Interesting TASCAM News from AES

There it is.  Thanks, Craig.
 
@

I'm currently getting 6.5 ms in / 6.5 ms out = 13 ms with the US-366 at 44.1kHz...pretty comparable to other interfaces on this computer. We'll see what the new drivers do.

good for them! i quit using Tascam devices a year or so ago because of how god-awful their 64 bit drivers were for the us-122l & us-144 (i switched to the  Roland Quad-Capture right before they dropped Cakewalk). maybe when my Roland device conks out, i will give Tascam another looksee

InstrEd
Now, can we have Tascam re-issue a nice control surface with motorized faders.

It seems as though no matter what controller you get, you are taking a chance that support for your needs will not be met at some point in the future.

Three -four years seems to be the norm?

I bought a VS -100 for a good price not that long ago. Looks like this may not have been a good choice. Will see when X4 comes out.

IOW I would be watchful/hesitant to get a new controller just based on what I have seen happen to controllers that others have bought.

wetdentist
good for them! i quit using Tascam devices a year or so ago because of how god-awful their 64 bit drivers were for the us-122l & us-144 (i switched to the  Roland Quad-Capture right before they dropped Cakewalk). maybe when my Roland device conks out, i will give Tascam another looksee

No more Tascam for either. They made some great hardware that eventually turn into doorstops because of driver support. 

wetdentist
good for them! i quit using Tascam devices a year or so ago because of how god-awful their 64 bit drivers were for the us-122l & us-144 (i switched to the  Roland Quad-Capture right before they dropped Cakewalk). maybe when my Roland device conks out, i will give Tascam another looksee

just before Gibson drop Cakewalk?

That's what would happen to me

kitekrazy1
 
No more Tascam for either. They made some great hardware that eventually turn into doorstops because of driver support. 

Which is always a strong argument for bringing this kind of thing in-house. Life gets vastly more complicated when others own the IP rights...consider how Cakewalk can't do anything with the VC-64 because no one can find the person who owns the rights.

This may be a dumb question. If so I apologize. I am using a US-1800 will this benefit me at all? I like the unit anyone have any suggestions to get the best out of it now?

ftf613
This may be a dumb question. If so I apologize. I am using a US-1800 will this benefit me at all? I like the unit anyone have any suggestions to get the best out of it now?

Well I hope there will be something in it for me as well. I have a US 1800, that works well, but if some extra can be squeezed out of it, so much the better. And if it could also benefit from USB 3, that would also be cool, because that is what is on the Laptop that I use if I go mobile, and could free up a usb 2 slot that could be used for something else, like the BCF2000 that I usually would leave at home.

Excellent news.  Thanks Craig.

No AES67 devices?

Excellent thinking, brconflict.

Anderton
I'm currently getting 6.5 ms in / 6.5 ms out = 13 ms with the US-366 at 44.1kHz...pretty comparable to other interfaces on this computer. We'll see what the new drivers do.

If you speak with them let them know that 13ms is horrible.
 
In this day and age a 6ms real life, no make believe, total round trip at 44.1kHz is just about OK and the best appliances are down at or even just below 4ms.
 

Missed this thread yesterday...

In-house development of driver's and interfaces is very good news.  This makes a difference in how a company is perceived as it makes much, much easier for a company to be responsive - It pays off in the end. Marketing can only do so much; at some point you have to deliver.

mike_mccue

Anderton
I'm currently getting 6.5 ms in / 6.5 ms out = 13 ms with the US-366 at 44.1kHz...pretty comparable to other interfaces on this computer. We'll see what the new drivers do.

If you speak with them let them know that 13ms is horrible.
 
In this day and age a 6ms real life, no make believe, total round trip at 44.1kHz is just about OK and the best appliances are down at or even just below 4ms.

According to this document from PreSonus, that's not possible unless you monitor outside of the DAW (Line 6's ToneDirect monitoring also uses a clever workaround). My understanding is that, again based on the references in that PreSonus article, although 1.0 ms through the A/D and D/A conversion and the low USB buffering of around 2 to 4 ms that's tuned to their specific system can give round trip latency when monitoring through the Fat Channel of around 5 ms (although they later mention that as you start loading up the Fat Channel, you may need to increase to 9 ms or so) that doesn't take into the account the extra time required by the ASIO buffers. 
 
I''m curious which USB interfaces are able to achieve a round-trip latency of under 4 ms, including everything (A/D conversion, USB layers, and ASIO sample buffers) with a decent track count and a few VIs thrown in for good measure. The Avid, Focusrite, Mackie, and Roland interfaces I've tested all gave comparable results to the TASCAM with projects that require a reasonable amount of processing power although of course, if not a lot was going on the latency could be quite a bit lower. Most of the projects needed at least 128 samples. Hence my comment of "pretty comparable to other interfaces on this computer." The best I've seen is RME, which can hit a little over 5 ms due to the really low safety buffer they use (good drivers). I'm not counting PCI devices like the Lynx.
 
Also again according to PreSonus that performance isn't "horrible," but more like par for the course, especially if you need to use more than 64 samples to get something to play back no matter what. They say most interfaces have USB buffering of around 6 ms in and 6 ms out. I don't know what's happening on that level, but I'm pretty sure the folks at PreSonus do. However the article isn't dated, so maybe there have been substantial changes since it was written. But I would venture a guess that sub-4 ms performance is the exception, not the norm.
 

If you speak with them let them know that 13ms is horrible.

 
Well there would be no real point to that discussion, given that those weren't the drivers they developed in-house. I'll see what the new TASCAM drivers do when I get t a chance to evaluate them. If TASCAM thought that kind of performance was wonderful, they probably would have stuck with what they had.