guitarmikeh
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 942
- Joined: 2005/03/11 23:16:02
- Location: ?
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/22 20:30:24
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: manthe
ORIGINAL: guitarmikeh
OK, lets look at it at thier point of view.
Tascam..(the Evil giant) doesn't want to support a (how old product ??? ) why would they??? when they can sell you a new one with "better features" 
But they still push this product, and produce and it is still active. They have not replaced or upgraded it yet. They have nothing else to push on us in this category. In fact, this board still competes (and beats out!) newer, similar offerings (Project I/O).
No disrespect meant....plus, I have just as much contempt for Tascam as anyone here, but I haver to disagree with this point.
well there is a winkie there... I agree with you for the most part...but they do have "more expensive" items like the dm3200 and the dm4800.... ok they're much more expensive.... 
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
guitarmikeh
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 942
- Joined: 2005/03/11 23:16:02
- Location: ?
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/22 20:39:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: D K
I'm again trying to stay calm about this and not over-react but do you guys see Brian's post above? He states clearly where the remaining issues are - Cakewalk
I know , It's very easy to rain down on Tascam - Heck - from what I hear they and MOTU have some of the worst customer service in the industry but this is (from what Brian tells us) Cakewalk's final mile to walk.
OK - Now - I have a sticky Fader #5 that seems to be grabbing and is not smooth anymore - any of you gurus know how to fix that? - PLEEEEASE 
PS - I am hopeful we can get further with this but I think to sit on this board and pound on Tascam is useless - We need Cake who we already know may have the best Customer service in the industry to do what they do best.
im calm............im calm....................im calm.............................
I'm with you on this one D K...If Cake can just get us 1884 users and our collective ACT together. OK , now chant with me "ohm wattaa nazzzzz ayae yamm" the sticky fader issuse..... could be that you need to adjust the touch sensitivity on it. put the 1884 in mon mix mode and adj senseativity with SHIFT + GAIN ENCODER.
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
Leonard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 309
- Joined: 2006/02/05 12:24:09
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/22 20:41:50
(permalink)
I've learned a valuable lesson reading this thread. In the future, I will do my homework before buying any audio software or hardware.
IMO-Tascam is really hurting themselves. They're out of balance; far too bottomline sale price focused; far too lean in followup customer relations. They're better off longterm charging a little more for their product so that they can provide a better customer support experience. There's is not a model for building customer loyalty. They're so notoriously neglectful after the sale, it's scary. Their image really takes a beating for it.
The FW-1884 is marketed and sold as a state of the art product. And it is. You guys got the shaft. Frontier Designs was outstanding! I think the world of those guys after reading this. I will specifically seek them out in the future. Given a choice I will pick them first every time; glad to pay a little more for the privilege.
FWIW-I have the FW-1804, and was thinking of upgrading to the 1884 when I stumbled across this thread.
yikes.. lol
Yes, I would have paid $100 more for the same FW-1804 to get first class followup support.
|
F@KKER
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 440
- Joined: 2004/01/03 02:02:26
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/22 23:04:58
(permalink)
...and Cakewalk says...
F@KKER
Someone said: I've had more time to play with this, and am withdrawing the bug remarks.
This appears to work as designed and is actually a pretty cool feature.
