[ardour-dev] Re: [ardour-users] MTC & MMC - CORRECTION

[Third Option]

Correction:  sorry, but I refer to song position pointers - that's not
actually accurate - song position pointers are used in conjunction with MIDI
Clocks, which is another, older, MIDI way of syncing (MIDI clocks slave by
tempo - it's not time code)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Third Option" <thirdoption at hotmail.com>
To: <ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] Re: [ardour-users] MTC & MMC ...


> > Ardour doesn't chase TC all by itself. Something needs to send it a
> > "Start" command (e.g. using MMC). Its arguable that it should have the
> > option of "chasing" any varying TC (i.e. once TC starts to move, we
> > just assume that the transport should start). I think I have that
> > right :) Please be more specific about how you set up Ardour as an MTC
> > slave in terms of Ardour's own options.
>
> wait a minute I don't get it - in a scenario where this is working, are
you
> saying that something else, say, Muse for example, will respond to MTC
> coming in and then send Ardour an MMC start command?  because this is no
> different from what i'm doing with ecasound.  this is not sync, this is a
> free floating jam.  MTC is a LOCK, like SMPTE, which includes a constant
> reminder where in time a machine is, called Song Position Pointer - in
this
> scenario, with a simple "start at the same time" MMC command, ardour can
> drift, for example, if it xruns.  theorhetically (actually I get that
theory
> from practice) a short enough xrun wouldn't be heard or even mess up a
> recorded track with an audible "drop out", but it WOULD mess up the sync.
> this isn't a problem WITHIN ardour, because an xrun slows the WHOLE
program
> down - but an xrun DOES NOT slow the master machine down, if ardour is
> slave.  now I assume if ardour was SENDING MTC, the slave machines would
> follow any slow downs (that's what you want) - that said, what about
> implementing MTC SEND?  is that a harder thing to do?  why are we focusing
> on MTC slave?  in practice, I'd actually rather have the multitracker be
the
> master of the time code.
>
> the most obvious example of why you need MTC, other than drift, is that in
> order to BE in sync with this free floating jam sync workaround, you have
to
> start the piece over from the beginning.  this becomes a pretty big hassle
> in a 3 minute song - but what about a 30 minute piece?  here you gotta
waste
> 30 minutes to get to a punch in at the end, which could cost you 70
dollars,
> depending on where you are - 15 or 20 dollars in my house ;)
>
> so basically this issue is, to my eyes, still VERY unclear.
>
> ps:
> my staunch opinion always has been and remains that implementing MTC as
> opposed to straight SMPTE will be far more useful - most gear these days
> deals with MTC and NOT straight SMPTE.
>
> bear in mind that there is no practical, in-use difference between the
two -
> MTC is the MIDI implemention of the SMPTE standard, so that SMPTE time
code
> can be sent over the MIDI stream (without having to have an audio track
> recorded, or a BNC connector for SMPTE - that's why it makes sense that
most
> gear will not have a BNC connector for SMPTE, because it probably already
> has a MIDI connector, so why not just implement MTC and save the cost of
the
> added connector?)
>
> I've gotten as deep as my knowledge permits me - guys please tell me if it
> would help for me to improve and deepen my knowledge to help :)  I'm
already
> at work on that, but I haven't been speedily trying to figure out more
about
> MTC because to the best of my knowledge, Paul et al know more about it
than
> I do, especially with regard to how it interacts with issues such as the
> kernel.
>
> But I'm not totally convinced of that if what we're calling MTC
> implementation is just Ardour responding to MMC start, which is easy and
has
> worked for a while - it's what I'm doing as a work around because of NOT
> having MTC implementation.
>
> pps:
> what about ADAT sync?  just a thought.  I assume that would be harder, and
> it's also less universally useful.  But it was on the list at one point.
>
> ppps:
> MTC obviously includes a start/stop command, coupled with a song position
> pointer.
>
>
> >
> > Slaving has some problems right now but they are not hard to solve,
> > they just require time spent close to a MTC source.
> >
> > > >   Also, I'll be testing MMC with a Tascam TM-D1000 mixer. Please
> advise
> > > > if there are any particular functions the team wants tested. Also,
if
> > > > anyone else has used a similar mixer, please let me know of any
> special
> > > > tips or tricks to try. TIA!
> >
> > Ron Parker has used his DM24 with MMC to control Ardour. Seems to work
> > fine.
> >
> > --p
> > _______________________________________________
> > ardour-dev mailing list
> > ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> > http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
> >
>