yea i will use Reaper for now... but PT is a definete thing down the road. i use it at school, and im willing to bet if i used my ID to get it from Sweetwater, I could buy it for like 250$

I don't know much about Protools. I have heard that it can get really expensive having to purchase protools specific hardware when upgrading. I think there is a newer version that is more flexible. I am definitely the one to ask about Protools so don't quote me on any statements. I'm a Cubase guy.

Be sure to thoroughly research anything you plan on purchasing now and in the future.

Jimmy

believe me i do! i spent almost a year researching before i bought my drums. so yea im a waffler.

yes and i do know for a fact PT9 is incredibly flexable and its standalone or with ANY interface. However, I believe the Tascam isnt compatible bc of the way it shows itself, as i believe it misrepresents its buffer size or something like that, so PT cant use it correctly. thats just what ive gathered

PT9 is perfectly adequate. Incredibly flexible is not accurate since it is no more flexible than most DAWs and less flexible than many.

And no, the Tascam is NOT compatible with any version of PT.

Thank you for the clarification John. I just gave my opinion based on what I have read. Not by experience.

TheJackAttack, post: 371085 wrote: PT9 is perfectly adequate. Incredibly flexible is not accurate since it is no more flexible than most DAWs and less flexible than many.

And no, the Tascam is NOT compatible with any version of PT.

I am curious why a company would setup their drivers/firmware to not be useable by the most professionally used software (Protools). Obviously there is a Tascam/Steinberg/Yamaha connection there, but limiting an interfaces 'interfacing' capability seems like a self kick in the ass to me. I suppose before Avid went with an open interface version of their program, this was not an option anyway. But still, seems like an under sight.

Low end Tascam is not professional by any means. The HS-P82 is another story.

also, if i was to use the computer headphone mixer, can i just route my kick and the song i want to play along to my ears? And not send back like 6 channels to me, only the 2. Could doing this reduce latency?

OFFTOPIC{also, before i was looking at the Saffire Pro 40, which has the software monitoring, but one thing ive heard is that for Windows 7 their FireWire Drivers kinda blow. And they dont always work. When i get my computer built IT IS going to have 2 FireWire ports, but they will be directly connected to the motherboard, which will be a "Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 -- AMD 870 w/ 2x PCI-E 2.0 x16 " Would that work?

Hmm.....Well latency is not caused by multiple instances of audio channels. It is the time it takes for you DAW/interface to send audio going through it, back to your monitoring. Adding an effect in say Cubase, Protools, or Reaper, will add to the time it takes to process the signal before you hear it back. The performance of your computer has a huge part in this as well. That being said, I can play back 30 tracks at a low latency setting on my 1641, add one (only one) reverb plug for monitoring for a singer, and record his track with less than 10ms of delay (latency). This is very acceptable for my particular purposes. I am not educated on interfaces with their own direct monitoring/DSP effects but I hear that can be a great advantage. I find that I really don't need that in my situation as of yet. Though I must say that it was impossible for me to create good monitor mixes without purchasing a monitor amp with AUX inputs.

Someone will probably call me out for this, but I hear that firewire has pretty much lived it's life and is not the best investment these days. Usb 3.0 will support 2.0, but firewire will be completely replaced in the near future by thunderbolt. I am just relaying what I have heard here, I may be completely wrong, but firewire is being installed less now on newly built computers because of this change coming.

Any interface that does not have Win7 support drivers by now, is obviously outdated and probably has no potential to be relevant ever. Hell even Microsoft has abandoned XP support of their own dated software as have software manufacturers such as Steinberg (Cubase 6).

Keep in mind what you will want to work with in the future as well as now.

yea the computer being built is going have an AMD Phenom X6 1100T Six-Core 3.3GHz, 8GB Ram, the aformentioned MotherBoard, and Win7 Premium. Would that be sufficient to run a low latency headphone mix?

Well, considering my results using the computer with specs presented in my sig, you have around twice the power I use on a daily basis with good results. However, if your system is setup for gaming, it will suck ass at recording. Any system must be optimized for audio recording. I don't believe the is a PC or MAC made yet that will do everything without compromizing something. In fact it 'is' the software and services running on a comp that makes 'everything' convenient, that destroys the ability for it to run one program efficiently.

then you are suggesting that i go out of the box for monitoring?

