied into the DAW without the user having to fuss with it. It just happens, and the tracks are lined up and the time gap compensated automatically. It lets you overdub exactly the way you do in a DAW, but with the tape sound included.

Sort of a Jules Verne (Rube Goldberg?) version of a tape sim. : )

CLASP is a tape sim that actually uses tape. It all goes digital at some point these days. I can't imagine using a 2" machine to make a whole record with today, unless it was one pass, everybody at once like in the golden age. 

The best DAW / TAPE sync / clock devices are The Rosendahl Nano sync and The older Arrdsync neither is perfect but both can result in useable results.
Everybody thinks its easy because compared to analog digital has no speed issues, but when you realize your trying to make a system with built in drift sync to a clock you want perfect the reality can be pretty messy!
Then you add in how few care you see why systems like CLASP cost so much.
As much as I love the sound of tape, I hate the work involved and when I realized in the 90s that many tape diehards where switching to digital when AVID. gave them PT rigs, I also realized how often it was BS or people being invested in a system!

One thing we should point out here is that in any sync situation, the tape usually controls the speed of the session and is 'the master'. The SMTPE code off track 24 feeds into the sync and controls the playback speed of the computer. And yes, some advanced synchronizers (in theory) can vary the speed of the multitrack machine's capstan motor to compensate for tape stretch but in reality it works so slowly (compared to the reaction time of the computer) that it is almost useless.

For me, the only effective way to use a 24 track and PT together is to track the beds (14 tracks for drums, 2 for bass, 8 for any other essential instruments that benefit from it) on tape and dump the whole thing into PT without time code sync, create the tempo map and do all edits in there and then add the other tracks in Pro Tools and have the best of both worlds.

i mean seriously, does anyone want tape noise, hiss, wow and flutter on acoustic instruments such as acoustic guitar, mandolin, fiddle and piano? And vocals? Please. The better the signal you start with, the better the end results. And above all else, in songs (which are sung, after all), the vocal is critical.

Ward have you tried the Rosendahl ? I was very surprised
In multiple situations.

Ha. Tape has a sound. Audiophile direct to disk cutter vinyl records sounded different, more immediate. My dad had a couple LP's that were recorded on 35mm mag film, and they sounded pretty awesome from memory.

Randy has a point. I'm listening to Rival Son's "Great Western Valkyrie," which Dave Cobb has said was recorded using a CLASP. (At least tracks done at his home studio.) I like the way that record sounds, with the possible exception of too much distortion on the vocal. 

We're talking about Alison Kraus and Union Station in another thread, there's an article where Mike Shipley talks about recording "Paper Airplane."
www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul11/articles/it-0711.htm

That record is all digital, and was mixed using lots of [gasp] plug-ins, and maybe it's a bit too pop sounding for the genre, but the sound is faultless IMO. You can make a good digital record.

I still have a pristine Ampex ATR-700 ¼" half track. I haven't turned it on in ten years, but I'm still keeping it. 

Me too! Control rooms in the day had a distinct and pleasing aroma. Studer A800's with tape reels on it smelled nice.

I do agree with Jim about these issues.  I like tape for some things, but it does have it's shortcomings - just like AD/DA conversions do.  So......you learn to use your tools and do the best you can.  All the younger guys who never worked with tape as they came up thru the ranks don't really "get" how hard we tried to overcome tapes shortcomings.  Really, it was no different than working with a DAW.  Both have problems, and both require tricky engineering to make it sound as good as it can.  Both medium's have/had crappy engineers, and both have guys engineering who seem to be able to float over either medium's "issues" to produce some stellar MUSIC.

Really, at this point we have the best of both worlds.  You can use tape AND dig on the same project to achieve even better results.  The only issues are that tape machine maintainence and tweeking ala what Jim was talking about is rarer than hens teeth.  You just don't see places with full time tape machine specialists on staff anymore.