|
guthrart
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 327
- Joined: 2006/12/28 20:19:43
- Status: offline
Leonard's 1804
2007/08/23 07:12:53
(permalink)
Hi Leonard, My brothers and I love the Tascam FW-1884, because it has GSIF2 drivers and 4 midi ins and outs that Gigastudio 3 needs to have the greatest number of concurrent instruments. As you might not know, in order to make use of the GSIF2 drivers, the midi interface and the audio interface must be in the same unit. With the 1884, and the 1804, you can stream up to 16 tracks times the number of midi inputs into Gigastudio from Sonar if Gigastudio is set up in stand alone mode. Some producers do this to stream in audio tracks into Gigastudio to apply Gigapulse to the tracks and send the tracks back into Sonar. We have not yet tried this. We were considering getting a FW-1804 and dedicating it to be our GIGABox's interface. Also, did you know that Gigastudio 4 is coming out soon, and it will be 64-bit! How does the FW-1804 work with Sonar 6.2.1 Producer? Do they play nicely together? As for the FW-1884, up until Sonar Producer 4, Fw-1884 and Sonar worked better together than ANY other DAW combination with the FW-1884. For some reason, Tascam began to focus on Cubase LE and seemed to forget Sonar. If you want to get the FW-1884, and use it with Sonar 5 and above, just don't use it as a controller, and make sure you buy a Firewire PCI adapter with a TI chip set. We are going to get one of those. We hope the DLLs are released soon!
post edited by rosefam6 - 2007/08/23 07:15:04
|
skymaster
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 124
- Joined: 2004/03/12 12:09:57
- Status: offline
RE: Leonard's 1804
2007/08/23 08:44:48
(permalink)
No problem DK. I understand the frustration. Been there myself.
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Leonard's 1804
2007/08/23 09:10:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: rosefam6
As for the FW-1884, up until Sonar Producer 4, Fw-1884 and Sonar worked better together ...
If you want to get the FW-1884, and use it with Sonar 5 and above, ...
This is the second time I've read this, so I thought it should be noted that SONAR 5.2 works fine with the FW-1884. To my knowledge, problems started being reported only with version 6. For this reason, I'm still running version 5.2. I would love to upgrade, but someone doesn't want my money, I guess.
Software: Cakewalk by Bandlab; Adobe Audition; Band-in-A-Box audiophile; Izotope Ozone; Encore; Melodyne; Win 10 Pro, 64-bit. Hardware: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd; Roland Integra-7; TCE Finalizer; Presonus Central Station, Behringer X-Touch. Home built i7 with 16 GB RAM, SSDs.
|
Leonard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 309
- Joined: 2006/02/05 12:24:09
- Status: offline
RE: Leonard's 1804
2007/08/23 10:46:21
(permalink)
Rosefam6-Thanks for sharing that. I am a big fan of GSIF 2.0. Eventually, I'll have a similar dedicated Giga PC.
FW1804 WDM Drivers didn't work at all with S5 on my system. With ASIO I couldn't go higher than 44.1k.
It's night and day different with Sonar Producer 6.0. (no S6P updates, recent purchase, everything's working fine) The 1804 is rock solid stable using WDM. Via TI PCI FW-card, this Compaq Presario Athlon 3800+; set to 24bit, 44.1k, 5.8 msec latency; runs Jamstix 2 VST along with live guitar playing through PerfectSpace Convolution Reverb (internally set at lowest "64" latency) without a hitch. I could probably lower latency within Sonar even more. Hope this helps.
Side note. The 1804's mic-pres must not be as good as the 1884's. IMO-the 1804's are minimally adequate for semi-pro quality recording. For reference, they are definitely not as good as the 2 mic-pre's inside MAudio's Delta 66's "OmniStudio" breakout box. MAudio sold them separately as Audio Buddy mic-pre's. Leonard
|
rohnnk
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 137
- Joined: 2004/09/21 13:11:11
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/24 08:24:40
(permalink)
Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is actually said, is Cakewalk turning a deaf ear towards us?
If Sonar 7 fixes the FW bug, I was wondering if they would credit my 6.0 purchase (which is still sitting on the shelf) towards the 7.0 version. If it isnt fixed and if they wont credit, I will go elsewhere. In the words of Frank Zappa "I figure the odds be 50 50".
Rohnn
ASUS P5B Delux, 4gig Corsair, Q6600 Sonar 7 producer Soundforge 9 CD Architect 5.2 Saffire Pro 24 interface + Behringer ADA8000 Kurzweil K2600xs & K2600s synth
|
manthe
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 401
- Joined: 2005/11/20 18:24:57
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/24 09:24:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: rohnnk
Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is actually said, is Cakewalk turning a deaf ear towards us?
