Swapping tracks on the Model 16 & 24

[Tim Bradshaw]

I'm thinking about buying a Model 24. One feature I'd very much like is the ability to swap a pair of (mon0) tracks (or just copy a recorded track to another). This seems to exist on the Model 12, but is not mentioned in the Model 24 manual.

I asked Tascam and they said

It is not possible to track swap on either the Model 16 or 24 as they are analog devices wheras the Model 12 is a digital device​

Which sounds like an odd reply: surely the Model 16 & 24 are just as digital as the Model 12 is? However the manuals do seem to agree: the Model 12 manual mentions swapping tracks in chapter 7 ('Track editing') while neither the 16's nor 24's do.

So: is it really not possible to do this on anything but the 12? That's a shame if so, because I'd really like the longer faders, and although I could live with the Model 16 other than the faders, the Model 12 really doesn't have enough inputs.

Thanks

 

[Mark Richards]

The only thing digital about the Model 24 & Model 16 front-of-house mixers is the onboard 22-track multi-track recorder and the 2-track stereo recorder of the Model 24 (or 14 & 2 for the Model 16). The Model 12 is 100% digital.

Don't own one of these, but I would think you'd be able to export and import the .wav files on the Model 24/16 SD card. What's the owner manual say about that?

The "Bounce Tracks" post in the "Tutorial and Informational Videos For Model 24/16/12" sticky thread may be another option.

 

[Max Relic]

Track Swap is nothing more than renaming source and destination tracks. It's beyond me why that option hasn't been made available on the Model 16 and 24, they share similar multitrack recorder and file organization with the Model 12. With the Model in storage mode, or inserting the SD card in a pc, the recorded tracks inside a folder project can be "swapped" by swapping their filenames.

 

[Tim Bradshaw]

I hadn't realised that the Model 12 was more digital than the 16 & 24: I'd assumed it was just smaller.

I'm sure it's possible to swap (or just copy) tracks by renaming or copying files (the Model 24 manual certainly talks about being able to export & import files, so this is possible even if indirectly): what I was after was a way of doing that from the desk itself rather than having to have a laptop glued to it.

It looks like this isn't possible then, which is annoying given that the recorder is digital even if the rest of the thing is analogue.

 

[Max Relic]

@Tim Bradshaw Given the rich track count, average dawless workflow on Model 16/24 wouldn't need much frequent track swap and when needed, if at all, it could be done in the ways mentioned (also with just a smartphone and a card reader unit). Unless the workflow involves recording only from channels 1 & 2 in order to make use of inserts and methodically swap tracks 1-2 with empty ones.
Take in account that the Model series are less powerful than the Portastudio by design as they are just front-of-house mixers with recording capability. Sometimes it's a limit, other times it can be a blessing for new creative ideas.

 

[Tim Bradshaw]

@Max Relic Yes, what I wanted to be able to do really, is use the thing as a traditional 'split' console where I'd use a bunch of channels for recording and a different bunch of channels for 'tape monitoring'. The Model 24 has enough channels that you could dedicate 8 of them to tape monitoring. It looks like that's not really possible though.

Yes, you're right about the split between Portastudio and these things. But I really want both a full physical channel strip per channel and long faders (and no computer involved in the process as far as possible), and as far as I can see the Model 24 is the only system in the world which offers that at anything like the price.

I am probably unusual in what I want, I realise!

Pretty sure I will just buy a Model 24 and live with its limitation (inline consoles are more fashionable anyway, though I always hated them).

 

[Max Relic]

Wouldn't it be for the lack of MIDI sync I'd have jumped on the Model 24 instead of 12 because of the larger topology, more tracks, independent control room fader and not least long throw faders. IMO if you don't plan to do many recursive bounce/overdub in a project you should feel at home with the 24, and with the little swap gimmicks described above you should go a long way without even thinking to reach the pc.

