ChronoT52
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 165
- Joined: 2006/09/27 18:15:59
- Status: offline
6.2 Update and the FW-1884
The 6.2 update seems to have fixed the issue where SONAR would forget the correct Control port for the 1884 and if you tried to change it or delete the surface it would end up in a C++ Runtime Error.
However, unfortunately, it seems that none of the other issues, namely the ability to record enable, seem to have been addressed. I was really hoping for this. I have no doubt it's a battle between Tascam and Cakewalk as to who is responsible for fixing the issues, but I just pray that someone caves. I really miss how well the FW-1884 worked with SONAR 5.
I guess here's to hoping 6.2.1 or 6.3 finally give us our fully functional control surface back!
|
Dizzi45Z
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1040
- Joined: 2005/10/26 17:00:20
- Location: Orem, Utah
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/29 16:13:42
(permalink)
ChronoT52,
Just hope that the fix isn't necessary on Tascam's side. If so, you will be waiting years before it will be addressed. So I would cross my fingers that it is a Sonar thing because we know how much faster Sonar jumps on things.
|
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
2007/01/29 20:17:00
(permalink)
Thanks for the report, ChronoT52.
I hope Cakewalk realizes that I will not upgrade to SONAR 6 because of this, and I doubt I'm alone. I'm staying at 5.2 until it's reported that the FW-1884 problems have been addressed.
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.
|
F1Filter
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9
- Joined: 2005/02/17 12:03:32
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/29 21:04:04
(permalink)
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.
post edited by F1Filter - 2007/01/29 21:29:50
|
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
2007/01/29 21:05:28
(permalink)
F^CK!!  ACH..that REALLY sux! I was soooo hoping for a fix. This really lets the wind out of my sails. In fact, I'll probably stop trying to DL the patch now and just wait. I really do not care about any of the other fixes or features because nothing else has really effected my setup (not even the UAD CPU munching). I'm constantly surprised about how many 1884 users there are on this forum (not to mention all of the other forums that I frequent). Of all of the interfaces out there, there seems to be a high proportion of 1884s. It seems like Cakewalk would pick up on this and step up to the plate. Oh well, can't have it all 
|
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
2007/01/29 21:12:10
(permalink)
Thanks for the update on what's fixed in the 1884 issues. After 4 attempts at downloading the patch I can now sit back and wait. I was really hoping for a fix to teh 1884 issues so I'l park 6 for a while when doing real work and stay with 5.2 I really hope TASCAM actually do something. I have had no good experiences with them so if they come up trumps great.
Keep well
Mick
Mick from Oz. HP DV7-3008tx , Sonar 8.5 PE, Komplete 6, GPO, JABB, Ozone 4, Melodyne Studio & DNA
|
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
2007/01/29 21:28:01
(permalink)
I have nothing to say except @#$^^#^ @#%@% @$%^$^#$^ . Tascam and the 1884 has been my Albatross , @#$@#$ funny thing though, Cake's email support said they knew about these issuses, and would address them in upcoming patch. that was months ago. I'm very sad today. 
post edited by guitarmikeh - 2007/01/29 21:50:24
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
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
2007/01/29 22:13:40
(permalink)
This is terrible news and I am very very dissapointed in both parties
Back to 5.2 for me and i'm done - I will just purchase GAC channel strip and be done with it
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
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/29 23:12:16
(permalink)
funny thing though, Cake's email support said they knew about these issuses, and would address them in upcoming patch. that was months ago.
I'm very sad today. This is terrible news and I am very very dissapointed in both parties
Back to 5.2 for me and i'm done - I will just purchase GAC channel strip and be done with it Did you guys read what F1filter said? Let me remind you: Bad news guys. The ball is in Tascam's court to get this sorted out. I think Cake already did their part as a lot of ACT improvements have been made (which was one of the things going wrong for everyone with a control surface including the FW-1884). Also, Chrono reported that one of the problems has been fixed. So go complain to Tascam, for everybody else it seems to be working better so that should give you a hint. Sorry if it sounds mean since it's not my intention...only to clrify things here. Peace.  .
|
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
2007/01/29 23:57:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
funny thing though, Cake's email support said they knew about these issuses, and would address them in upcoming patch. that was months ago.