If Sonar 7 fixes the FW bug, I was wondering if they would credit my 6.0 purchase (which is still sitting on the shelf) towards the 7.0 version. If it isnt fixed and if they wont credit, I will go elsewhere. In the words of Frank Zappa "I figure the odds be 50 50".
Rohnn
I'm not trying to be adversarial, but that doesn't seem realistic to me. At first, I didn't want to upgrade to 6 because of this. Then, my hand was forced because I needed the ability to record automation...so I did. I configured work-arounds for the issues in the 1884 driver config within SONAR. The work-arounds worked perfectly and were no more or less cumbersome (in terms of pushing short-cut buttons on the CS) than the 'regular' way to do it. All along, SONAR 6 performed BEAUTIFULLY with the 1884. Rock solid I/O, full control surface functionality (with work-arounds), etc. All-in-all, I'd say that moving from S5 to S6 has been a great improvement and a great experience, regardless of the functionality issues. Do I want them fixed...ABSOLUTELY! Am I frustrated with Tascam, and to a FAR lesser degree Cakewalk...Absolutely! I just don't (personally) see why Cakewalk would need to credit you an upgrade. At the end of the day, Tascam should be the one issueing that credit (if necessary). It is Tascam that claims full compatibility with SONAR for the 1884, and not the other way around. Technically speaking, with the work-arounds in place, there is 100% functionality, without the loss of anything. In other words, the button combos I configured to accomplish the 'broken' functionality were combos that were already duplicate. I just added them to my list of other customizations that I've been using for years! Now that this beta driver is out, I've undone some of the work-arounds (it is hard to get used to doing things the 'original' way!). I'd say were back to 99% + 'natural' functionality. All through this, though, I've been enjoying fantastic performance, stability and very high quality audio. I've recorded up to 16 tracks, simultaneously (fulle band) at 128 samples (2.7ms) for hours and hours without a single incident. THAT is not something that a lot of people, with 'lower-end' audio interfaces can boast. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it: The 1884 is a HIGHLY underrated interface. The A/D conversion is extremely good, the preamps are WAY better than people realize (I have very expensive, high-end preamps to compare them to...and they compare very favorably), the ASIO drivers in XP are rock solid, the low latency, real-time monitoring capability rivals that of devices costing more than triple the 1884, etc, etc., etc. I am trying not to come off as a fan boy. I think a lot of people focused so much on the CS issues with S6 and how very, very crappy Tascam's customer support/relations are, that they've forgotten what an amazing piece of gear this is. I hate Tascam, but I have no problem relying on this board every day to record people, professionally in my project/demo studio. It has never let me down (once I've learned it's nuances), and has helped me earn a fair bit of supplemental income (which gets poured right back into the studio!!). I've gone off on a tangent here, but I wanted add some posotive comments to this thread to remind myself (and hopefully others) that, in relative terms, this is truly not a huge issue!
|
guthrart
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 327
- Joined: 2006/12/28 20:19:43
- Status: offline
FW_1884 workarounds
2007/08/24 21:50:04
(permalink)
Hi Manthe, The gang here hopes all is going well you. If it is not too much trouble, because we know you are exceedingly busy, could you detail just one example of how to configure a work around for the FW-1884 and Sonar? Maybe there's others in the Forum besides my crew and me that don't know how to do this yet. Everyone in the Thread will be so grateful that they'll probably name their next child's first name "Manthe," or maybe not... Either way, we'd all be very grateful. My bros. and I are wary of playing with the MIDI Mode. Is that where your magics happen? A, J,& J
|
F@KKER
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 440
- Joined: 2004/01/03 02:02:26
- Status: offline
RE: FW_1884 workarounds
2007/08/24 22:37:48
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: rosefam6
Hi Manthe,
The gang here hopes all is going well you.
