tascam controller?

[antiClick]

Hi ya all!!
I'v been lugging and trying to decide a good purchase on a DAW controller.

This babe seems good stuff and large enough to control a project quite confortably
http://www.tascam.com/Products/US-2400.html

Tascam doesn't mention anything about SAW support.
Do any of you have experience with this gizmo?

Once, i heard that the hot-channel in saw is automaticaly set the first strip on the controller.
I can't see the utility of this behaviour.... Do you?
Could this be avoided?

Thanks a lot!!
Please, feel free to suggest any other controller.

[Kimbo]

I bought the Behringer ADA 8000 digital converter that goes into the RME digiface and into my computer. If you have a mixer and SAW . Why do you want a controller . All you need is your mouse. I am leary of controllers with moving faders. Too many things to break. Perhaps it's cause I know some guys who have the Roland 2480 and their transport buttons and jog wheels go bad from using themt too hard. I look at all that expensive stuff in the studio catalogs and it makes me glad I own SAW. just my humble opinion.. Kimbo

[Bill Park]

Bob wrote great support for the Fromntier Designs Tranzport, which controlls most of what I want to control remotely.
Bill

[Bob L]

As mentioned many times before on the forum... the best controller support for SAWStudio is written for the Mackie Universal Control... if you want physical knobs and faders and switches... the Mackie is the one to get... it hooks into almost every control on the virtual mixer as well as many editing functions and F-key Views.

Bob L

[antiClick]

All you need is your mouse
Wish it was true!
Do you know RSI? (Repetitive Strain Injury).
This is EXTREMELY dangerous and I think that paying 3.000eur to prevent it, is a real bargain.
Read this:
http://www.backbenimble.com/office/carpal_tunnel_info.htm
http://eeshop.unl.edu/rsi.html


the Mackie is the one to get
Yes, I also looked at it... but feel like not enought channels, and sure clients will preffer larger stuff. :\
May be I'm wrong


Frontier Designs Tranzport
Oh! I like it.
Little, cheaper, usefull and wireless.
Will I have to buy ten of this to impress clients? :D hehehehe


Thanx 4 the info, dudes!!!!

[Bob L]

The Mackie can access all 72 channels with the 8 faders and master... it works fantastic for that... you can have it auto chase SAWStudio... or use the bank switches to jump instantly 8 channels at a time.

Bob L

[SoundSuite]

Miquel,

In SAW, when using the Mackie Control and extenders... only the first 8ch unit, the main module per se, is 'seen' in SAW. The following extenders will not be functional.
To my memory of posts here, the Tascam emulates the Mackie Control and a pair of Mackie extenders.
Therefore, since the Mackie only 'does' the first unit in SAW, it would make sense that the Tascam will operate the same.

The Tascam ($1600 approx) is more expensive than just the Mackie Control Universal ($1000 approx) which makes sense, the Tascam has more channels.

If you are just gonna use only SAW, ...no ProTools, Logic, etc... I'd say the Mackie wins this shootout, even without owning a Tascam unit to test myself for a true comparison.
Reasons being:
-Cost per operational channel assuming the Tascam truly emulates the Mackie.
If you only get 8 channels of function in SAW on the Mackie, there is no use considering the extra $600 for 16 useless faders and more desk space taken up in the Tascam.
-Known support for the MCU from Bob and Mackie vs a 'should work within the Mackie's limitations' for the Tascam from a SAW user that doesn't have a Tascam to actually test.
I for one cant say that all the buttons on the Tascam main section will or won't work, but I know the Mackie main section is chock full o function.


If you are using SAW and/or another software that fully supports the MCU and 2x ME's (ie the full 24 channels and 3x midi ports) then the Tascam may very well be 'better', it's certanly less cost fully decked out than the Mackie and both extenders ($1000+$700+$700).
-This of course assumes that as far as SAW knows, the Tascam is a Mackie Control. Meaning Tascam has truly emulated/copied the MC via USB and 3x software midi ports instead of the 3x physical midi ports that the MC requires for all.
-This assumes the Tascam will operate using only one of its midi ports, on the 'main section', and ignoring the rest of the 16x channels not used, like the Mackie does.


--These are assumptions that only require $1600 for the Tascam purchase to concurr or deny. ;)
(... I gotta admit the concept of one usb corb beats the snot outta 3x pairs of midi in and out, I do like this principle of Tascam, on paper. I kinda still want some hardware midi i/o and no cpu drain from added usb/software though)


In SAW, using any supported controller, at first thought it seems like it would be annoying to get around 'only' having x channels of controller vs 72 channels in the full blown SAWStudio.
However, this is far from the truth in application more often than not, assuming you are the controller type ;).
The bank/channel selector on the Mackie is slick, but even on the others that don't have this ability, you can still have the controller chase SAW's hot-track to stay 'in focus' with channel one on the controller.