I'm very sad today.
This is terrible news and I am very very dissapointed in both parties
Back to 5.2 for me and i'm done - I will just purchase GAC channel strip and be done with it
Did you guys read what F1filter said? Let me remind you:
Bad news guys. The ball is in Tascam's court to get this sorted out.
I think Cake already did their part as a lot of ACT improvements have been made (which was one of the things going wrong for everyone with a control surface including the FW-1884). Also, Chrono reported that one of the problems has been fixed. So go complain to Tascam, for everybody else it seems to be working better so that should give you a hint. Sorry if it sounds mean since it's not my intention...only to clrify things here. Peace. .
If there was something that was EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, *EXTREMELY* important to your workflow that was broken when a new version of your chosen DAW platform came out (but the new DAW software had other, important features that made it necessary for you to update), I guarantee that you would likely be pretty upset. After much testing and documentation, the issues have been presented to both Cakewalk and Tascam. I'm sure you'd be barking up every tree you could think of to solve your problem, no? That's what were doing here. So, this problem does not effect you. That's FANTASTIC! But why would you feel compelled to join this thread and attempt to pi$$ all over our complaints/issues? It doesn't make sense to me. We have a problem. We are doing everything we can think of to get it fixed! The fact is, the 1884 worked flawlessly in prior versions of SONAR. Tascam has changed nothing. So, Cakewalk broke the functionality when it released S6...no argument about it. The ball is only "...in Tascams court" because Cakewalk chooses not to fix what they broke (so far). The issues have been presented to Cakewalk many times and many requests have been made to rectify it. Two patches later, our issues have not been addressed. NATURALLY, we're frustrated. Regardless of whose fault *you* think it is, we are going to continue to make noise to *anyone* that can effect a change (Cakewalk broke it, they can certainly fix it! Tascam can ALSO fix what Cakewalk broke...we complain to them to). It doesn't mean we hate Cakewalk or SONAR or Tascam, it means we are trying to get a problem solved. Telling us to shut up and take our problems else where is...frankly...confusing and pointless, no? PS - ACT is not even in the right zip code for this device yet. And, it has absolutely nothing at all, in any way, shape, or form to do with the issues with this particular control surface.
post edited by manthe - 2007/01/30 00:19:23
|
three_eyed_otter
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 2003/11/07 11:10:19
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 00:06:27
(permalink)
My FW-1884 sits unused on the floor.
have a good one
3Eo
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 00:26:31
(permalink)
Im not saying you shouldn't address the issues to their respective parties. I'm sure it is very frustrating to have bought such an expensive piece of equipment for it not to work properly. But some of you do it in the wrong places. The right place would be over the phone or e-mailing them about it instead of coming here expecting a solution. This is a forum for users to exchange ideas and help each other about certain common issues...Not to contact Cakewalk. They grace us with their knowledge here and there but it doesn't mean they are supposed to. I don't think you can compare Cake's support to Tascam's, can you? Thats why you come here. Do it, but go directly to them if you want a solution to something like this. PS - ACT is not even in the right zip code for this device yet. And, it has absolutely nothing at all, in any way, shape, or form to do with the issues with this particular control surface. Really??? I wonder who's post is THIS?
post edited by Jose7822 - 2007/01/30 00:54:29
|
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
2007/01/30 00:55:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
Im not saying you shouldn't address the issues to their respective parties. I'm sure it is very frustrating to have bought such an expensive piece of equipment for it not to work properly. But some of you do it in the wrong places. The right place would be over the phone or e-mailing them about it instead of coming here expecting a solution. This is a forum for users to exchange ideas and help each other about certain common issues...Not to contact Cakewalk. They grace us with their knowledge here and there but it doesn't mean they are supposed to. I don't think you can compare Cake's support to Tascam's, can you? Thats why you come here. Do it, but go directly to them if you want a solution to something like this.