Well, I am just saying that unless you get an interface that has its own direct monitoring mixing ability, you may want to use an outboard monitor amp. Especially for drums. The headphone output on my 1641 is not loud enough on its own to hear well when playing drums. Direct monitoring anyway. And if you are tracking with another player, a guitar player for instance, the mix that he will want will be different than that of the drummer. An outboard monitor amp with AUX inputs solves this problem for me. I can create a send in Cubase to an output that I feed to the HP amp AUX in with more guitar for the drummer. I use a HA4700 that I got off Craigslist for $50. Works perfectly for this.

What i was planning on doing, was using either a Behringer RX1202FX, or 2 Behringer MIC2200 Ultragain Pro's as the actually "Preamps" for the 8 line ins of the 18i6. Then inside ITB, just send back the kick, and with my little 2 channel mixer i got i could mix in my ipod and what im playing.

That sounds like it will do the trick.

yea also i do have mics now, that i could double mic the kick, one for monitoring and the other for actually recording. since im going to use a kelly shu mount, i would just mic the outerhead with the cheapo mic and see how that works.

[quote=jimmys69, post: 371007]Well, the direct monitoring of the Tascam is just the input level of the inputs. The 'Mix' knob controls volume of the inputs to the interface in relation to the signal your DAW is putting out. Zero latency from the inputs, and the latency that your system gives from your computer. This is really only useful for me with a separate headphone amp with aux inputs. There is no ability to add eq or effects to the direct signal from the 1800 without recording the effect. I typically record while monitoring from Cubase (computer) at a low latency setting. This pretty much limits me to one reverb plugin before latency becomes noticeable.

Play to your ipod? Not sure I understand what you are asking. You can export an mp3 file to listen on whatever.[/QUOTE

When you record while monitoring from [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.steinber…"]Cubase[/]="http://www.steinber…"]Cubase[/] (computer) at a low latency setting, how many channel can you record at the same time before hearing ticks or other weird noise from the monitors?

How many channels can you record at the same time while monitoring via Cubase with a good result?

16 possible with the US 1800. Latency will increase with adding plug-ins while monitoring. I have under 8ms of latency tracking 14 mics with one instance of Roomworks SE. I'm sure I could add more with the i7 I am running but haven't seen the need as yet. Your processor speed will determine how many effects you can monitor while tracking without latency.

DrummerDan, post: 371170 wrote: yea the computer being built is going have an AMD Phenom X6 1100T Six-Core 3.3GHz, 8GB Ram, the aformentioned MotherBoard, and Win7 Premium. Would that be sufficient to run a low latency headphone mix?

Just monitor in hardware (the mix you get is based on the input volume from the sources). That said, using the tascam drivers (kinda iffy, id reccomend asio4all) I get 3ms in and 12ms out latency on a computer with identical specs. Asio4all has a tad more latency but works better overall.

Asio4All is a stopgap measure really. It is no substitute for a properly written driver. Better to avoid Tascam altogether until you get to their "mastering" line of gear which is outside the purview of budget consideration.

I have never had a single issue with my Tascam driver, nor have I heard of any problems other than working with Protools. It does not. I am curious exactly what the problems are that are being mentioned here. :confused:

jimmys69, post: 378456 wrote: I have never had a single issue with my Tascam driver, nor have I heard of any problems other than working with Protools. It does not. I am curious exactly what the problems are that are being mentioned here. :confused:

They worked perfectly on my laptop when it was running XP SP2, but on my desktop running 7 64bit and when I upgraded my laptop to SP3 things started having problems. On my laptop the ASIO time useage jumps between 10 and 100% constantly, causing the audio to cut in and out. On my desktop I had similar issues except it would just cut in and out randomly, then eventually get to a point where it was just crackling, at that point only a full reset will fix it.

Tascam drivers are buggy and rarely updated or rewritten. Some of the many errors they have been known to cause are:
interface not recognized
interface recognized but not accessible
fluctuating size of usable buffer on a given computer
lock up of DAW session after working for a short time
immediate lock up of DAW session if record is enabled
noise from the interface ADC or DAC
failure to reacquire device when returning from background or screensaver

The list could go on. Tascam studio boards were once pretty common. I burnt my last one in 2000. Of course that was before interfaces and drivers but the customer service and quality was about the same. The ADAT recorders were better generally and there is a line of recorders today that ought to be outstanding given what they are marketed to and the claim to be mastering level but the basic Tascam gear remains the same. IMO of course. YMMV and dealer dock fees may apply. Incompatibility with a DAW because of how a driver reports the buffer settings is a preschool mistake for code writers.