 

[Tim Bradshaw]

@Max Relic I have just ordered a slightly-second-hand Model 24. Thanks to you & everyone for help. I am sure it will be absolutely fine for what I want, which is I realize is mostly good faders, enough channels and not having to slave over a hot computer to get anything done.

 

[Max Relic]

@Tim Bradshaw congratulations for the acquisition, I am confident you won't be disappointed.
Happy music

 

[salty james]

I hadn't realised that the Model 12 was more digital than the 16 & 24: I'd assumed it was just smaller.

I know.. It is convoluted to have them in the same forum. There functions are very different. It seems every thread has to stop and observe the distinction. I have recommended the model 12 have a different forum than the 16 and 24. It seems a no go. Ugh!

 

[-mjk-]

Although considerably different across the ranges, all the handheld recorders and pocket studios are in the same forum too because it's more about the category than anything else - plus whether there is enough message traffic to warrant the effort to break out the messages into a separate forum for a single product. It's assumed that people understand what they are considering. Personally when I'm interested in a product I download and read the user manual first to make sure it can do what I need.

 

[Max Relic]

I know.. It is convoluted to have them in the same forum. There functions are very different. It seems every thread has to stop and observe the distinction.[...]

The Model Series share the same design and philosophy, compact FOH mixer with multitrack recording capability. Same function, same usecase, partially different implementation.
When a discussion stops to remark their differences is mostly due to people not knowing the product they are asking or talking about. I regularly download and read manuals of products I even don't own just to help people find their way. RTFM before posting is a gold rule that holds true in every forum.

 

[shredd]

Personally when I'm interested in a product I download and read the user manual first to make sure it can do what I need.

I regularly download and read manuals of products I even don't own just to help people find their way. RTFM before posting is a gold rule that holds true in every forum

This.
I've done this with EVERYthing in my studio. And while many O/Manuals are apparently written by absinthe-addled chimps with ADHD and no awareness of something called "the English language"...most of the time all your answers are there - before AND after purchase.
Even learning to understand block diagrams (a' la @Phil Tipping) will get you a loooong way.

 

[Max Relic]

Truth to be told, that's not always that simple because contemporary manuals are sometimes cryptic/obscure and perhaps require more than one reading to get their meaning. One could say the art of well-written manuals is fading away

 

[shredd]

In general, I'd agree with @Max Relic - the last REALLY good user's manual I had was for my TASCAM 2488neo (written in the early 00's); it was practically like having an expert user in the room with you.

MOST manuals are sort of a super-basic skim-over of a product, offering info that most users can figure out themselves by using the device for 20 minutes.

SOME manuals are the aforementioned trash: worthless descriptions of controls or lists of features that do little to explain the items' use/purpose/capabilities, let alone any problem-solving help.

I'm convinced that this has to do with modern-day manuals being written by the above-mentioned retarded chimps, rather than by teams tasked directly to the development of a product, or even by the designers/engineers themselves.

And NOW we're getting manuals written by A.I., which is metaphorically like having a hamster explain your wife's emotions to you. "Better Living Through Technology" my AZZ!!!

 

[Tim Bradshaw]

Personally when I'm interested in a product I download and read the user manual first to make sure it can do what I need.

The stupid thing is that I did do this. But I didn't read it closely enough.

 

[Ugly Bunny]

You know who makes FANTASTIC manuals? Arturia! Their manuals are a blast to read, usually have some humor, but always have you try stuff throughout. It can be a bit cloying when you just want the info and don't want to wade through some examples, but it's nice to have. And, they're usually printed really nicely. I love the Tascam Model 12 manual; it's beefy and is published on nice, thick paper. Honorable mention of manuals goes to Line 6, although it's been a long time since they've released a nice physical manual.

 

[-mjk-]

The stupid thing is that I did do this. But I didn't read it closely enough.

None of us are perfect, Tim. I have also mis-read what I realized later, was plainly worded and should have been understood. That's why there are forums for us to work together on solutions.