If it is not too much trouble, because we know you are exceedingly busy, could you detail just one example of how to configure a work around for the FW-1884 and Sonar? Maybe there's others in the Forum besides my crew and me that don't know how to do this yet. Everyone in the Thread will be so grateful that they'll probably name their next child's first name "Manthe," or maybe not... Either way, we'd all be very grateful. My bros. and I are wary of playing with the MIDI Mode. Is that where your magics happen?
A, J,& J
I - ALL IN AGREEMENT, SAY I F@KKER /all caps on purpose
Someone said: I've had more time to play with this, and am withdrawing the bug remarks.
This appears to work as designed and is actually a pretty cool feature.
|
mick@itc
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 629
- Joined: 2004/04/27 18:53:49
- Location: Australia
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/26 06:31:08
(permalink)
Dumb question #42...If the previous FW-1884 drivers were built on an "incorrect" architectural feature of SONAR pre 6 and those drivers are being written with the "correct" SONAR 6 architecture in mind, will the new drivers be compatible with the older SONAR 5 architecture?
Mick
Mick from Oz. HP DV7-3008tx , Sonar 8.5 PE, Komplete 6, GPO, JABB, Ozone 4, Melodyne Studio & DNA
|
guthrart
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 327
- Joined: 2006/12/28 20:19:43
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/26 17:58:08
(permalink)
Hi Mick, If someone from Cakewalk would drop in on this thread, they'd be able to give you the facts  , but an educated guess is that this fix, if and when it were to be finalized and released, is an optional installation for users of Sonar 6+ and the FW-1884. Now, the present drivers work fine with Sonar 4. From personal experience, my brothers and I have seen issues with the FW-1884 and Sonar Version 5 as well. Unless the problems were from our first unit that was replaced by Tascam, it's safe to say that Sonar 5 needs the fix as much as Sonar 6+. But, if you are not having any control surface functionality issues, or stability issues with Sonar 5 and the FW-1884, you won't really need the fix. Maybe Sonar and the FW-1884 love being in OZ better than in AZ.
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/26 19:37:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: rosefam6
Unless ..., it's safe to say that Sonar 5 needs the fix as much as Sonar 6+.
Is it? I don't think so. Please be careful with this advice, even with the "unless". If I recall correctly, this problem was first noticed with SONAR version 6, and Cakewalk admitted that previous versions worked because they took advantage of incorrect code. Some of us are staying with version 5.2 precisely because it does work with the FW-1884 without problems. I'm one of them, and I don't want to break any functionality by installing this patch intended for version 6. You mention others have problems with the FW-1884 under version 5. What problems? If you can document this, please do so; otherwise please be careful that your advice doesn't cause harm to someone. Edit: here is the quote about it from Bob Damiano of Cakewalk, in January 2007. You can find it a couple of pages into this thread: Hi folks,
I have investigated this today and here is what I know so far:
When Control Surfaces were introduced in SONAR 2, there was a flaw in how we asked surfaces to refresh themselves. In SONAR 6.0, this flaw was resolved. The effect was a substantial improvement in efficiency - an important thing because with ACT, people are hooking up multiple surfaces.
The Side-Effect was that there were a couple surface plug-ins (including FW-1884) which were inadvertently relying on this flaw for certain functions. The result was that a bug seemed to appear in 6.0.
post edited by riojazz - 2007/08/26 19:56:00
Software: Cakewalk by Bandlab; Adobe Audition; Band-in-A-Box audiophile; Izotope Ozone; Encore; Melodyne; Win 10 Pro, 64-bit. Hardware: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd; Roland Integra-7; TCE Finalizer; Presonus Central Station, Behringer X-Touch. Home built i7 with 16 GB RAM, SSDs.