I do agree that contacting Cakewalk Email or Telephone is more direct, and will most likely yeild a more personal and concise response. However, I definitely feel we ought to be using every medium we have to voice our concerns, be it this first party forum or even a third party wiki. Cakewalk DOES read this forum and they DO listen (e.g. MIDI input quantize.) The more they see this concern crop up, the more likely they will implement it in the next patch or, even better yet, in some sort of minor hotfix specifically for FW-1884 users. My own personal glaring suspicion is that the SONAR 1.21 Control Surface drivers from Tascam are simply out of date (they were designed with SONAR 2 or 3 in mind if I'm not mistaken.) Cakewalk, with their implementation of ACT, probably changed the way the .dlls interface with SONAR. Either a driver update from Tascam (or when pigs fly,) or an addition of some code specific for an FW-1884 user would probably easily fix the issues.
|
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
2007/01/30 00:57:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
Im not saying you shouldn't address the issues to their respective parties. I'm sure it is very frustrating to have bought such an expensive piece of equipment for it not to work properly. But some of you do it in the wrong places. The right place would be over the phone or e-mailing them about it instead of coming here expecting a solution. This is a forum for users to exchange ideas and help each other about certain common issues...Not to contact Cakewalk. They grace us with their knowledge here and there but it doesn't mean they are supposed to. I don't think you can compare Cake's support to Tascam's, can you? Thats why you come here. Do it, but go directly to them if you want a solution to something like this.
PS - ACT is not even in the right zip code for this device yet. And, it has absolutely nothing at all, in any way, shape, or form to do with the issues with this particular control surface.
Really??? I wonder who's post is THIS?
Respectfully, I absolutely could not agree less with this mindset. A forum like this is absolutely the perfect (and correct) place to air out issues of this sort and others. Every day on this forum there are hundreds of different issues posted about hundreds of different nuances, facets and aspects of recording with SONAR. Internet forums are a fantastic tool for issues like this to: 1. See if it is just you, or if anyone else if having the same issue(s) 2. Clarify and document all aspects of an issue 3. Kick around ideas about possible solutions and/or work-arounds 4. Compare configurations and their impact on a particular issue 5. Share the progress or outcome of certain trials and/or tests regarding an issue 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc............. I could sit here for an hour and not run out of reasons why airing this and other technical issues is a good idea and productive. We HAVE gone to Cakewalk AND to Tascam. So far, we are getting nowhere with either. If you read my message, you would see that i believe Cakewalk initially caused this problem. In fact, they did. I (and the rest of us) are exploring every possible avenue available to fix the issue. I'm sure you would do the same. If I had actually received a solution by going to directly to Cakewalk, we would not even be having this discussion. Same holds true for Tascam (who we have also gone to). Until SOMEONE addresses our issue, we will keep making noise here, directly to the vendors, other forums.....anywhere we can. Why does this bother you? What does it have to do with you? Why have you taken an interest in trying to shut us up? PS - Did you even read the my post that you linked to? My guess would be, no. If you had, you would realize that the thread you linked to was about ho UNSUCCESSFUL ACT was when working with the 1884. All you've done by linking to that is actually re-enforce my initial statement!! Also, I've finally been able to get through and DL the 6.2 update and it is still absolutely horrible with the 1884. Like I said before, ACT is not even slightly a decent solution for use with the 1884...yet.
post edited by manthe - 2007/01/30 01:21:51
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 01:11:13
(permalink)
Either a driver update from Tascam (or when pigs fly,). LOL. That was funny as hell. I understand what you've said completely, and that is exactly how I feel about it. But comments like this, "I am very very dissapointed in both parties", when cakewalk its all about the user, won't make it happen any sooner. They can't expect Cakewalk to suddently address all issues in one patch. Just like you have pointed out, Cake has moved on while other companies like Tascam have not. So to me, this sounds like its more of a Tascam issue than anything...maybe I'm wrong, but it's just logic. I guess it was more the way it was said than what they wanted.
