Tascam FW-1082 + sonar = work good?

There are not many reviews available yet because it’s so new but I just recommended it to a friend as a great all in one solution.
It will support automation. The faders are 60mm where the 1884 are 100mm and it’s not expandable via FE-8.
You get 4 mic pres that are the same as the 1884 but inserts only on 1&2. You get 10 in 4 out and 2 midi I/Os plus a board that’s serves as a monitor mixer, control surface and midi controller.

Looks like a tight little unit and I would suggest looking into it.

Got the FW-1082 today @ GuitarCenter in MIA for 799$ . Unfortunatly one motor fader wasnt working - I will get the new untit tomorrow and will report my results after some days working with it.

The only thing I could miss (in compare to FW1884) would be the surround option. As I will keep my 8 out soundcard inside my DAW (prodif from SEKD) i dont care that much about it. Same on ADAT

For me 1082 is simply more compact and I love it already (especially for 799 instead for 1299). Selling also Studiomix (a toy from the past )

Cheers

Yes I had also thought about the possibility of mixing surround in the future, which the 1884 will provide vs. the 1082, but then I think honestly I'm not sure if I'd ever really find the time to mix 5.1, and is that worth $400. $400 will get me a decent set of monitors. I know I will not be using all the inputs that the 1884 provides for sure, and I really only need the 2 inserts that the 1082 provides for my outboard compressor (just a home project studio). The 1082 seems like it was made for my situation, although there is still that lingering thought of "should I spend the extra on the 1884 just in case".

ORIGINAL: midimal

Got the FW-1082 today @ GuitarCenter in MIA for 799$ . Unfortunatly one motor fader wasnt working - I will get the new untit tomorrow and will report my results after some days working with it.

The only thing I could miss (in compare to FW1884) would be the surround option. As I will keep my 8 out soundcard inside my DAW (prodif from SEKD) i dont care that much about it. Same on ADAT

For me 1082 is simply more compact and I love it already (especially for 799 instead for 1299). Selling also Studiomix (a toy from the past )

Cheers

Just curious, this may sound like a newb question, but what would I use the ADAT port for? What hardware would interface to this?

Also, do you think the ability to mix surround may be something that is standard in the next few years? Is it possible I may really regret not getting the 1884 for this reason? I know DVD audio is growing and coming in the future, is that always 5.1?

Thanks

You can also use ADAT to connect your DAW to a second PC equipped with an ADAT card (Emu 1212M at $199; another company sells one for around $130 IIRC). The 2nd PC can run soft synths, FX etc, Gigasampler etc. (For Gigasampler, the 2nd PC needs a GSIF-compatible card; you'll also need a MIDI connection between the two). This can be a bit tricky to set up, but a lot of musicians do it.

- Jim

Also on my list of considerations is the digi mbox + command 8 console route. A couple cons to this route are:

I have heard people having problems with hardware compatibility issues using pro tools. I'd have to upgrade my pc to their specs, but I was going to upgrade my pc anyway, so maybe not a pure negative.

I notice the latest digi protools update does not support their 001 hardware, so it seems they've ditched a lot of customers there. I'm leary they will ditch current 002 users once the 003 hardware comes out (whenever that is). With the sonar route, I can at least be fairly sure their updates will not ditch support for past consoles. True?

ORIGINAL: drjenk

ORIGINAL: Jim Wright

You can also use ADAT to connect your DAW to a second PC equipped with an ADAT card (Emu 1212M at $199; another company sells one for around $130 IIRC). The 2nd PC can run soft synths, FX etc, Gigasampler etc. (For Gigasampler, the 2nd PC needs a GSIF-compatible card; you'll also need a MIDI connection between the two). This can be a bit tricky to set up, but a lot of musicians do it.

- Jim

If I got the 1082 and found I needed ADAT later (or surround mixing), could I not add that function card to my main PC, and integrate that with sonar as well?

Yes -- if you can get everything to sync together correctly, and the drivers will run concurrently. One big advantage of an all-in-one audio interface that combines ADAT, S/PDIF, and analog I/O is that everything is both word-clocked together and simultaneously available through a common PC driver.

Reportedly, it's possible to use two or more WDM-interfaced audio cards simultaneously. (This assumes that everything is synced to a common word clock). I've never tried it; ASIO doesn't support that.

For example -- if you have an 1082, connected by Firewire with a WDM driver (assuming it exists), and you later add an ADAT card, with a WDM driver, and you're able to sync both together to a common wordclock, and the drivers are happy to coexist --- then it should work. But there are a lot of potential gotchas along the way.

By contrast, with something like the Tascam 1804 or 1882, the Emu 1820M, an RME audio interface, or a MOTU 828MkII --- you get lots of analog I/O, plus ADAT, plus S/PDIF, and it's all very likely to work together smoothly. Some products are more expandable than others; some have better drivers. YMMV.

I would never assume that separate sound cards will work together smoothly in a DAW environment, unless the makers of both products explicitly state they will, and provide good instructions to "make it so". There are just too many potential complications.

On the other hand -- it's a bad idea to overbuy; products keep getting cheaper and better. I try to use a 1-2 year time horizon when planning purchases; I've held off on something better than my Delta 66 and MBox for a while, until I have a clear need for something portable with more than two channels. I'll probably need it during 2005 -- and am glad I've waited.

Best of luck,
Jim

Dave,

I like Sonar better for almost everything. I still use Protools for live recording with the MBox, but that's mostly because I've been too lazy to install/configure Sonar 4 on my laptop for use with the MBox. The more I use S4, the less I like ProTools ... If you plan on using MIDI, with or without soft synths --- I'd take Sonar over PT anytime. I also found PT somewhat touchy to configure on my laptop (I had to disable all kinds of services and software I normally use with the laptop; I use a seriously geeky custom registry-tweaking script to switch between "normal" and "music" configurations).

