DM4800 automation problem

[Gregdx7]

I just started using the automation in the board and am having problems. I have it set set for MTC USB and get the time code readout, but as soon as I hit the ON button for the automation, the time code on the display starts stuttering and the WRITE led goes out seconds after it starts.
I tried to do a search for topics on the forum for this, but when I try to search for "automation" it says that it is to common of a word and won't do the search.

 

[captdan]

Are you using ProTools? If so - and this may go for other DAWS too - you can NOT set the DAW to receive MTC from the DM. Automation WILL FAIL!!!!!!

Simply put, you'll need to set up a separate HUI parameter in the MMC menu - choosing the Generate Internal Time Code, then ticking the box in the Automation Setup Menu to reflect that. There are a few other steps that have to be taken as well.

I wrote a few detailed posts about this a few months ago. Search for 'DM Automation.' 'Pro Tools,' etc.. If you can't find it, I'll link you to it.

CaptDan

 

[Gregdx7]

Hi Captdan, I am using Cubase. I tried to search for DM automation and the search engine still says that the words are to common and won't do the search. That's pretty pathetic for a search engine. If you could send me the link that would be great! And which MTC button do I check on the DM?

 

[Gravity Jim]

Perhaps you'd like to underwrite the creation of a less pathetic search engine.

(I am always astounded at how Internet culture has encouraged people to demand, in the snarkiest terms, maximum performance from resources that don't cost them a penny.)

As Capt says, it sound like you're sending MTC back to your DAW. While it doesn't have a search engine, you can probably find the setup instructions in Tascam's DM series automation manual.

 

[captdan]

If you're using Cubase, I'd do as Jim suggests: get the DM with Steinberg/Cubase automation manual (if it's not at this site, it can be downloaded at www.tascam.com - in the Professional Products/mixers/Dm3200/4800 pages).

After you've followed those steps, and are experiencing continued problems, check back here.

CaptDan

 

[Jarno]

I've had similar experience with Cubase.Time code shutters when turning DM's automation engine on.

I made a test by sending MTC from Cubase to my Midisport 4x4 (USB MIDI interface) and from there to DM's MIDI IN (and configured DM to read MTC from MIDI IN). DM's automation worked flawlessly, but all other equipment connected to my Midisport started loosing MIDI events (stuck notes, notes not played, etc).

My conclusion was: Cubase is somehow flawed and flooding the MIDI connection with data when sending MTC and DM can't deal with this when using USB.

Solution:
1. Obvious solution: Buy a cheap single port USB MIDI interface and use that one to send MTC from Cubase to DM's MIDI IN.
2. Geek solution: Send MTC from Cubase to IF-FW/DM's MIDI OUT port and connect this to DM's MIDI IN. (never tried this, though, but it should work)
3. My solution: Don't use DM's automation. I only use automation for fader movements , anyway, and you can record these as CC messages from DM's USB port 4 to MIDI track on Cubase and play them back to DM from there. This solution has one added bonus: you'll have a graphical user interface for editing automation data.

EDIT: How many spelling errors can you have in one post?

 

[captdan]

"My conclusion was: Cubase is somehow flawed and flooding the MIDI connection with data when sending MTC and DM can't deal with this when using USB."

I had similar issues with Cubase. Although I was able to get the DM's automation to work with it, there were several annoyances anyway. When I added those up with some other things which bothered me about Steinberg, I gave up and jumped to another DAW. Been a happier camper since. (Sorry Cubase users; I know it's a wonderful DAW. But I like my DM more. )

PS: there are some pitfalls using the DAW's automation in an OTB scenario; since you're dealing with the initial fader level in the signal chain, mixing out of the box to the DM becomes more challenging. For example, if a compressor is set in the DM, and the DAW's fader is reduced, the resulting attenuation to the DM's channel can affect the compressor's attack and behavior. Or - having a channel auxed Pre-Fader to a 'verb - can result in undesirable effects too.

My personal, biassed opinion: if you're mixing OTB, use the DM's automation as the primary method, leaving the DAW's automation as an ancillary tool, or unused altogether.

YMMV.

CaptDan

 

[Jarno]

PS: there are some pitfalls using the DAW's automation in an OTB scenario

Yes, of course. And that's why I'm NOT using DAW's automation (ok ... I'm using it, but only for things not related to OTB mixing ... and that's not we are talking about here), but recording my DM's audio channel fader movements to DAW's MIDI track and then playing them back to DM.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I don't blame you. This feature of sending DM's fader movements (and pan and mute) as MIDI CC messages is not covered in DM's manuals, because it's not included in original firmware. It's only covered in one of the firmware release notes. Originally USB port 4 was only used for Program Change messages to recall snapshots, but later firmware added more functionality there.

 

[captdan]

AHA! I got it now. Sorry for my confusion.

Somehow, I was envisioning the Remote Layer's faders as the primary automation method. But, if memory serves, you described this approach before - maybe it was on the old forum, not sure.

That's why you're the 'Tyro,' and I'm still - ahem - not quite a Tyro.

CaptDan

 

[Gregdx7]

To Mr. Jim, my comment wasn't meant to be "snarky" or "demanding" or anything of the like. It was merely to mention that finding a word like "automation" to be too common was a bit stringent. My reasoning was to simply express that I had tried to search for an answer on the forum before asking the question and bothering any of you. I felt that that was appropriate since I have been around a while and have seen people ask questions that have been answered many times in a forum and finding that the forum search engine would not let me find any previous answers to the topic using a word that should really not be considered too common was a shame. I'm sorry if pathetic too insensitive of a term to use.
Actually, I found your response to be a bit more "snarky" than my comment.
That being what it is, thanks to Captdan and Jarno for their helpful answers.
And Mr. Jim, I hope you can relax and have a better day.