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 01:24:45
(permalink)
If you had, you would realize that the thread you linked to was about ho UNSUCCESSFUL ACT was when working with the 1884. Exactly the reason why I linked to that post. FW-1884+ACT=ISSUES. It's all good, I'll just learn to ignore comments like this in the future. Have a good one .
|
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
2007/01/30 01:40:10
(permalink)
tell you what... I just hope Cake come through for us users. cause I can sure as hell bet that Tascam aint gonna pay Frontier Designs to fix this. Those are the guys who designed the Tascam FW1884 Maybe Frontier Designs would come through out of the goodness of their hearts  all I can do is beg, I cant code any of this,... I'd use ACT, if it worked for the 1884, but no love there either. I've got touch sensitve faders.. I wanna use them....(acutally that's not broke ) but the Encodesr to contol the sends is . The rec enable is boken as well. its not completly broken, but still you wanna be able to use what worked before.
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
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
2007/01/30 01:47:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: guitarmikeh
tell you what...
I just hope Cake come through for us users.
cause I can sure as hell bet that Tascam aint gonna pay Frontier Designs to fix this. Those are the guys who designed the Tascam FW1884
Maybe Frontier Designs would come through out of the goodness of their hearts
all I can do is beg, I cant code any of this,... I'd use ACT, if it worked for the 1884, but no love there either. I've got touch sensitve faders.. I wanna use them....(acutally that's not broke ) but the Encodesr to contol the sends is . The rec enable is boken as well.
its not completly broken, but still you wanna be able to use what worked before.
Amen to that! I wonder what Frontier would charge to tweak their code for the SONAR CS plugin? Anyone have any contacts there? Perhaps I will send an e-mail into the abyss and see what materializes. At this point, if we keep bugging each party, maybe 1 of them will do something just to shut us up. Any one up for a coordinated, organized campaign?
|
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
2007/01/30 01:57:29
(permalink)
wonder what Frontier would charge to tweak their code for the SONAR CS plugin? they cant do it without Tascam permission Any one up for a coordinated, organized campaign? you can put my name on that list. but honestly, I have no faith in Tascam.
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
2007/01/30 02:18:22
(permalink)
Hey Mick, been meaning to ask...What the heck is on your finger??? I hope that is you finger..
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
MotorMind
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 226
- Joined: 2004/10/17 08:43:24
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 02:18:46
(permalink)
There are lots of great midi controllers and audio interfaces around. There are not so many really good DAWs So the simple solution is: sell your Tascam and get yourself better gear.
|
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
2007/01/30 02:36:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: MotorMind
There are lots of great midi controllers and audio interfaces around. There are not so many really good DAWs So the simple solution is: sell your Tascam and get yourself better gear.
Uh, the 1884 is a FANTASTIC piece of gear. With over 2k invested in the 1884/FE-8 combo, it is a very high quality, versatile and able high-end audio/midi interface, control surface, stand-alone mixer and MIDI controller. Name me 3 other pieces that do that. Now name me 2 others that do all of that AND have 8, excellent quality, discrete transistor mic pres. Now name one with all of THAT, with per-channel inserts, ADAT lightpipe and spdif and top-notch a/d conversion. There is very little out there that does all of that. Plus, why would I want to lose a lot of money and introduce a new variable into my stable set up because my DAW platform's newest release broke some of the control surface functionality? Doesn't it make a LOT more sense to try to get the handful of CS functionality issues addressed than to lose hundreds of dollars and spend thousands more matching the functionality and I/O that I already have? Besides, at this point, if the problems became very severe, I'm not sure that I would drop the 1884 over the DAW software (which costs me less that 1/4 of what my 1884 kit costs). Also, keep in mind that the 1884 functions flawlessly with SONAR 3/4/5.x, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, DP 2/3/4 AND 5 and even Pro Tools!
|
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
2007/01/30 08:37:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
Either a driver update from Tascam (or when pigs fly,).