I used to have a ProMix01, it worked just for faders (16x), solo and mute in SAW.
At first instict, I thought why trade 16x channels of ProMix01 for 8x on the Mackie Control?
After researching the extras the Mackie has integrated with SAW functions, I went for it because I saw a possible gain in my workflow even with half the channels worth of faders. Alot of the 'extra buttons' on the Mackie where the buttons I use alot in SAW.
Honestly, the only time I have any sign of 'annoyance' is on drum tracks that span more than 8x channels for the kit. At that point, i tweak (for example) the first 8 channels, then switch bank up with a press of a button on the Mackie Control. At first attempt its arkward, but after you do it a couple of times its actually nice to not have to move your fingers 8 or more channels away, just hit bank button up or down and stay focused, per se.
When I think I want more than 8 faders, I remind myself that I do not have 13 fingers with available opposing thumbs/fingers to mix those drums in a one-shot take, in real-time, even if i did have more than 8 channels on the controller (which i had on the PM01 and still not enough fingers).

Part of the workflow I have found is 'my line' between keyboard/mouse and the controller. Neither replaces the other imo, so I use them all.
However, if given an either/or mandate, your chances of driving SAW 'fully' are better with a keyboard and mouse combo than any controller, even if the controller is the size of the mixer SAW replaced ;)
Learn the keyboard/mouse way, then accent with the controller until your own pleasure threshold is reached.

Worth mentioning, you do not 'need' the newest, latest, 'Mackie Control Universal', which has HUI, Logic and Mackie control modes. (well, for SAW at least, you'll want it if you use Logic or ProTools, of course)
An older model, called just 'Mackie Control', is all thats needed for SAW, so you can save coin and get one second hand from a good source thats taken care of it.

Once I set it up in SAW and saved my preferences, my 'old' MC links and syncs with no more than it's power on, then start SAW.
I think the new 'Universal' ones require a key held at power on to get to Mackie mode for use with SAW?
I think it was Mitch? that recently got the newer model 'Universal' and he had to set it for 'Mackie Control' mode away from default 'Logic Control' upon MCU startup to get it working in SAW, ...please concurr ...Mitch?

The Frontier Design TranzPort ($200 approx) is a neat looking little gadget. I do not have one (yet) but it is on my list. The others that have purchased the Tranzport, from what I have seen here, love it at any price, much less its really, really affordable one.
I don't have a Tranzport, so I cannot speak personally, but I have seen good reports here about it and Bob did alot of work integrating alot of SAW's 'stuff' into its small box. Its gotta pack a whallop from looking at the version release notes that described the Tranzport integration. (about halfway thru v3.9e release notes) (http://www.sawstudio.com/LatestReleaseNotes.htm#3.9e)
I'll have one eventually I feel. I want it to aid/ease in tracking my own parts wirelessly in the envirnment room and not on the laptop via tcpip mode :D

If i'm not mistaken, only the Mackie or the Tranzport can be used at once, not both at the same time? (Bob?)
Not because of an incompatibility between the two, but rather that SAW only allows one controller midi port active at a time. This is the reason why the Mackie extenders do not work and therefore the reason why the Tascam channels 9-24 'should not' work either.(Bob?)

Some will say you don't need an external controller... they are right, for their style of work. SAW doesn't 'need' or 'require' an external controller.
Watching Bob fly around SAW in his videos using just the mouse and keyboard is flat out embarrasing in speed compared to me, I'll admit this easily.
However, I 'have' to have a controller in 'my' style of work. You'll need to make up your own mind after using one, just like the rest of us :D
Thankfully, we have multiple options for controllers and are not 'locked into' only x,y or z, each being expensive, really expensive, and 'someones on crack for sure'.

I like the faders on the Mackie and they are accurate enough to rough in easily, it's accuracy is much better than the ProMix01 was (i think .25dB on Mackie vs 1-2dBish on the PM01).
I'm not sure of the accuracy on the Tranzport (or Tascam for this matter), maybe a user will fill it in for you/us.
I mainly use the MC for faders, solo, mutes and transport buttons, but also enjoy the f-key switches and pans, eq, comp available a button(or two) away.

As a hint of how easy the Mackie is to 'grasp' and use...
Usually, clients come in, they see computer screens, waveforms and 'weird stuff' with a mouse and keyboard to control it all. Even though in SAW, the mouse and keyboard controls are fast and quick to navigate, clients are, shall we say, afraid to touch anything thru the mouse... even if they see that play and stop button on the screen, they are hesitant to grab the mouse and click.
I recently left the clients listening to a playback on a mix and went into my residence for a sec. Ususally (pre-mackie) I'd come back to them saying play that back (from time x). Instead, I came back to the artist using the transport buttons on the Mackie to stop, que and play the tracks on their own.
(this could be good or bad, sometimes you may want the client scared to touch anything, *winks*)
This blew my mind, it had never happened before (the promix01 only had faders, solo and mute, no transport so they couldnt hit the play button on it without mousing it or 'accidentally' leaning on the spacebar by chance).
Granted, they had hit mute and adjusted pans/faders on a channel or two and could have caused carnage if the session was not saved or undo-able (like the big console that someone hit some button or knob and doesnt remember which one it was, requiring 'the test of your track sheets') but the point remains that the client had the opportunity to 'drive' and felt comfortable enough with the 'typical' looks of the Mackie interface to know what buttons to hit to make that 'computer thing' play their song back. I saved what they did as a temp edl and reverted in a blink of an eye back to when i left.
Good stuff for all.