|
guthrart
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 327
- Joined: 2006/12/28 20:19:43
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/08/26 23:15:38
(permalink)
Thanks for reminding my brothers and me Rio! We guess you're right. But we believe version 6.2 was supposed to have fixed an FW-1884 crashing issue, and that's why we suggested the fix. Ooops! Most people have had great results with Sonar 5 PE and the FW-1884, but not us, unfortunately. We have had to wipe our computer and reinstall our Ver. 5 disk so many times that our disk has pitted edges, and is slightly warped! We were ecstatic when Version 6 was released, because we thought that the two pieces of our DAW puzzle would finally come together. We have tried the combo (5+) with Win XP Home on a portible, and Win XP MCE on our new computer. (We had to take back three to Fry's because they were crashing!) Our tech at Tascam confirmed the crashing problems with the unit that we sent in, and he told us that we had to wait for the new "Template" that was being developed. This unit was damaged in transit by UPS, and Tascam was kind enough to send us a new boxed unit. We are now anxious to see whether this unit will work completely with Version 5.2, as you and others report. However, there really is no going back to 5 from 6.2 (AudioSnap, VC-64, Input Quantize, Loopback Latency Compensation)! Because our expensive unit was sent away for so long, we were forced to record our best work in 16-bit, on a built-in sound card from a 10 year old computer, with a computer mic as well! The recordings sound great even with the hardware! That's how good the Sonar 64-bit mix Engine really is. That's how cool Sonar 6's AudioSnap and VVocals are! And, that's why we are still waiting for Cakewalk Support to acknowledge our multiple letters to them on this issue, rather than learning to use the Cubase LE software that comes with the FW-1884!  That's why we are bothering posting. We are tring to keep this thread alive so that there might be some movement on this issue from CW and Tascam, not because my brothers and I long to become Gold Star Members, are lonely, or like to complain.
post edited by rosefam6 - 2007/08/26 23:45:15
|
guthrart
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 327
- Joined: 2006/12/28 20:19:43
- Status: offline
Dear Mick, RioJazz is right! If you are crusing with your FW-1884 and Sonar 5 (knock on wood), you won't need the upgrade. Only for Sonar 6+. Good night to the Land Down Under.
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
Sounds good, rosefam6. And you're right to keep the thread alive. I can't imagine why Cakewalk has not responded, since this must be one of the largest threads on the board.
Software: Cakewalk by Bandlab; Adobe Audition; Band-in-A-Box audiophile; Izotope Ozone; Encore; Melodyne; Win 10 Pro, 64-bit. Hardware: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd; Roland Integra-7; TCE Finalizer; Presonus Central Station, Behringer X-Touch. Home built i7 with 16 GB RAM, SSDs.
|
F@KKER
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 440
- Joined: 2004/01/03 02:02:26
- Status: offline
Someone said: I've had more time to play with this, and am withdrawing the bug remarks.
This appears to work as designed and is actually a pretty cool feature.
|
ChronoT52
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 165
- Joined: 2006/09/27 18:15:59
- Status: offline
|
Jay Stephen
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 267
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:18:26
- Location: In Studio
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/02 10:35:58
(permalink)
Fellow FW1884'ers:
Its time again to send some business like snail mail to Tascam. In the spring I wrote to the President of Teac in Japan. My letter was answered by Mr. Tim Crable, Director of Technical Services for Teac America. The contents of both letters are contained in this thread.
I suggest we all write to Mr. Crable and that our letters include:
-your disappointment with the lack of progress in dealing with this issue
-a request that timelines for completion of development and testing be provided to you. (Any software developer will have a work plan including when product will be released, etc. Surely Tascam must have this and we could stop pestering them if we had some firm date committments.)
Good Luck to us.........
XP SP1 Home (tweaked) P4 2.8 HT on P4C800-E 4x512 OCZ Dual Channel DDR Matrox G450 Dual 10G SCSI O/S 80G SATA Audio 500G SATA Backup M-Audio Delta 44 -WDM Pioneer A107D DVD-RW
|
ChronoT52
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 165
- Joined: 2006/09/27 18:15:59
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/02 12:37:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen
I suggest we all write to Mr. Crable and that our letters include:
-your disappointment with the lack of progress in dealing with this issue
-a request that timelines for completion of development and testing be provided to you. (Any software developer will have a work plan including when product will be released, etc. Surely Tascam must have this and we could stop pestering them if we had some firm date committments.)
