[Rick Ruskin]

With BRC off the system works fine. When it's on, the "format"
indicator on the Dakota control panel turns red, indicating an error
between the Alesis rig and the Dakota. As far as I can tell, the BRC
is configured as per the manual for digital/optical shuttling of
audio. Any help appreciated.

Without BRC:
HD-24 clock is internal
Dakota clock set to optical
SF is 48Khz on both devices

With BRC:
BRC sets HD-24 clock to ADAT sync (cannot be changed)
All other settings unchanged

tos link cables between HD24 and Dakota.
No ADAT sync cable

Any thoughts?



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Les Cargill]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
With BRC off the system works fine. When it's on, the "format"
indicator on the Dakota control panel turns red, indicating an error
between the Alesis rig and the Dakota. As far as I can tell, the BRC
is configured as per the manual for digital/optical shuttling of
audio. Any help appreciated.

Without BRC:
HD-24 clock is internal
Dakota clock set to optical
SF is 48Khz on both devices

With BRC:
BRC sets HD-24 clock to ADAT sync (cannot be changed)

If I read you right, the Dakota is still configured
to expect clock from the HD-24. It's maybe not there
anymore?

All other settings unchanged

tos link cables between HD24 and Dakota.
No ADAT sync cable

Any thoughts?



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

--
Les Cargill

[Richard Kuschel]

On Dec 3, 8:05 pm, Rick Ruskin wrote:
With BRC off the system works fine. When it's on, the "format"
indicator on the Dakota control panel turns red, indicating an error
between the Alesis rig and the Dakota. As far as I can tell, the BRC
is configured as per the manual for digital/optical shuttling of
audio. Any help appreciated.

Without BRC:
HD-24 clock is internal
Dakota clock set to optical
SF is 48Khz on both devices

With BRC:
BRC sets HD-24 clock to ADAT sync (cannot be changed)
All other settings unchanged

tos link cables between HD24 and Dakota.
No ADAT sync cable

Any thoughts?

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WAhttp://liondogmusic.comhttp://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

There are a whole lot of functions that do not work right when using
an HD24 with a BRC.

The BRC was not designed to work with the HD24, it was designed for
the tape based ADAT.

Other problems include not being able to start recording from the BRC.
if you record about 5 seconds using the HD24 faceplate buttons, the
BRC will operate normally. You cannot locate past one hour.

Recording at 44.1 induces its own problems and is best left to the
HD24 without the BRC.

If it works with the TOSLiNK Cables, just do lthat and unhook the BRC.

Alesis had promised a really good remote for the HD24 complete with
shuttle and scanning plus about a zillion other features. They even
made up a box of the remote, but it was as empty as their promises.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:13:15 -0800 (PST), Richard Kuschel
wrote:

On Dec 3, 8:05 pm, Rick Ruskin wrote:
With BRC off the system works fine. When it's on, the "format"
indicator on the Dakota control panel turns red, indicating an error
between the Alesis rig and the Dakota. As far as I can tell, the BRC
is configured as per the manual for digital/optical shuttling of
audio. Any help appreciated.

Without BRC:
HD-24 clock is internal
Dakota clock set to optical
SF is 48Khz on both devices

With BRC:
BRC sets HD-24 clock to ADAT sync (cannot be changed)
All other settings unchanged

tos link cables between HD24 and Dakota.
No ADAT sync cable

Any thoughts?

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WAhttp://liondogmusic.comhttp://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

There are a whole lot of functions that do not work right when using
an HD24 with a BRC.

The BRC was not designed to work with the HD24, it was designed for
the tape based ADAT.

Other problems include not being able to start recording from the BRC.
if you record about 5 seconds using the HD24 faceplate buttons, the
BRC will operate normally. You cannot locate past one hour.

Recording at 44.1 induces its own problems and is best left to the
HD24 without the BRC.

If it works with the TOSLiNK Cables, just do lthat and unhook the BRC.

Alesis had promised a really good remote for the HD24 complete with
shuttle and scanning plus about a zillion other features. They even
made up a box of the remote, but it was as empty as their promises.


I am aware of the problems you cite. I can also live with not using
the BRC when moving signal around. If I get a hold of another ADAT
sync able long enough ( I need 25 ft) to reach from the HD24 to the
computer, I'll try using ADAT sync instead of opical for the clock.
Until then, I'll turn the the BRC on or off as the situation dictates.

