x
anonymous 2 October 2006

http://www.fullcompass.com/product/331558.html 8-)

think ill get another.

Tags

Comments

anonymous Wed, 10/04/2006 - 17:07

audiokid wrote: looks pretty nice, tell us how you like it.

well, ive had my first unit for a while now, and I have to say that I am very impressed with it. there were some glitches in the beggining, but all of those are in the past with the recent firmware updates. it does exactly what it is meant to do, the converters are phenomenal, and it has a lot of great features.

i use it as backup to my remote setup, and as a mixdown deck.

JoeH Mon, 10/09/2006 - 11:16

Why on EARTH wouldn't they have put a firewire connection on it, more importantly, why not at FW 800?!?!? Don't they have marketing people advising them what trends are out there, and what's happening in their marketplace? sheeeeesh...........

This kind of stupidity astounds me; they'd sell boatloads of these things if they fixed a couple of dumb things like this, but noooooooo.... Pro Audio devices like these are all about fast transers (firewire 400 & 800, USB 2, etc.) portability, and mass storage. Take away any one of those features from a product, and you're asking for instant obsolecense. I'll pass, for now.

FifthCircle Mon, 10/09/2006 - 15:04

Most audio PCs have firewire. The sustained throughput of USB2 is not as good as FW. The machine has an 80GB drive- If I have to transfer a large quantity of data after a session (particularly the multi-day ones or the times when I have 2 or 3 gigs a day for a week straight), I want it to transfer as fast as possible. USB2 may have a faster burst speed than FW400, but FW400 is much faster overall for the large transfers of data.

--Ben

JoeH Mon, 10/09/2006 - 15:21

Ben might have explained it better than I could, but there's always been SOMETHING fishy about USB2.0 for goof-proof operation. I just don't trust it. Nothing formal here, no hard data, but side by side, day in and day out, I have better luck overall with FW connectivity.

I have seveal identical HD (removable) caddies that run with either FW or USB2.0; ditto for my Sony Vaio's interface ports. In theory, one should be as interchangable as the other. In practical use, they're not. The USB drive tends to "disappear" every now and then........nothing serious, just the occasional scary warning from Windows that the "write to disc/data lost" when the USB connection stops for odd reasons. Sometimes it even comes back on, just as mysteriously. (I'm using SP 2, as well....all usual updates, etc. Not much else I can tweak to make it any better at this point.)

For totally bullet-proof operation, esp in live use, I rely solely on FW; I"ve never had a problem with it at all. For non-critical data transfers, pictures, backups, USB2.0 is fine, but again, I just don't trust it in the trenches.

And like so many other devices out there, IMHO, it's no big deal at all to offer both options. Just seems to make sense to me, esp for the price of the harware...probably between .50 and a buck's worth of parts.

As always, YMMV. 8-)

rfreez Tue, 10/10/2006 - 03:56

excuse me for asking... but whats the big deal... usb 2.0 or firewire...? all recording happens to the internal hdd and 60+ gb should be ample for any two track situation..... the difference in time between transfering 60 gb via usb 2.0 and firewire 400 cannot be that significantly much, can it? 5 mins... 15 mins...? (i don't think fw 800 is a good option... e.g. of all the intel mac laptops, only the most expensive macbook pro has fw 800). Whereas, i'm sure that in the near future, there'll be usb 2.0 pen drives that can hold several tens of gigabytes.

for me, this looks like a very interesting product... i never considered the older version as i'm simply too uncomfortable recording directly to dvd-r... i'm glad they've addressed that issue...

and unlike joeH, i've never had a problem with usb 2.0... agreed that its sustained transfer rate is not as fast as fw 400, but like i said, i don't think its a big deal in this context.

respect,

JoeH Tue, 10/10/2006 - 10:25

Well, sure, maybe it's unfair to say USB2.0 isn't "as good", but I only know what works day in and day out for me on live recordings, sessions, and transfers. Therefore, my "gut" is with FW, although I freely admit there are times when USB2.0 can be just as good - depending on the circumstances. I simply tend to avoid it for anything hyper-critical. It may indeed be fine for transfers and the like, sitting safely in a rack in a studio somewhere. I was hoping to consider it (The Tascam) for occasional live work and such.

I'm simply disinclined to view any USB device as "bullet-proof" for live use on serious work - historical recordings, one-time performances, etc. (YOU go tell the client that the USB2.0 device "chocked" in the middle of a once in a lifetime recording!)

In that light (and considering the neglible cost of including a FW port), it's just a mystery why Tascam didn't give the end user the option of both transfer protocols. It could even come down to just not having enough of one or the other ports open and available on your system. (Two of my USB ports are tied up with software dongles as well.)

Ah well, we may never know the inner workings of the minds of the great engineers at Tascam. Pr'aps it's just as well. :twisted:

anonymous Tue, 10/10/2006 - 12:38

yeah Joe..but you arent depending on the usb 2 for recording...it is simply a protocol to transfer with after the fact. in which case youll be waiting maybe 30 minutes instead of 7 or 8 to transfer to DAW..I dont see that as a roadblock.

there is no mirroring to any external device during recording, so the lack of firewire there is a moot point. recording is done to the internal HDD only..

firewire is a good bit more $$$ to implement as it requires a dedicated chipset for control function.

JoeH wrote: Well, sure, maybe it's unfair to say USB2.0 isn't "as good", but I only know what works day in and day out for me on live recordings, sessions, and transfers. Therefore, my "gut" is with FW, although I freely admit there are times when USB2.0 can be just as good - depending on the circumstances. I simply tend to avoid it for anything hyper-critical. It may indeed be fine for transfers and the like, sitting safely in a rack in a studio somewhere. I was hoping to consider it (The Tascam) for occasional live work and such.

I'm simply disinclined to view any USB device as "bullet-proof" for live use on serious work - historical recordings, one-time performances, etc. (YOU go tell the client that the USB2.0 device "chocked" in the middle of a once in a lifetime recording!)

In that light (and considering the neglible cost of including a FW port), it's just a mystery why Tascam didn't give the end user the option of both transfer protocols. It could even come down to just not having enough of one or the other ports open and available on your system. (Two of my USB ports are tied up with software dongles as well.)

Ah well, we may never know the inner workings of the minds of the great engineers at Tascam. Pr'aps it's just as well. :twisted:

DavidSpearritt Tue, 10/10/2006 - 13:56

Yes, Teddy has hit the nail on the head. Its asynch transfer here, so the more widely accepted and OS supported USB2 is the better choice.

I am not a fan of either USB2 or FW for real time transfers of critical audio to a HDD. But in a few weeks I will be buying the FW interface to my Lynx Aurora, and so will have to confront my demons and use a laptop. The only saving grace will be that this is the backup and not the primary recorder.

rfreez Wed, 10/11/2006 - 00:56

hey!!

look at the competition korg has put out! looks damn interesting!

aes.harmony-central.com/121AES/Content/Korg/PR/MR-1-MR-1000.html

respect,

edit... oh well... maybe not... it has no digital inputs, so you'd be forced to use internal conversion... seems to be directed towards eng and other non musical applications :(

x

User login