ORIGINAL: manthe

ORIGINAL: guitarmikeh

another comment;

regarding Mackie emulation, I would use it, but it even has less functionality than native 1884 mode.

there are great things I like about it though. touch a fader the track is selected. REc enable and SElect , record for that track is enabled, you gotta love that part everything else doesn't even come close to native mode.

Don't forget WAI!! I'd love to have that in the native mode driver!

that would be great.

I would really like to hear from a Cake rep. regarding this. they may not be able to comment about this problem.

ORIGINAL: guitarmikeh

once again a comment;

I really like Cake, their crew, and their products. I aint going anywhere.

as far as tacam, I like them as far as I can throw the 1884 which aint far.

I can appreciate ACT. they're looking to implement this for the broadest range of controllers. maybe I have to rethink my control surface/interface.

I tend to agree with you. I am NOT at all fond of Tascam, as a company. I ADORE the 1884. It is a great device. To be honest, I weighed my options for a week before I broke down and bought it because of Tascam's sh!tty service. I've owned a few other Tascam devices in the past. None of them have ever had any real issues that required actual technical service (beyond wanting some questions answered...that NEVER got answered!). Ultimately, the strength and features of the 1884 won out and I bought it. Fortunately, this is the only issue I've ever had with it and, technically, it isn't really an issue with the 1884 as a device.

I'm not going anywhere either, but I will continue to politely ask all parties to 'pretty please' address these issues!

ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen

I received a positive response from my contact at Frontier. No promises but they are willing to look at it and dialogue with Cake to seek a resolution.

They do have one very reasonable request;

"In order for that(email feedback) to be productive please ask anyone who does email us to carefully and completely describe the problem, and give us a way to reach them in case there are questions. While I understand the individuals frustration., filtering out emails that are only venting anger only bogs things down.
Better yet, the best thing to do is collect and submit them as a compiled list as you did with your previous email."

Let's face it - no hardware or software developer sets out to make a product that creates problems for its users. These guys are just like us - they are more inclined to want to help people who provide them with issues that are clearly and concisely described and without the angry comments that only clutter and discourage.

Stay tuned.

This is fantastic! I've always been and will continue to be polite and productive with any corp. I have contacted about this issue. I've never just vented. I can certainly appreciate Frontier's mentality. I also provide services to clients and it is always way easier to deal with a problem when the emotions are left far out of it. Please let your friend/contact know how much we appreciate their interest. That said, could you provide us with an e-mail address or contact that we can address these issues to? Or, is it just the 'general' support e-mail for Frontier?

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: F1Filter

Bad news guys. The ball is in Tascam's court to get this sorted out.

However. I did make it known to both Cake and Tascam about this issue when I attended the NAMM show. The frustrating part of it all was the reaction I got from the Tascam guys. I really am now beating myself over the head for not writing down the name of the guys I spoke to (I was busy running around the show floor covering the expo for 2 sites). But I eventually was tagged off to the guy that is in charge of the computer recording dept for Tascam. When I told him about the issues with the 1884, and Cake's suggestion of using the Mackie emulation mode. His reaction was "WTF??" and then told me: "Obviously they changed the API for S6." He said that should be a pretty easy fix, wrote down something in the notepad he was carrying, shook my hand and then took off.

I'm really hoping that Tascam does come through with this, as I also own a FW-1884. But if they don't come through in the upcoming weeks. I myself will also be looking elsewhere just based on how slow Tascam's support is for issues like this.

The person you spoke with was probably Jeff Laity. He is a good and reputable fellow, and I trust that the situation will be resolved.

Yet, again, another reason why I love Cake so much.

Thank you, thank you, thank you,

<stimpy voice> ohhhh I'm so happy ..

If Frontier wants people to write, I can certainly do that - just let me know.

Anything for some new drivers!

I will look forward to the development on this !

Thanks

ORIGINAL: CP

ORIGINAL: F1Filter

Bad news guys. The ball is in Tascam's court to get this sorted out.

However. I did make it known to both Cake and Tascam about this issue when I attended the NAMM show. The frustrating part of it all was the reaction I got from the Tascam guys. I really am now beating myself over the head for not writing down the name of the guys I spoke to (I was busy running around the show floor covering the expo for 2 sites). But I eventually was tagged off to the guy that is in charge of the computer recording dept for Tascam. When I told him about the issues with the 1884, and Cake's suggestion of using the Mackie emulation mode. His reaction was "WTF??" and then told me: "Obviously they changed the API for S6." He said that should be a pretty easy fix, wrote down something in the notepad he was carrying, shook my hand and then took off.

I'm really hoping that Tascam does come through with this, as I also own a FW-1884. But if they don't come through in the upcoming weeks. I myself will also be looking elsewhere just based on how slow Tascam's support is for issues like this.

The person you spoke with was probably Jeff Laity. He is a good and reputable fellow, and I trust that the situation will be resolved.

Thanks for mentioning that name. Because I did a search on Tascams site and looked for a photo of him. While I'm horrible at remembering names, I never forget a face. After looking through a couple of press releases. It wasn't him that I ultimately talked to. But rather Jim Bailey. As shown in the photo of this press release.

thank you thank you thank you....press loop button
Seriously, we really appreciate the feedback from you Bob

+1 on that. I only wish Tascam could be as quick to reply to problems posted on their official forums. Oh wait.....

ORIGINAL: Bob Damiano [Cakewalk]

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.

I spoke to my contact at Frontier today, and they had already come to the same conclusion. They have addressed the refresh issue and will be providing a new DLL to tascam soon. Of course I can't speak to when this will be available or how, but it does sound like the problem is understood and addressed from an engineering standpoint.