I gotta say that TASCAM TDIF is a much hipper protocol. YMMV.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

I am aware of the problems you cite. I can also live with not using
the BRC when moving signal around. If I get a hold of another ADAT
sync able long enough ( I need 25 ft) to reach from the HD24 to the
computer, I'll try using ADAT sync instead of opical for the clock.
Until then, I'll turn the the BRC on or off as the situation dictates.

I gotta say that TASCAM TDIF is a much hipper protocol. YMMV.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

I used TDIF for many years, I gotta disagree with you there. There are
some advantages, but the truth is that the whole world is ADAT. I don't
understand why on earth you would need the BRC, unless you're using the
tape based ADATS in your setup.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:30:26 -0600, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:


I am aware of the problems you cite. I can also live with not using
the BRC when moving signal around. If I get a hold of another ADAT
sync able long enough ( I need 25 ft) to reach from the HD24 to the
computer, I'll try using ADAT sync instead of opical for the clock.
Until then, I'll turn the the BRC on or off as the situation dictates.

I gotta say that TASCAM TDIF is a much hipper protocol. YMMV.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

I used TDIF for many years, I gotta disagree with you there. There are
some advantages, but the truth is that the whole world is ADAT. I don't
understand why on earth you would need the BRC, unless you're using the
tape based ADATS in your setup.

Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT. I also like
the fact that the remote doesn't high-jack internal clock and smpte
functions. This doesn't mean I'm going back to DTRS, though.

I have the remote because of the constant need to run the HD-24 from
the studio where I record myself. The idea of running in and out of
the control room to set up punch-ins and overdubs doesn't appeal to
me.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Mike Rivers]

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT.

I thought about that quite a bit in the early days of MDMs. Initially I
liked the idea of a simple connection when there was just a digital
recorder and a digital console, but the problem arises when you have
functions performed by multiple boxes. For instance you want the outputs
to go to a console, but want the inputs to come from an outboard mic
preamp. It seems logical that a standard accessory for the TDIF user
would be an splitter but I don't believe I've ever seen a store-bought
one, nor even a DIY article on making one.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT. I also like
the fact that the remote doesn't high-jack internal clock and smpte
functions. This doesn't mean I'm going back to DTRS, though.

I have the remote because of the constant need to run the HD-24 from
the studio where I record myself. The idea of running in and out of
the control room to set up punch-ins and overdubs doesn't appeal to
me.

Ahh! I see. Too bad they didn't make the front panel removable like on
those Fostex units.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:36:05 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT.

I thought about that quite a bit in the early days of MDMs. Initially I
liked the idea of a simple connection when there was just a digital
recorder and a digital console, but the problem arises when you have
functions performed by multiple boxes. For instance you want the outputs
to go to a console, but want the inputs to come from an outboard mic
preamp. snip

That's never going to be an issue for me as I only use the digital
interface to shuttle between recording device and computer. My mic
pre's are analog. Other than editing, all other signal manipulation,
including mixing, is done analog. It may be old-school but this way
A-D and D-A conversions happen once each.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:48:51 -0600, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:


Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT. I also like
the fact that the remote doesn't high-jack internal clock and smpte
functions. This doesn't mean I'm going back to DTRS, though.

I have the remote because of the constant need to run the HD-24 from
the studio where I record myself. The idea of running in and out of
the control room to set up punch-ins and overdubs doesn't appeal to
me.

Ahh! I see. Too bad they didn't make the front panel removable like on
those Fostex units.


I need 30 ft worth of remote cable to get to any/all corners of the
studio. Those detachable faceplates don't allow for that do they?


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:48:51 -0600, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

Chalk it up to different strokes. I think that one cable per 8
channels of I/O is smarter than the two needed for ADAT. I also like
the fact that the remote doesn't high-jack internal clock and smpte
functions. This doesn't mean I'm going back to DTRS, though.

I have the remote because of the constant need to run the HD-24 from
the studio where I record myself. The idea of running in and out of
the control room to set up punch-ins and overdubs doesn't appeal to
me.
Ahh! I see. Too bad they didn't make the front panel removable like on
those Fostex units.


I need 30 ft worth of remote cable to get to any/all corners of the
studio. Those detachable faceplates don't allow for that do they?


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

Yes, well they said to only run them 15 feet, but I could chain two
together just fine.