svenseel
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2005/11/12 08:28:32
- Status: offline
Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
Here's a really weird one.
I'm running XP SP2, Drivers are 1.60 and 1.22, Sonar 7.0.2.
When I mix or playback wavs from the computer through the system, the playback is one whole step slow (a G is an F) and the tempo is commensurately slower. The tracks were mixed at 44.1, and the clock on the 1884 is set to 44.1.
This isn't really a Sonar problem, since it does it on previously fine wav's. (I just switched to the 1884 from an EMU 1212M, which is where these tracks were mixed). It also does it when I play tunes back that were posted to myspace.
Has anyone ever seen this before?
Steve Seel Cave of Wonders Pittsburgh, PA ******** Win XP SP2 Sonar 7.0.2 M-Audio Octane Tascam FW-1884 (driver 1.50 and version 1.21) www.myspace.com/theangryfrancis
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/29 13:12:34
(permalink)
Sorry to say that I do not have this problem. I play back wav files within and without SONAR just fine thru my FW-1884.
Are you sure your bit rate and sample rate are set correctly in SONAR? I'm assuming this is where the problem shows up?
|
F@KKER
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 440
- Joined: 2004/01/03 02:02:26
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/29 18:49:18
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: svenseel
...I'm running XP SP2, Drivers are 1.60 and 1.22, Sonar 7.0.2. I believe Riojazz recommends driver 1.50 and 1.22 with Sonar 7.02. This is what I reverted to and all is smooth as silk. 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.
|
CJaysMusic
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 30423
- Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
- Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/29 18:58:41
(permalink)
When I mix or playback wavs from the computer through the system, the playback is one whole step slow (a G is an F) and the tempo is commensurately slower. The tracks were mixed at 44.1, and the clock on the 1884 is set to 44.1. Thats all good, but what is sonar set to???? you have something very wrong in your config and i dont think its a driver issue. Its a setting. Make sure everything matches up Cj
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/30 01:07:49
(permalink)
I had this happen when working with a video, which was at 48 KHz.
And yes, I do recommend rolling back to 1.50 for Windows XP SP2 or SP3, if only because it solved my problems with unwanted shifting of sample rates.
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.
|
svenseel
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2005/11/12 08:28:32
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/30 12:22:55
(permalink)
Thanks for the replies.
I rebooted and it went away. But I mixed a track not too long ago, and the mix (even when played on the ipod) was slow in tempo and dropped a whole step in pitch. Very very odd.
Then, I played a known-good wav file on my computer from prior mixes, and that was slow, too.
So, no it's not a Sonar problem purely.
Settings in Sonar and on the 1884 were all square -- 44.1.
Riojazz had suggested a rollback to 1.50 in response to a previous problem I was having, and that may well be the solution. I've just resisted, given what was involved in that process ;-).
Thanks again to everyone.
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/05/30 12:43:27
(permalink)
A few further details to clarify. When I had a problem similar to yours, it was after I had rolled back to the 1.50 driver, so I am not recommending that as the solution here, only on general terms for other problems.
I was not able to solve my problem with video tracks at 48 when using the FW-1884. Just as you said, the tracks played slower, and were precisely 150 cents low in my case. I decided to use another sound card while working with anything that was 48 KHz, and since doing that, I have had no problems. This is annoying, though, since I was trying to stay all within one soundcard.
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.
|
svenseel
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2005/11/12 08:28:32
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/08 23:39:57
(permalink)
Riojazz --
Did you have crackling problems before rolling back to 1.50?
Steve Seel Cave of Wonders Pittsburgh, PA ******** Win XP SP2 Sonar 7.0.2 M-Audio Octane Tascam FW-1884 (driver 1.50 and version 1.21) www.myspace.com/theangryfrancis
|
riojazz
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1337
- Joined: 2004/02/26 13:23:02
- Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/09 00:09:33
(permalink)
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
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/09 00:23:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: svenseel
Riojazz --
Did you have crackling problems before rolling back to 1.50?
The crackling is most likely due to your buffer/latency settings wthin Sonar and the 1884 control panel. You really have to play with the settings till you get it right for your system. It can be time consuming to get it right, but hang in there, it will come. 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.
|
hv
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 255
- Joined: 2004/01/19 21:45:18
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/09 13:05:40
(permalink)
Also, if you select latency compensation in the 1884 control panel, you also need to use 3 or more buffers for Sonar to work correctly with it.
Howard
|
xohol
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 342
- Joined: 2004/08/19 13:17:12
- Location: chicago
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/09 14:25:07
(permalink)
i have a fw1884. i get slowed down playback if i have something like windows media player open. WMP or any other program that uses audio can change your working sample rate when sonar is open.
this only happens to me when i open another program and leave sonar open.
|
tonester
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 823
- Joined: 2003/11/06 07:11:09
- Status: offline
RE: Tascam FW-1884 Playback Speed
2008/07/09 16:03:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: svenseel
Here's a really weird one.
I'm running XP SP2, Drivers are 1.60 and 1.22, Sonar 7.0.2.
When I mix or playback wavs from the computer through the system, the playback is one whole step slow (a G is an F) and the tempo is commensurately slower. The tracks were mixed at 44.1, and the clock on the 1884 is set to 44.1.
This isn't really a Sonar problem, since it does it on previously fine wav's. (I just switched to the 1884 from an EMU 1212M, which is where these tracks were mixed). It also does it when I play tunes back that were posted to myspace.
Has anyone ever seen this before?
That sounds most definitely like a sample rate problem. Make sure that all your sample rates match
|