Good Luck to us.........
What timeline? Tascam doesn't adhere to any of their timelines anyway. They keep saying "Oh, it'll get done by such and such date," and then they just blow by it with some half-assed excuses. We're shooting up close to a year now, and that's simply ridiculous. Even if they had assigned a single programmer to do this, it would have been finished months ago. They clearly don't care. Clearly, Cakewalk seems to think that their responsibility has already extended as far as it can reach as well. I'm to the point that I don't care who does it. I just feel entitled to my $1500 dollars of crap from Cakewalk and TASCAM to work like it was advertised. I'm disappointed at this corporate game of hot potato with responsibility. Protools looks more and more appealing day by day. Atleast I know all the junk will work together.
|
Jay Stephen
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 267
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:18:26
- Location: In Studio
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/10 15:37:36
(permalink)
BTW: if you wish to write TEAC here are a couple of addresses:
Tim Crable
VIA FAX (323)727-7635
Director of Technical Services
TEAC America, INC
TASCAM Division
7733 Telegraph Road
Montebello, CA
90640
and
Mr. Yuji Hanabusa, President
TEAC CORPORATION
3-7-3 Naka-cho, Musashino-shi,
Tokyo 180-8550, Japan
XP SP1 Home (tweaked) P4 2.8 HT on P4C800-E 4x512 OCZ Dual Channel DDR Matrox G450 Dual 10G SCSI O/S 80G SATA Audio 500G SATA Backup M-Audio Delta 44 -WDM Pioneer A107D DVD-RW
|
DonaldDuck
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 789
- Joined: 2007/03/14 16:46:29
- Location: Tha South baby!
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 05:19:54
(permalink)
lol it's sad that you have to beg a company for new drivers.. especially when that product is so pricy. I'm glad I got rid of mine now.. *sighs*
|
manthe
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 401
- Joined: 2005/11/20 18:24:57
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 09:10:22
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DonaldDuck
lol it's sad that you have to beg a company for new drivers.. especially when that product is so pricy. I'm glad I got rid of mine now.. *sighs*
I think you've misunderstood this thread. I also believe it has been your loss, not an advantage to have gotten rid of your 1884. The drivers we are asking for are simply a fix for a a relatively VERY small handful of Control Surface functionalities (ALL of which can have work-arounds configured). Beyond that, this device (coupled with a couple of 8 channel fader packs) has been an amazing performer in my studio. I regularly record 16 tracks at a time with an ADAT attached I/O device @ 64 or 128 samples (depending on the band) without ever a single freeze, crash or audio engine stutter. VERY few interfaces in this price range perform anywhere close to that well! The A/D conversion on this device rivals that of interfaces costing just as much, but without the control surface. Plus, I have 24 100mm, motorized, touch-sensitive faders to mix on! Remember, this problem was brought on by the release of SONAR6...This unit stills functions flawlessly with S5 and earlier. PLUS, it still works flawlessly with the other platforms for which it advertises itself (and many for which it does not...I used it with Sampltude and it worked perfectly). At the end of the day, our driver issue is (was?) a nuance. We are all pushing very hard to get it resolved. This thread is all about banding together and staying on top of the issue by trying to keep the respective companies focused. At the end of the day, the 1884 works just fine...and matches or outperforms just about anything south of $2000.
|
DigiBiu
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/27 01:47:37
- Location: Maurice, Louisiana
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 09:11:10
(permalink)
Gone back to Sonar 5, they will not get another penny out of me!!