First off, I will say that the incompatibility with a DAW seems quite lame to me as well. Though, I have no complaints myself, as I use Cubase. That seems to be the basis for Tascam's interface integration.

"Tascam drivers are buggy and rarely updated or rewritten"

I realize your opinions of Tascam drivers in the past may be valid. Though, it seems a quite unfair for you to judge newer drivers based upon this. In my experiences of late, Tascam drivers have been 'absolutely' rock solid.

"failure to reacquire device when returning from background or screensaver"

Screensaver is something that should be disabled on any computer used for recording anyway.

"interface not recognized
interface recognized but not accessible
fluctuating size of usable buffer on a given computer
lock up of DAW session after working for a short time
immediate lock up of DAW session if record is enabled"

Never experienced any of these myself. Most issues with drivers can be attributed to setup error. Not necessarily an issue with the writing of them. A couple of these can be attributed to using another device on the same USB hub. A USB 2.0 interface needs to have it's own port.

"noise from the interface ADC or DAC"

Not IME. Today anyway.

In regards to x_25's issues, I had the same problems with my HP store bought computer. It came down to bloatware and other processes that were interfering with communication with the interface. 'Superfetch' was one of the offenders. Many processes need to be disabled on a retail PC that interfere with audio performance. Technically fluent users can go to [="http://www.blackviper.com/"]Black Viper[/]="http://www.blackvip…"]Black Viper[/] for more detailed performance mods. There are many things you can do to improve performance of any interface on any system. [[url=http://="http://forums.preso…"]Here[/]="http://forums.preso…"]Here[/] is a good site for basic optimization of your PC for audio recording with W7. Blaming the drivers of a newer device is typically not the issue. It is setting the computer up properly for recording. Yes, drivers for some interfaces and their drivers may perform better in a haphazard setup that involves internet access and a buttload of stupid stuff, but if you are serious about recording, there are steps that need to be taken to ensure proper function of your gear.

I recently upgraded to a self built i7 with OEM W7 OS. With a clean OS, I am able to have internet active and still run 40+tracks, using the Tascam US-1641, with more VST's than I can count, and record vocals with under 8ms of latency. Yes, the rig is responsible for enabling this, but the Tascam driver is not an issue as far as I can tell.

I am looking into purchasing a Tascam US-1800 along with a new PC to run it. I have been looking at this barebones kit from Tiger Direct.............[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.tigerdir…"]ASUS M4A88T-M Thermaltake Barebones Kit - ASUS M4A88T-M Mobo, AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE, CPU Cooler, Patriot (3x 4GB) 12GB DDR3 RAM, 1TB HDD, 24x DVDRW, Thermaltake V2 Mid Tower Case, 450W Power Supply at TigerDirect.com[/]="http://www.tigerdir…"]ASUS M4A88T-M Thermaltake Barebones Kit - ASUS M4A88T-M Mobo, AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE, CPU Cooler, Patriot (3x 4GB) 12GB DDR3 RAM, 1TB HDD, 24x DVDRW, Thermaltake V2 Mid Tower Case, 450W Power Supply at TigerDirect.com[/]. Then plan on using Windows XP or Windows 7 depending on what will work best? Do you guys know if this pc will run the 1800, or which OS would be better to use?

Any help is appreciated.

I am new to this forum. I am having latency issues with my US 1800 and my laptop( Dell Latitude/Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz processor/4 GB DDR2 RAM/ 160 GB 7200 RPM HD) I use Cakewalk Sonar Home Studio 7 and have also tried Reaper with pretty much the same results. I think transfer speed between the Laptop and the US 1800 is the problem as the US 1800 acts as the dedicated sound card also. I was wondering if a dedicated PCMCIA USB would be faster at data transfer? The US 1800 uses ASIO so there is limited adjustments to buffers available. When I adjust to the lowest latency settings on the US 1800, my Laptop blue-screens. I have heard that some of the units were faulty from Tascam. I have a case number with Tascam and will call them sometime this week to see. Is there a more efficient way to inter phase these two devices? Oh yeah...ALL drivers for my Laptop AND the US 1800 AND my DAW are up to date.

First, the Tascam has very limited buffer control period. Second, which Dell model is it? Third, are just using the internal hard drive and no secondary drive for your audio? Also the internal drive on many laptops is a 5400rpm drive and that is definitely not sufficient for any laptop using a Ricoh chipset.