Sonar 4 is massively better than Sonar 1; it sounds like that's what you're running. The MBox preamps are likely better than the Tascam preamps, but it depends on what you're doing and what you need. And, if preamp quality is really critical, you might want one or two high-quality preamp channels instead of the MBox (search the forum for "preamp" and you should turn up a lot of opinions). You'd most likely get more benefit from a 1083+ Sonar 4 combination, as opposed to MBox + command8 -- especially since the MBox just won't work with Sonar 1. Sonar 2.2 was the first version that supported MBox. I'm not sure what versions of Sonar work with the command8 -- you should check.

On word clock -- this is needed to synchronize two or more pieces of digital audio gear. (Word clock and "audio sample clock" are basically the same thing.) If you use Firewire to connect all your gear, you can use the word clock that's transmitted as part of Firewire digital audio streams. The downside is jitter -- Firewire word clock is not particularly low jitter, and this translates to smeared stereo imaging. Wordclock is also transmitted as part of an ADAT or S/PDIF digital audio stream, but again, it may not be the best-quality wordclock. "Word clock" can also be output (or input) using a dedicated cable and BNC connector. This is generally the best-quality (lowest-jitter) word clock; but that depends ultimately on the quality of the word clock generator. An ADAT output from a device with a high-quality internal word clock generator may well have a lower-jitter word clock than a BNC output from a device with a so-so word clock generator (a.k.a. internal audio sample clock).

To take advantage of a dedicated word clock signal, you need a) a device with both a high-quality internal word clock generator and a BNC output, and b) a 2nd device with a BNC word clock input.

Assume your PC is connected to the 1082 over Firewire. Since the 1082 is using its internal word clock generator, the fact that the 1082 uses Firewire to talk to your primary PC (DAW) is not a problem, even though "Firewire word clock" is not particularly low jitter. This is because moderate jitter really only affects D/A and A/D converters, and those converters (in the 1802) are driven by the 1802 word clock generator, and not by the Firewire word clock signal. The 1802 serves as the "clock master" for your system.

Now, assume you want to use a 2nd PC (maybe to run a lot of soft synths, a Gigastudio box, whatever). You still want to use the 1082 as your clock master. So, you connect the 2nd PC to the 1082, most likely over ADAT. (This requires an ADAT card for the 2nd PC, of course). If you use something like an Emu 1212M, you'll have an ADAT card plus some very nice stereo A/D and D/A. You can sync the 1212M to "external ADAT", and things should work fine. Or, you can spend about $70 for the 1212M "sync plate", which gives you BNC wordclock in and out, and connect the 1082 BNC output to the 1212M sync plate BNC wordclock input. This will sync the nice A/D and D/A in the 1212M to a lower-jitter wordclock reference. Alternatively, you could make the 1212M the clock master (assuming it's got a better-quality internal wordclock generator, as some reviews have indicated), and connect the 1212M BNC out to the 1802 BNC in (configuring the 1802 to use "external wordclock in").

I just noticed you said "perfect time sync". Wordclock has nothing to do with hours-minutes-seconds-frames time sync: it's only used to keep digital audio streams in sync (to avoid clicks, glitches, horrible sound quality). You need MTC, SMPTE or something similar to keep things in "perfect time sync" (and you also need to sync the audio clocks/word clocks between the various devices too).

Hope this helps (and is not too longwinded).

- Jim

Hey everyone...I just bought a FW-1082 along with Sonar 4 Studio. I've used Sonar 2.2 quite a bit...but never with a control surface...so I'm still messing around with trying to get it (1082) to control Sonar.

What I'm disappointed in...is that it took me 15 minutes to find the single page in the Sonar manual (p. 454) re: Control Surfaces...only to find out that it tells me to look in the online help files under "Working with External Devices". Ugh...too bad I'm at work.

Sorry about that...haven't been back here in a while. Sucks that you only seem to come to forums when you have problems!

So far, I love the 1082 and Sonar 4. Everything works perfect....

I've done a few electronic dance music projects...remixes, mash-ups, etc etc...as well as some VOs and short demos...Everything is cool....sound is great...can't complain!

I got a FW 1082, and I'm trying to get it to work with Sonar 4. I'm using both things on a new computer I just assembled. I thought that the FW 1082 was like getting a pro sound card and a midi controller and an audio interface all in one. But there's so much latency in my set up I'm not so sure anymore.

Does the FW 1082 act like a good sound card? This is a noob question, but that's definately what I am.

Thanks!

Edit: I just read in one post here that the 1082 is "just a sound card" (I think it's more than that, but at least that answers my question above...)

Just a little to add to drjenk (originator of thread).

If you envision wanting to create separate monitor mixes for more than
one artist/performer during tracking, you probably want to go for the 1884 and
a headphone distribution amp (I like the Behringer 4700)

The 1082 just doesn't have that capability with only it's one headphone jack and 2 Outs,
which both have the same signal.

- FT

Bit of an old thread now I guess but there was a good review of the 1884 and 1082 in Audio Technology magazine (http://www.audiotechnology.biz).

In a recent controller comparison review, the reviewer actually though the 1082 was the best value all round.

On a personal level the one thing that stands out in comparing the two is the fader throw. 100mm definitely is much more usable than 60mm but both units have their markets.

The Mackie MCU shouldn't be overlooked either.

Cheers!