http://digitalbayoustudios.com/https://soundcloud.com/digibiuDavid Stuckey Sonar X3 Producer ,Windows 7 64bit ,6G Ram, Quad Core 2.6,3 1 UAD 2 card, 4 UAD-1 Cards, 2 Dell 24" LCD, ADAM ANF10, Avantones, Crown Power Amp, Great River ME-1, UA Solo/610, Distressor,Presonus ADL600,, RNC, RNLA, 2 PBC-6a, JoeMeek MC2, ART Pro Channel, Yamaha MO8,Korg Triton,M-Audio Keystation Pro 88, Custom Shop Fender Twin, 76 Randall Tube Amp, Custom Blue Runner Tube Amp, Lynx Aurora 8 FW Apogee AD8000 SE MixedLogic M24 Control Surface Yamaha Pro Mix 01
|
D K
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1237
- Joined: 2005/06/07 14:07:05
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 10:01:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: manthe
ORIGINAL: DonaldDuck
lol it's sad that you have to beg a company for new drivers.. especially when that product is so pricy. I'm glad I got rid of mine now.. *sighs*
I think you've misunderstood this thread. I also believe it has been your loss, not an advantage to have gotten rid of your 1884. The drivers we are asking for are simply a fix for a a relatively VERY small handful of Control Surface functionalities (ALL of which can have work-arounds configured).
Beyond that, this device (coupled with a couple of 8 channel fader packs) has been an amazing performer in my studio. I regularly record 16 tracks at a time with an ADAT attached I/O device @ 64 or 128 samples (depending on the band) without ever a single freeze, crash or audio engine stutter.
VERY few interfaces in this price range perform anywhere close to that well! The A/D conversion on this device rivals that of interfaces costing just as much, but without the control surface. Plus, I have 24 100mm, motorized, touch-sensitive faders to mix on!
Remember, this problem was brought on by the release of SONAR6...This unit stills functions flawlessly with S5 and earlier. PLUS, it still works flawlessly with the other platforms for which it advertises itself (and many for which it does not...I used it with Sampltude and it worked perfectly).
At the end of the day, our driver issue is (was?) a nuance. We are all pushing very hard to get it resolved. This thread is all about banding together and staying on top of the issue by trying to keep the respective companies focused.
At the end of the day, the 1884 works just fine...and matches or outperforms just about anything south of $2000.
As frustrated as we all are with the slow progress - This I would have to agree with Manthe I would challenge anyone to find a comparably perforrming 8 x 8 interface (With all the expansion options/ possibilities), a 4in 4 out Midi interface and a complex, fully capable control surface (even though the functionality is slightly limited) for 2K. It won't happen - The machine is that good - And that is also part of the problem - Tascam knows it's that good - That's why they are not going to be in any hurry to provide small backend driver improvements for a DAW Platform that while I love has a litlle bit of a reputation for being - Let's say "Finicky". We here in Sonar land are sometimes a little "Narrow' in our focus when we think about hardware - Tascam is doing more business with Nuendo/Cubase users than all the Sonart users combined (Got that bit of information from the Tascam rep who was in Guitar Center last week). You want this quality of A/D, expandability, control - In my opinion - Get ready to head North of 2K
www.ateliersound.com ADK Custom I7-2600 K Win 7 64bit /8 Gig Ram/WD-Seagate Drives(x3) Sonar 8.5.3 (32bit)/Sonar X3b(64bit)/Pro Tools 9 Lavry Blue/Black Lion Audio Mod Tango 24/RME Hammerfall Multiface II/UAD Duo
|
DeeringAmps
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2614
- Joined: 2005/10/03 10:29:25
- Location: Seattle area
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 10:50:44
(permalink)
To all FW-1884 users,
IF You had it to do aver again, would you buy the FW-1884? I'm currently doing some upgrades. How good are the pres and the AD/DA? Would I be better off going with the RME FF 800 and the Mackie controller? I realize this is a much pricer solution, I had thought about the DM-3200 (seems there were some performance issues with that and the DM-4800) but would like to scale down size wise. I've been using the Tascam 688 MidiStudio, into an Echo Gina these days, since I started with Cakewalk 3.0. If you could budget for it, where would you go from the FW-1884?
