CLASP: a demo

[joel hamilton]

So today I went to a demo of the new CLASP system.
It stands for "closed loop analog something Psomething"
I dont remember what it stands for.
I need to find out if I can blab fully about this thing, but until then, its worth looking at.
Its a pretty amazing rethinking of existing studio infrastructure, thats for sure...
Anybody checked this out yet?

[richierichie]

i think it's "Covert Litigation Avoidance for Studio Professionals"

[Ryan Silva]

The CLASP reminds me of former President Jimmy Carter.

[Gregg Juke]

We saw the CLASP system in November at the "Welcome to 1979" recording summit. Great concept, cool technology and blending of techniques.

Financially out of reach for most of us...

GJ

[richierichie]

Here's some more info:

http://mixonline.com/gear/reviews/endle ... sp_review/

Hmm, I was in the market for an old Fostex sync/remote unit for my little E-16, now I might have to hold up my nearest bookmakers and get one of these

[stereopathetic_banjo]

I saw the Clasp system in action at a St. Louis AES in 2009. The company owner Chris was there, as well as Chris Mara demonstrating it using the college's studio, which had a 3M M79 2". Seemed to work great, and altho expensive, a real alternative to the usual tracking/dumping into DAW scenario. Right now, I couldn't justify the cost, as I have other things to invest in, but I fully support anything that allows engineers to make use of their analog recorders in this day and age of clients not thinking it feasible.

On a side note, I met and talked to Chris not long after the AES when I was in Nashville visiting SS and Blevins Audio. He and his wife were very approachable, and interested in any feedback. A good sign of any company, in my eyes.

[drumsound]

It's quite the amazing system. I was at the AES summit and Welcome to 1979 events mentioned. It's pretty cool how it just takes care of everything.

Chris, the owner/inventor it a super cool guy. His heart and his mind are really in the right place.

[joel hamilton]

Chris and his wife seem like really good people.
The CLASP system has been something I have been arguing about, with myself, since I went to the demo last week.
Price notwithstanding, it seems to presuppose many things...
It is a really, really cool implementation of existing studio infrastructure.

[stereopathetic_banjo]

I guess the only 'argument' I have about it is that in the re-purposing of an analog recorder in the process of making a record, it kind of takes out the fact that you're actually recording on a tape machine. I mean, it doesn't- obviously. The machine is still rolling tape...I guess what I'm awkwardly trying to say is that due to something like this, people are not going to know the simplicity and different vibe that tracking straight to tape can bring to a session. Using something that makes the machine simply another 'effect' in the chain (albeit a great one) is the only rub I have with the concept. That said, I don't own one, so it's easy to argue hypothetically.

To further my weak argument, I myself usually dump to a DAW and mix from there. Why? because it's so much faster to mix from a computer, as well as editing, etc. And if one has decent converters, 95% of the sound you got on tape is there in wave-form.

I dunno, it's a great thing that will get people using their tape machines, and I absolutely applaud that. I still do love tracking and mixing straight to and from tape when it's appropriate (which unfortunately is increasingly rare). I understand that the Clasp system really simplifies things and shoots straight forward to the end result of what most of us with tape/daw systems do anyhow. Regulating the complex and wonderful beast of analog recording to simply a part of the capture chain is what I'm semantically hung up on.

I'll shut up now.

[drumsound]

I guess the only 'argument' I have about it is that in the re-purposing of an analog recorder in the process of making a record, it kind of takes out the fact that you're actually recording on a tape machine. I mean, it doesn't- obviously. The machine is still rolling tape...I guess what I'm awkwardly trying to say is that due to something like this, people are not going to know the simplicity and different vibe that tracking straight to tape can bring to a session. Using something that makes the machine simply another 'effect' in the chain (albeit a great one) is the only rub I have with the concept. That said, I don't own one, so it's easy to argue hypothetically.

To further my weak argument, I myself usually dump to a DAW and mix from there. Why? because it's so much faster to mix from a computer, as well as editing, etc. And if one has decent converters, 95% of the sound you got on tape is there in wave-form.

I dunno, it's a great thing that will get people using their tape machines, and I absolutely applaud that. I still do love tracking and mixing straight to and from tape when it's appropriate (which unfortunately is increasingly rare). I understand that the Clasp system really simplifies things and shoots straight forward to the end result of what most of us with tape/daw systems do anyhow. Regulating the complex and wonderful beast of analog recording to simply a part of the capture chain is what I'm semantically hung up on.

I'll shut up now.

I actually think that's a huge part of the beauty of the system. The tape is there, doing it's sonic thing, but not interfering. A lot of people fill up a tape and then continue in the box, CLASP lets you simply and easily make sure tape is involved without a lot of dicking around.

[joel hamilton]

I guess the only 'argument' I have about it is that in the re-purposing of an analog recorder in the process of making a record, it kind of takes out the fact that you're actually recording on a tape machine. I mean, it doesn't- obviously. The machine is still rolling tape...I guess what I'm awkwardly trying to say is that due to something like this, people are not going to know the simplicity and different vibe that tracking straight to tape can bring to a session. Using something that makes the machine simply another 'effect' in the chain (albeit a great one) is the only rub I have with the concept. That said, I don't own one, so it's easy to argue hypothetically.

To further my weak argument, I myself usually dump to a DAW and mix from there. Why? because it's so much faster to mix from a computer, as well as editing, etc. And if one has decent converters, 95% of the sound you got on tape is there in wave-form.

