Syncing SSL on laptop to desktop

[smp]

I know I saw this somewhere before: one can sync two separate iterations of SSL to increase inputs.

I have the M-Audio Delta on my desktop which gives me 8 inputs. I have Presonus Firestudio on my laptop which gives me an additional 8 inputs. I believe I can somehow sync these two machines to give me 16 inputs on a given session. If that is true, please direct me to the instructions. I am not sure if I saw it on this forum or if it is on the Saw website. (I searched the forum and couldn't find it).

Thanks!

Steve

[Atonepoet]

Download the Saw manual and look under "Using TCP/IP Master Slave Remote Mode"

[smp]

Thanks! Appreciate the feedback!

[Bud Johnson]

I don't think the remote feature will help you as it's designed to function as remote control, not a second daw. What might work would be to lock two computers together with smpte or mtc. It wouldn't be sample accurate, but would suffice. But careful, you'll need two licenses if running ssl on two machines. Might just be easier to expand your interface (Presonus might be best for this.)

[Atonepoet]

I've never tried it myself, but according to the manual the slave machine can record and play back it's own audio. You just need to make sure they are following the same clock source.

[Craig Allen]

A second machine can be used as a remote, or two machines with sound cards can be synced to record at the same time - either, or. You don't absolutely have to have the the cards clocked together, but they will drift over time. Once when Saw was much younger before the ADA8000's were out, I had two machines both with sound cards. I recorded drums to 8 tracks on one machine and everything else to the other. The drums were completely isolated, so no bleed. I recorded several songs this way with each sound card running independently. Each song was less than 5 minutes, so the sync was close enough that you couldn't tell. If there was any bleed, it wouldn't worked because you would have heard flanging. It was a poor mans way to get more tracks.

[Bud Johnson]

I was almost sure I said that..:rolleyes:

[Dave Labrecque]

When the TCI/IP stuff first came out, Bob expressly boasted (rightfully so) about the ability to double track counts by using two synced computers running SAW. The license has no limitations for doing this. A single SAW license is all that is required. A common clock source, of course, is a really good idea. ;)

[Grekim]

When the TCI/IP stuff first came out, Bob expressly boasted (rightfully so) about the ability to double track counts by using two synced computers running SAW. The license has no limitations for doing this. A single SAW license is all that is required. A common clock source, of course, is a really good idea. ;)

With a common clock source they would have to stay in time, meaning not drift. Please correct me If I''m wrong. On the other hand if you stop and start again the two machines would differ by time code, such that one machine might start 1 msec later than the other and placement in the time line would be off by 1 msec, BUT that is not drift, because if you looked 4 minutes in you would still see them off by only 1 msec. Yes?

[Naturally Digital]

With a common clock source they would have to stay in time, meaning not drift. Please correct me If I''m wrong. On the other hand if you stop and start again the two machines would differ by time code, such that one machine might start 1 msec later than the other and placement in the time line would be off by 1 msec, BUT that is not drift, because if you looked 4 minutes in you would still see them off by only 1 msec. Yes?In my experience testing this, the lock is bang-on. Bob doesn't guarantee sample accurate sync between the two machines but I found it was perfect using gigabit nics with a crossover cable (crossover cables probably aren't necessary with todays nics btw).

Anyway, it really does work well.

[Dave Labrecque]

With a common clock source they would have to stay in time, meaning not drift. Please correct me If I''m wrong. On the other hand if you stop and start again the two machines would differ by time code, such that one machine might start 1 msec later than the other and placement in the time line would be off by 1 msec, BUT that is not drift, because if you looked 4 minutes in you would still see them off by only 1 msec. Yes?

Looks like the other Dave has a better handle on this than I, but my guess would be that if Bob can get all input channels in one MT session to record together in a sample accurate manner (you'll notice that all resultant track sound files are always identical in sample length), why not across a network? :)

I should also clarify my earlier statement. When I talked about linking two SAW computers to double track count, I meant to double input count, which usually has a different meaning, though it does correspond to a doubling of the number of simultaneously recorded tracks. ;)