We're sorry for the trouble and we thank you for your patience.

What tremendous news! This seals it that I chose the right DAW software company. (I was *THIS* close to going with Cubase a few years ago. Talk about winning the coin flip!)

I hope this isn't a dumb question, tho. Does the search for a solution for the FW-1884 mean that we FW-1082 users can also be hopeful? Thanks.

Looks like our forum activities have paid off!!!

I sure am glad we weren't influenced to all run off, in to the shadows and individually address our issues, one at a time to the vendors (as some here have suggested)!

Thanks again Bob and Cakewalk!

ORIGINAL: Keyrick

First of all, I am not a power user. I have been using Sonar 4 for the last year and a half and was very pleased with my results. I do about 8 tracks per project, nothing really big. I purchased the Sonar 6 upgrade in early January, and just after NAMM, I downloaded loaded the 6.0.1 Maintenance release. When I first loaded 6.0 I had some issues and ultimately had to delete my Tascam FW-1884 drivers (1.40) and I deleted 6.0 and started over. Everything kinda worked OK after that. My machine, an HP, has a P4, 3.2 GIG processor with 1.5 Meg of RAM and a 200 GB hard drive.

Tonight I downloaded via DSL the 6.2 release. It took about 27 minutes and there were no issues. After the download, it took about 2 minutes to load. Everything works very well. I loaded a song from Sonar 4 and it performed perfectly. The control surface does everything that it did before, which means it doesn't do anything that it didn't do before! The only new feature that I have tried so far is the X-ray window and that is very cool. I wish MS Office had this feature!

Like I say, I'm not a power user like most of you guys and I come here to learn. My experience with this release has been positive so far and I wanted you folks to know that.

Good Luck.

Rick

Just an example...

try arming a track using the 1884... (you know, select the track with the 'Sel' button for a given track, then hit the red 'Rec' button)

see what happens...

PS - I believe all of the 6.2 update download issues had to do with the 'mad rush' to DL last night, when it first came out. Things have settled down considerably now!

Not an 1884 user, but am stoked for those that are. The Bakers prove once again that they listen to and care about their user base. Way to go guys ... now lets hope Frontier/ Teac follows through ;-)

I own a 1082. I'd like to know exactly what issue is being sorted out here. I read this entire thread and am a bit confused.

What? are you an idiot?

forget it, I cant be bothered.

mind your own business. I'm pissy today. yet, another person on <ignore>

ORIGINAL: Jose7822

Looks like our forum activities have paid off!!!

I sure am glad we weren't influenced to all run off, in to the shadows and individually address our issues, one at a time to the vendors (as some here have suggested)!

Thanks again Bob and Cakewalk!

I really was gonna stay out of it, but you just had to go there. I don't know if I'm speaking Japanese here but I was never against you trying to solve your problem. What I was mostly against of was the way some of you did it, i.e. saying bad things about Cakewalk just because they didn't "fix" (I put it in "" because it's not really their fault as you've just found out through Bob) your issue. I'm really glad you guys are getting it solved (seriously) but, hopefully, next time you have something you want fixed don't start complaining about how disappointed you are at Cakewalk and then start celebrating and praising it. Please, let's not be hypocritical.

I know we want Sonar to be the best it can be, but that just takes time, specially with people going left and right about what they want. So put yoursleves in their shoes and think about all they're going through with soooo many requests from users. Just think about that for a lil bit before going into selfish mode. Anyways, Im out, peace.

Fair enough. But, with all due respect, go back and read your comments, chronologically. It wasn't until your 3rd comment that you said anything close to what you're asserting above. Truthfully, if you go back and read your contributions chronologically, you will clearly see that you came in to this thread and - 1st - made an inaccurate statement about ACT, then proceeded to tell us - "...So go complain to Tascam, for everybody else it seems to be working better so that should give you a hint..." (not exactly polite or supportive, thanks though!). Then in your next post you spend a short paragraph telling us to take our problems elsewhere...off the forum...there we're, "...in the wrong places"

So,...First of all, I never once said anything negative about Cakewalk. Maybe others expressed disappointment, but who cares. Have you ever been disappointed with someone or something you love or like. OF COURSE you have. Why does it make YOU mad if someone else is disappointed with Cakewalk. Perhaps they have every right to be. You know, it seems to me that some people were told that this very issue would be addressed in this patch. Of course, without an official announcement, there would be no reason to get excited. And, I was never told that, so I did not 'expect' it...I only hoped for it. But if I had been told that and it fell through, I would CERTAINLY be upset...and be right in feeling that way. Whoever YOU think is to blame for this is not germane, at all. I know in your mind, the fault lies squarely AWAY from Cakewalk. Whatever, dude. That's not entirely true, but it isn't worth arguing to much. I will say this, if Cakewalk says their implementation of a feature had been broken for many years (which they did) and Frontier said that they were forced to design a work-around for that broken implementation (and they did), why is it all of the sudden everybody ELSES fault when Cakewalk decides to fix their broken code, unannounced? Hmmm...could it be that there is 'blame' to go around to everyone. But, if you'll notice, in this thread you were really the ONLY person talking about blame (or those responding to YOUR threads). The rest of us were talking about solutions, not blame.


In conclusion, it seems like it would have been better for everyone if;

A. You had not jumped into this thread and started telling all of us to take it elsewhere (...and don't say you didn't do that. Go back and read your first 2 posts because, well, you did!)

B. You had not admonished us for expressing our legitimate frustration and disappointment

C. You had not come in here calling us names (hypocrites) for expressing joy and elation at the progress we've made.