LOL. That was funny as hell.
I understand what you've said completely, and that is exactly how I feel about it. But comments like this, "I am very very dissapointed in both parties", when cakewalk its all about the user, won't make it happen any sooner. They can't expect Cakewalk to suddently address all issues in one patch. Just like you have pointed out, Cake has moved on while other companies like Tascam have not. So to me, this sounds like its more of a Tascam issue than anything...maybe I'm wrong, but it's just logic.
I guess it was more the way it was said than what they wanted.
I love this - Sonar makes a change to it's code that essentially breaks the functionality of a what seems to be very popular interface across all spectrums and platforms - Tascam has changed nothing (typical) but becuase people know that Tascam support sucks they place the blame there becuase it's easier. 1884 users have every right to be "dissappointed with both parties" A). We had a fully functioning interface with 5.2 and that stopped with 6 and B). Cake acknowledged the change in behaviour and stated that it would be submitted for fix. I can always go back to 5.2 so all is definitely not lost but it just bugs the crap out of me when people who dont know what is going on or even use the equipment start spouting of opinions about responsibilities for function changes. I was able to get through to Tascam support last night (a minor miracle I know) and they stated that they had just recently learned of the problems with the Sonar. I don't know if that is true or not but they did say this - IF SONAR CHANGES THE API IT IS THEY"RE RESPONSIBILTY. I have no idea if this is true(probably not) heck ,I dont even know what an API is but it does seem that there is a fix in the power of each companies hand to get it resolved. Hopefully they will get it fixed but if this is not your issue - why comment??????
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
|
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
2007/01/30 09:01:17
(permalink)
I have a contact at Frontier. He would like to know exactly what problems you are having with Sonar 6 and the FW-1884. (I'm still back at Sonar 4.)
Can't promise anything but worth a shot.
Please list the issues:
1.
2.
3.
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
|
fooman
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1382
- Joined: 2006/06/26 14:47:44
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: 6.2 Update and the FW-1884
2007/01/30 09:25:07
(permalink)
Does this happen with the 1082 as well?
In 6.01, I have yet to update, my Tascam controller will often cause Sonar to crash out when exiting and will forget it's ports and such.
|
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
2007/01/30 09:28:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen
I have a contact at Frontier. He would like to know exactly what problems you are having with Sonar 6 and the FW-1884. (I'm still back at Sonar 4.)
Can't promise anything but worth a shot.
Please list the issues:
1.
2.
3.
Hello Jay - Appreciate the attempt to help - Take a look at below - It outlines the major isssues pretty well and has cake's response with the workarounds Hey guys,
I reported this problem to cakewalk via emial on this website. and the following is the response I got from cake.
they offer a few workarounds to keep some of our work-flow. Which I appreciate. they also say that is going to be considered for the maintenance relesase. I think they realize that a lot of us use the FW1884, and if we make ourselves heard. (politely you know the squeeky wheel gets the grease ) we'll get a gift in the next patch.
so I would say 'offically report your problems with the fw1884 to them'.
Oh!! and BTW thanks Bill. quote: Hello Mike,
Thank you for contacting Cakewalk Technical Support. I have an FW1884 set up here and I was able to reproduce many of the issues outlined in your message. I have logged them in order for them to be considered for address in a maintenance release.
In the meantime, I would like to offer some work-arounds:
1) An alternative method of arming tracks for recording is assigning a function button (like F2, for example) to TRACK|ARM FOR RECORDING. This is done in TOOLS|TASCAM FW-1884. When you do this you can select a track from the surface and hit F2 to arm it.
