If you don't have a computer, there's not much use for it. I doubt you'd get much money for it, although you could try eBay.

If you do end up deciding to just trash it, then I'll take it as a spare/backup, if you don't mind.

I would be glad to cover all shipping fees, of course... ;)

It's years since I used an FW1814, but my vague memory is that by using its internal routing facilities for the ADAT outputs it could be configured to act as an expander. This might be useful if or when you do get another interface that has ADAT inputs.

Maybe you should lend it to Donny until that time...

Thanks. So for instance if the internal routing allows, I could use the interface with no connection to a computer, but piped into the adat of say (Apollo twin), and send my tape machine thru them? Basically using the interface as a standalone converter? (Not that it's ideal for this, but just for my understanding).

D- you got first dibs on it, I'll let you know first before I chuck it. The only reason I had it was to get into protools cheaply.

the point of interest here is if you use lightpipe to connect it, the clock of the receiving interface will provide the clocking. so even a cheapo converter will sound better clocked by a better box. how much better is anyones guess ....

Kurt Foster, post: 430526, member: 7836 wrote: the point of interest here is if you use lightpipe to connect it, the clock of the receiving interface will provide the clocking. so even a cheapo converter will sound better clocked by a better box. how much better is anyones guess ....

To do this you would need to use a lightpipe in each direction, even if no signal data were sent to the 1814. Whether the clock recovered from the ADAT input had less jitter than the 1814's internal clock is anyone's guess, but at least it would mean that you did not have to clock your new interface from its incoming ADAT stream.

I think I've decided to make sure my old sessions open when I get the new interface, and I'll be passing this 1814 on. Thanks for the thoughts fellas!

Kurt Foster, post: 430526, member: 7836 wrote: the point of interest here is if you use lightpipe to connect it, the clock of the receiving interface will provide the clocking. so even a cheapo converter will sound better clocked by a better box. how much better is anyones guess ....

I know it's some time since I contributed to the thread "What is clock jitter?" but I did so in the (forlorn?) hope of dispelling this kind of blanket statement. There is absolutely no guarantee that a remotely clocked interface will improve that interfaces sound. As I wrote at the time, the stand alone clock jitter is likely to be better, whatever the quality of the remote clock, as the "cheapo" interface's own clock recovery circuits cannot be eliminated by using external source.

Even when that is said, your statement makes the assumption that clock jitter is the only impediment to the sound quality of the "cheapo" interface, ergo your assumption that an (unspecified) improvement must be had. This may or may not be true (as Boswell suggested) but it is certainly not correct to make such a universal assertion.

thanks for correcting me there. i learn something every day. however i never said it was going to be a huge improvement .... and i agree there's much more to how an interface sounds than just clocking .... now that i have learned this, it's just one more reason to think the ADAT protocol is destined for the bin.