Now, why do you need the buffer as low as possible?!? The US1800 allows direct monitoring and that is what you should be using to layer tracks or overdub. You are just asking for trouble with non purpose built computers and cheap usb interfaces otherwise.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Thanks for your fast response. The Laptop is a DELL E6400. It has a 7200 rpm HD. I do not use an external HD. I am getting wicked latency while recording vocals, or drums using several inputs. By direct monitoring, what do you mean?. I typically use the phones out in the front of the Tascam US 1800 for vocals and drum recording. I don't get any latency when using speakers while recording direct (keys/guitar etc.), but obviously when doing vocals or drum tracks, headphones are a necessary evil. Thanks again. I just wondered if a dedicated PCMCIA USB card would be any faster than the USB 2.0 port.

There is no advantage at all to low buffer settings if you are monitoring direct at the Tascam.

Using a usb express card will not help. Using an Express Card eSATA card with an eSATA 7200 rpm external drive will. Also, if you have not tweaked the crap out if your os then that can help too. Uninstalling all of Dells helper programs like power management, quickset, et alia will too.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I'm sitting here recording a classical string quartet concert on a 10 yo Dell D820 that has been upgraded and tweaked by me. It will run at 128 samples but I set it at 1024 on purpose. Or porpoise.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

My Dell does have an esata usb port. You're saying that using it with an external esata drive will be quicker than using my internal 7200 rpm HD?

Yes.

You can't run a program/os and record audio to the same physical drive simultaneously. The drive head can't be in two places at once.

Doubling on the usb header is no good either as usb is a "dumb" protocol but your eSATA port should work.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

7200 rpm eSATA external drive. OK. Any suggestions on GB size?
Thanks

Dude...eSATA drive are not cheap are they?

I have no problems recording right to the internal drive on my laptop with my US-1644, all 14 analog channels running at 24/86 with 12ms latency in and out (ASIO 4 ALL). The trick is to make sure you de-fragment regularly (this is important), then, any time you are going to record, go into msconfig (Start -> Run -> type "mscongif" and hit enter). I turn off all the non microsoft services and everything in the boot section. I have never had any problems doing this on a 2.3ghz Core 2 duo with 3gb of ram, so you should have no problem either. The blue screening sounds like either a defective product or driver conflict.

When doing recording overdubs, make sure to monitor through the hardware, not looping through the computer. Then there will be no monitor latency (though depending on how your program works, you may need to slide the new track over a bit to account for latency in the recording and playback, but not in the monitoring).

For projects I use no larger than 500gb drives. For storage after project is done I use 1.5-2 TB dtives.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

x_25, post: 386651 wrote: I have no problems recording right to the internal drive on my laptop with my US-1644, all 14 analog channels running at 24/86 with 12ms latency in and out (ASIO 4 ALL).

This may or may not be true-especially when Asio4All is involved- but no responsible audio engineer or computer person is going to recommend recording to the primary drive...an internal secondary drive, sure. Also, even if it is true for this one person that is not a statistically relevant percentage of the "average" user.

As I stated before, I normally replace the DVD player with a secondary hard drive enclosure which for older computers I use as the cache drive or for newer computers I use a secondary internal audio drive.

Additionally, most laptops have motherboard routing deficiencies when compared to their desktop counterparts. The newest models are much better in this regards but Core 2 Duo motherboards despite being "newer" are generally not. The memory controller certainly is not newer and so one doesn't benefit from the improvements made for the i3/i5/i7 generation of motherboards.

I just got off Newegg. I have a SATA 7200 rpm drive that's not being used for much anymore so I bought an eSATA enclosure that includes the power supply and an eSATA cable. My Dell has an eSATA port so I'll give that a go. I hope it works out be cause the US 1800 is giving me a great sound. I used to use an EMU 0404 and the US 1800 sounds way better. Thanks. I'll let you know how it turns out. Really appreciate everything. Maybe I'll post some tunes when I'm finished. Until then, her's a cut from my last project. Fruit - YouTube Thanks Again.

FWIW that is a good route to go to "recycle" old or unused drives. When I'm not using Glyph drives I build my own with Vantec NexStar 3 enclosures-either 2.5" or 3.5". They have USB, firewire, and eSATA connecdtions on the bridge board so fairly universal. The same rpm rules apply as to internal drives.

One more question please. When I build my eSATA drive do I just set it up for storage and stream my audio to and from it, or do I install my DAW on this drive also? I thought originally to keep Cakewalk on my internal drive and use the eSATA to exclusively store all my Cakewalk projects on. I want to do this right.