Thanks,
Tom Deering Tascam FW-1884 User Resources Page Firewire "Legacy" Tutorial, Service Manual, Schematic, and Service Bulletins Win10x64 StudioCat Pro Studio Coffee Lake 8086k 32gb RAM  RME UFX (Audio) Tascam FW-1884 (Control) in Win 10x64 Pro
|
manthe
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 401
- Joined: 2005/11/20 18:24:57
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 12:51:00
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DeeringAmps
To all FW-1884 users,
IF You had it to do aver again, would you buy the FW-1884? I'm currently doing some upgrades. How good are the pres and the AD/DA? Would I be better off going with the RME FF 800 and the Mackie controller? I realize this is a much pricer solution, I had thought about the DM-3200 (seems there were some performance issues with that and the DM-4800) but would like to scale down size wise. I've been using the Tascam 688 MidiStudio, into an Echo Gina these days, since I started with Cakewalk 3.0. If you could budget for it, where would you go from the FW-1884?
Thanks,
I would do it over again, for sure. In fact, I've considered buying a second one on more than 1 occasion. If I weren't moving to HD soon, I would have by now! The A/D is really good. On par with the Fireface, easily. I had a chance to compare them for a few hours and I could hear no discernible difference int he conversion quality, given the same preamps. I actually preferred the preamps on the 1884. They had a 'thicker' sound. They are discreet transistor preamps, so they are dead quiet with plenty of gain...even for my ribbon mics. The D/A is not as good as the A/D on the 1884. If you mix OTB primarily, you could do a little better (you could do a lot worse, though). This is the only thing that frustrates me with the For use with SONAR...especially with the latest beta driver release...nothing else out there integrates as tightly with SONAR, in terms of Control Surface functionality. At the end of the day, the differences between the MCU/FF combo and the 1884 will audible, but the *quality* difference will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to ascertain. It will be audible because of the differences in the preamps/DI/line drivers. Given the same, outboard preamps the 2 units will perform too close to call. Once again, I personally preferred the sound of the 1884 preamps...but that is a personal preference. Beyond that, the 1884 smokes the RME FF on features, IMO: 8 mic pres, instead of 4 4 MIDI Inputs, instead of 1 4 MIDI outputs, instead of 1 Inserts on all 8 channels, instead of 0 inserts on the FF at all Don't forget, the 1884 can also be an analog mixer as well, operating free from any computer or DAW platform. It can even oprate as a stand-alone, analog mixer and a DAW I/O simultaneously (i.e. - you can use it live as a FOH mixer AND record the event at the same time). None of that could not be done with the MCU/FF combo. For me, personally, it is a no-brainer...but every one has different needs and preferences! Good luck with the upgrades. I know what a hassle it can be. I also know how agonizing decisions like this are. These decisions will shape the entire, near future of your recording endeavors. Once you've made a purchase, integrated it and learned it, it becomes exceedingly cumbersome and risky to make big changes. It is nice to 'get it right' up front. When I 'upgraded' to the FW-1884 2 years ago, I was very happy with the decision. I honestly can not believe how happy I *still* am with that decision. I would not have imagined that 2 years later (given the speed at which the digital recording industry changes/moves forward) that the 1884 would still be a viable device. But, the truth is, it is alone in its class (especially given the price). The M-Audio dealy is not even in the same league, IMO. Anyhow, I'm just some dude, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/09/11 13:12:28
(permalink)
Absolutely, I would buy the FW-1884 all over again now. I now use it as my only soundcard, and signal flow issues are much simpler. The mixer function is a bonus on top of its excellence as a control surface for SONAR.
Software: Cakewalk by Bandlab; Adobe Audition; Band-in-A-Box audiophile; Izotope Ozone; Encore; Melodyne; Win 10 Pro, 64-bit. Hardware: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd; Roland Integra-7; TCE Finalizer; Presonus Central Station, Behringer X-Touch. Home built i7 with 16 GB RAM, SSDs.
|