2) Similarly, you can do this for automation. Go to TOOLS|FW-1884 and set F3 to TRACK|AUTOMATION WRITE ENABLE. This same button will allow you to disable automation writing per-track. You may also want to assign Shift+F3 to "Clear all automation write enables". This will let you clear all.
3) You can still control both auxiliary send volume and pan. Initially, volume will work... Until you hit the aux1 button on the 1884 again. Then it will control the send's pan. To get back to the volume control state, simply hit the "Flip" button twice.
4) Regarding the mute and solo lights sometimes being on for no reason: This is not new behavior. I've seen this in previous versions. Hitting them twice puts them in the correct state. I have logged this also, however, it's likely that Tascam will need to address it, rather than us. I'm still trying to reproduce the problem in which tracks actually mute on their own. If you come up with a specific recipe to make it happen, please let me know.
Hope this helps. Thank you for your patience.
Best Regards,
Bill Jackson
Cakewalk Music Software
Technical Support
617.423.9021 Here is the entire thread - http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=871446&key=1884 - Long read but you can get from above the main points Again, appreciate the effort to help
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
|
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
2007/01/30 10:07:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: D K
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
Either a driver update from Tascam (or when pigs fly,).
LOL. That was funny as hell.
I understand what you've said completely, and that is exactly how I feel about it. But comments like this, "I am very very dissapointed in both parties", when cakewalk its all about the user, won't make it happen any sooner. They can't expect Cakewalk to suddently address all issues in one patch. Just like you have pointed out, Cake has moved on while other companies like Tascam have not. So to me, this sounds like its more of a Tascam issue than anything...maybe I'm wrong, but it's just logic.
I guess it was more the way it was said than what they wanted.
I love this - Sonar makes a change to it's code that essentially breaks the functionality of a what seems to be very popular interface across all spectrums and platforms - Tascam has changed nothing (typical) but becuase people know that Tascam support sucks they place the blame there becuase it's easier. 1884 users have every right to be "dissappointed with both parties" A). We had a fully functioning interface with 5.2 and that stopped with 6 and B). Cake acknowledged the change in behaviour and stated that it would be submitted for fix.
I can always go back to 5.2 so all is definitely not lost but it just bugs the crap out of me when people who dont know what is going on or even use the equipment start spouting of opinions about responsibilities for function changes.
I was able to get through to Tascam support last night (a minor miracle I know) and they stated that they had just recently learned of the problems with the Sonar. I don't know if that is true or not but they did say this - IF SONAR CHANGES THE API IT IS THEY"RE RESPONSIBILTY. I have no idea if this is true(probably not) heck ,I dont even know what an API is but it does seem that there is a fix in the power of each companies hand to get it resolved.
Hopefully they will get it fixed but if this is not your issue - why comment??????
Amen, Amen and AMEN! Here is my consolidation of issues that really bother me re: 1884/S6 - Arming tracks does not work in the traditional way (can not 'sel' track and punch 'rec') - Controlling aux sends = screwy/not fully functional - ‘Write Automation’ controls enable, but won’t disable - Selecting track on screen no longer selects track on unit ...Here's hoping! PS - API = Application Programming Interface
post edited by manthe - 2007/01/30 10:31:27
|
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
2007/01/30 10:47:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen
I have a contact at Frontier. He would like to know exactly what problems you are having with Sonar 6 and the FW-1884. (I'm still back at Sonar 4.)
Can't promise anything but worth a shot.
Please list the issues:
1.
2.
3.
ohohohohhhhhhhh Jay, That would be great. thanks
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
2007/01/30 10:52:10
(permalink)
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.
I harbor no ill will towards any man.
|
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
2007/01/30 11:13:02
(permalink)
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.
Exactly Mike - And once again thanks for your work on this - It is appreciated Here's hoping a solution is close - I would love to get 6.2 working with this hardware and put this issue to bed!
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
|