I dunno, it's a great thing that will get people using their tape machines, and I absolutely applaud that. I still do love tracking and mixing straight to and from tape when it's appropriate (which unfortunately is increasingly rare). I understand that the Clasp system really simplifies things and shoots straight forward to the end result of what most of us with tape/daw systems do anyhow. Regulating the complex and wonderful beast of analog recording to simply a part of the capture chain is what I'm semantically hung up on.

I'll shut up now.

I totally hear you.
Part of what I was wondering is if a big part of the fetish for tape for the "kidz" that grew up with DAW's everywhere, is the actual workflow that comes with shuttling... rewinding after a take and actually listening.
SOme of what I see and hear people ranting about when they talk about tape is EXACTLY the "way records USED to be made" and other such stuff that I may or may not agree with, having grown up when tape was the only format.
This is part of what I think CLASP assumes: that everyone wants the sound of tape, but does not want the "hassle" of rewinding, or the "limitations" that come with just 24 tracks of audio playing at once... people who think that tape is awesome, but want to do 786 takes of the vocals and playlist all of them will love CLASP, surely, but people who think that embracing the paradigm of the all mystical tape requires a physically imposed limitation on overdubbing will not.
CLASP seems to raise all kinds of interesting questions for me, and none of them are the same old snoozefest cloaked in a trllion disguises: analog vs digital.
Thankfully this is a proactive, progressive step toward integration, which I already do, but without the simplicity or efficiency of the CLASP system presently.
BUT: is what we euphemistically call production "efficiency" actually an asset to a creative process?
Is the goal of my studio on par or a lot like the goals of a factory that makes barrels? to increase efficiency in that case is simply to increase consumption of raw materials. In my case, increasing "efficiency" at a certain point does not yield a better product artistically. There are many ways in which being efficient with time can lead to much better songs, mixes, recordings.. of course.
CLASP seems to make the assumption that I want to haul ass through my song, work in a very "protoolsey" way, but have the ultimate, super, crazy-if-you0think-anything-could-be-better sound of tape.
Here is the problem with using a super heavy push for the sound of tape to sell the CLASP system: The sound of tape does not actually come from the CLASP system, so if you are super in love with the way tape sounds, and you have something like, say, a TAPE MACHINE, then you already have this sound at your disposal.
No if you want to integrate that sound into something that you may or may not like, then CLASP will do it in a very elegant and well thought out way.
it is very interesting, for sure.

[Allen Farmelo]

Joel, I totally dig what you're saying, and personally find that two of the best aspects of working with analog tape machines have nothing to do with the sound.

1. I love how it slows down the whole work flow and - after people adjust to rewinding and changing reels - chills everyone out and offers up natural breaks in the session. Ears can relax, conversation about takes can happen, fingers, writsts and vocal chords can recover. For me, the slower pace can in some cases be a great relief from the relentless "go go go go go go go go go" that PT makes possible.

2. I love not looking at the computer screen. Beyond my love, there is now (via Euphonix R&D for the Artist Series controllers) scientifically sound neurological evidence that the hand eye coordination required to operate a mouse interrupts creative thinking because it uses the same area of the brain we use to do stuff like hum a melody, consider a lyric, contemplate an arrangement and all the other stuff we do as musicians. On the flip side, buttons, knobs and faders require us to use a totally different part of the brain that doesn't interfere with our creative work. Euphonix actually hooked thingies up to people's heads and monitored what happened when they did different stuff on consoles and with mice. Fascinating in its own right, and totally confirms something that most of us know intuitively - computer interfaces somehow aren't as cool as consoles and tape machines when you're trying to do creative work. Now we know what that somehow is. (I'm going to write a real piece about this research - there are more layers!).

So - to the quick - CLASP certainly isn't going to deliver those aspects of tape, and if I had a CLASP system it'd be a really hard sell to most of my clients to say "Hey, we can take a heck of a lot longer doing the same thing and get less work done, but it'll feel really good. I promise it'll feel nice."

With all that said, how rad would it be when working at an acclaimed studio - where the budget and all of my philosophies are flying out the window at the pace of the hour hand - to be able to effortlessly take advantage of their perfectly tuned A80 or A827? Pretty frickin' rad. That's where I imagine CLASP is going to show its stripes, set "big" studios apart by yet one more inch, and actually bring the sound of tape to systems that could most likely benefit from it.

I haven't mentioned that I do enjoy the sound of tape, too. Funny how that didn't really come up

Cheers all,
Allen

[Gregg Juke]

If I'm not mistaken (and I most certainly could be), the user (if he or she is willing to run through endless reels of 2-inch) will get _three different versions_ of the same take, yes? One would be the DAW, the other would be the tape-machine's electronic transfer to the DAW (the tape track automatically transferred to Pro Tools or whatever), and the third would be what's printed to actual tape, yes?

That's like choices beyond most producer's wildest dreams. If you've got the time and the money, why would that be a bad thing?

GJ

[drumsound]

If I'm not mistaken (and I most certainly could be), the user (if he or she is willing to run through endless reels of 2-inch) will get _three different versions_ of the same take, yes? One would be the DAW, the other would be the tape-machine's electronic transfer to the DAW (the tape track automatically transferred to Pro Tools or whatever), and the third would be what's printed to actual tape, yes?

That's like choices beyond most producer's wildest dreams. If you've got the time and the money, why would that be a bad thing?

GJ

This is true, except that the CLASP system auto-rewinds at the end of the tape, and you keep using the same reel.

[Gregg Juke]

>>>>This is true, except that the CLASP system auto-rewinds at the end of the tape, and you keep using the same reel.<<<<

Yes, but is it not possible to shut-off the auto-rewind, keep loading fresh reels, and have all three versions of a take available?

GJ