1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

tascam control surface

Discussion in 'Consoles / Control Surfaces' started by CircuitRider, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. CircuitRider

    CircuitRider Active Member

    I've been thinking a lot lately about investing in an fw-1884. Since the demise of tascams forum, I haven't been able to find anyone who may know much about it. I saw that tascam also just released a new usb control surface with more faders: the us-2400. I can't seem to find much info on it either. (how many inputs?) Anyway, if anyone has any light to shed on the subject, I'm all ears.
  2. munkee

    munkee Guest

    I'm in the same boat. I too am interested. I have heard of some issues with Cubase SX and the 1884. I also heard it has had some problems with certain Firewire Cards. So I'm a bit skeptikal. Otherwise, I may sell off my Delta Omni, Radikal SAC 2.2, Motu Microlite etc. and go totally Tascam 1884.
  3. algorhythm

    algorhythm Guest

    Well, I believe I wrote the original spec on both the FW-1884 and the US-2400. Of course, that was around three years ago, so a few other people have had their way with it since then. But I had a prototype of the FW in my studio for around four months (Tascam hired me to write the manual and app guides for it).

    There's quite a lot to like about it...the idea of one box that does everything is really nice. I can't fully address the issues with Cube SX, because SX has been through several iterations since then (and as most of us are aware, any update to Cubase/Nuendo usually includes several fixes and a few new things that are broken...) Also, when I was writing the manual, we were still waiting for direct control surface support for the FW (hmm....think I remember that happening with the 428 too :roll: ), so I was writing everything using Mackie Control emulation mode. (FWIW, its functionality with SONAR and DP is very cool...)

    I haven't heard about issues with any FW cards, though I suppose it's possible. That'd be a question for Tascam.

    The stuff I didn't like about the FW is nitpicky, personal preference stuff: I like the action of the faders on the Mackie Control better....a bit smoother and more buffered motion. It's a fairly big box...not huge, considering eight mic pre's, a 4x4 MIDI matrix, etc., but not what I'd call "portable" in that sense.

    I've heard it's doing very well, and I'm not too surprised, since it does a lot for the price. For me, I already had a Mackie Control and (M-Audio) FW-410, and a setup that's working, so I just really didn't feel like re-tweaking everything to accommodate something new. But I think it's a pretty sweet piece of kit for the money, and they did get a lot of stuff right. (Also, don't forget that in the past 2-3 years pretty much all the major DAW's have implemented much better controller integration.)

    As to the US-2400....hard to say until I see one in action (and no, the NAMM demo unit doesn't count). They tell me it's pretty close to (my)original spec...if so, it's NOT an audio or MIDI interface, just a control surface. But it's got 24 channels of moving faders and a few more bells and whistles than the 428 (including something I lobbied hard for, separate MUTE and SOLO keys). It should be a nice piece for someone who already has an audio interface.


    [ February 09, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Keller ]
  4. CircuitRider

    CircuitRider Active Member

    Thanks, Daniel. Tascam is a little harder to reach than I remember when I was researching the US-428. I really miss that forum for specific support for Tascam products, although I've found a wealth of information here at RO and other places.

    munkee, I read where one user experienced lots of problems with his firewire card's compatibility with the 1884. He said that switching to a fw card with a via chipset fixed everything. FW cards are pretty inexpensive, so that should be an issue that is easily worked around. I use Cubase 5, so if I find that it works well with that, I may very well get it. Then again, if I find another comparable product with readily available user support, I may change my mind.
  5. CircuitRider

    CircuitRider Active Member

    Just in case anyone happens to know-

    I've heard that you can connect an ADAT to the FW-1884 via lightpipe to gain 8 more inputs. Does anyone know how this works? I've never used an ADAT and have heard some horror stories. Will eight more inputs show up in Cubase?
  6. Divo Dog

    Divo Dog Guest

    I have demo'd the 1884 and yes you can use the adat for eight more inputs, infact the store I was in had it hooked up to an octopre. Cubase will see the additional channels. The way in which cubase uses a seperate channel strip window makes the EQ section on the 1884 redundant but otherwise it works a treat. I would probably try using Logic with it to see how it intergrates though. Good luck with it....
  7. Doublehelix

    Doublehelix Well-Known Member

    I'd love to hear more about the US-2400! Looks great to me!!! Anyone???
  8. CircuitRider

    CircuitRider Active Member

    I'd love to check it out, too, but more than anything, I need inputs. Apparantly, the US-2400 is just a control surface. From what I've seen, it has some great features, though. Apart from more inputs, the one thing I've always wished for on my control surface is motorized faders. Fortunately, the 1884 has them. I can't wait. It's supposed to be here tomorrow.

    Divo, thanks for the info. I'll look into the octopre. Any other ADAT suggestions?

Share This Page