I find, at least with my clients, that they like to ride faders at some time during the session as they feel more 'included' in the process than with me driving 100%. Some are new to a studio and have never been behind a huge console to mix, others have been behind a console every time before and the computer is new. Either selection enjoys the hands on faders.
Once I get the main tracks recorded in, I like to let them ride the faders to give me an idea of what they hear in their minds ear. This client rough mix is maybe trivial and is always changed after processing, effects and all other tricks we apply, but the client feels better touching a fader, even if it does nothing more than pacifying there craving for the touch and/or myself getting a grasp of what 'they' think the scale of mix precedence should be (drums over bass, guitars under vocals, etc, ...general, rough mix settings.

I love the Mackie, my clients enjoy it too, but his doesn't mean you will have the same warm fuzzies as I.
As always, take this info with a grain of salt.
You are the only one to decide if a controller fits into your work style.

The Mackie Control and the Tranzport are not the only supported controllers for SAW, but they do seem do be the best integrated in the selection, so you will get alot of 'them' as the 'answer' to the 'which controller' question.
Here's the list of supported controllers (http://www.sawstudio.com/SAWStudio/Controllers.htm)

ps... it looks like 'someone' forgot to add the Tranzport to the list (on the dial-up and 'real' webpages) *winks*.
FWIW, Thanks a million for maintaining the dialup page, I for one appreciate it immensely as I interpret both versions as double the work due to double the pages maintained.
The 'real' page is awesome, but it takes forever to roll tape on this connection :D

pss, prices grifted from dankwater.

[Bob L]

One other note about the Tascam emulation... it is not complete... or at least was not complete during my last tests just before the unit was released.

There are many functions on the Mackie that do not translate on the Tascam.

Also... the Tascam unit I tested had firewire audio in it... the drivers were very slow and latency was a real problem... at the time of release... If you are interested in it... definitely test one with the SAWStudio demo in Mackie emulation mode before buying... or talk to someone who has one and has tested it with SAWStudio.

The other unit to try would be the Behringer... others have setup templates for it... I have never gotten one here to program a specific template for it... but it does allow you to program each button and switch... and you could use the Mackie Template as a base... and set the Behringer to follow along for many of the functions.

Bob L

[Craig Allen]

I use the Behringer - a great unit for the money. It has Mackie HUI emulation that works really well with SAW - no programming required. I use it to mix live all the time.

[trock]

i will chime in with this

i bought a used MCU on ebay for 500 bucks and it works great!!

[antiClick]

Thanks for those useful responses!!!

It's a pity that extension mackie units aren't yet supported.
The most intelligent seems to go for a MC, and when support is available, extend it with 8 channels more (I luv big things... XD)
MC function buttons seems extremly workable and practical... this is a clear bonus.

I also preffer the Tranzport over behringer (ergonimically speaking :p), but it seems that Frontier Design has no sellers in Europe :( :?

Do any of this controllers has any type of latency ??
If they do, is noticeable enought not to make automatition viable through the controller? (stepping volume effect on sound)

USB connections should add more latency and eat more CPU than MIDI cables, doesn't it?
... and what about Tranzport peak level meter? latency adverted?

Thanks again
awesome post, jon :)

[olzzon]

I also preffer the Tranzport over behringer (ergonimically speaking :p), but it seems that Frontier Design has no sellers in Europe :( :?


You can buy it at thomann.de, quite cheap.

[Craig Allen]

I don't think that SAW is going to ever support the Mackie extenders since they use additional MIDI ports to communicate - Bob will have to elaborate, though. As far as latency goes, It depends on your buffer settings.

[antiClick]

You can buy Tranzport at thomann.de, quite cheap.Very extrange it's 211€ + sending from Germany...
I could buy online from USA for 200€ with sending included
This is world is nonsense :confused:


As far as latency goes, It depends on your buffer settings.I meaned the latency between when you move your controller until the screen fader also moves, not between screen fader moves and sound.

Hope to be clear (and correct :o)
Sorry my phastitxe english

[trock]

i don;t see any latency, and let me just tell you how well this old MCU works (its and old logic controller not a new MCU)

i literally plugged it in and set it to the setting bob said to and BAM! it ALL works and there si SOO much functionality between SAW and it, it is great!!

i do wish it did work with the extenders cause i like having my hands on the faders and would like to have more BUT not a big deal.

i hve a GREAT routing between the MCU and the keyboard/mouse now and am flying

you have no idea how well bob did his template till you actually get one and try. alot of SAW'ers don;t need or use the physical console and i probably dont' "need" it either

i just happen to like it :D

[ttako]

Hi,

As I also would like to use some controller with SS, my question is if the only couse of not using the extender wth the MCU the missing of additional Midi port supported by SS?
Does the MCU require all 16 midi channels?
If not, then the one Midi port could be splitted with forr example midi ch 1-4 on midi port 1, midi ch 5-8 on midi port2 etc...
This could be done with some MIDI gizmo...
Is this a stupid idea?
I also don't know if the MCU extenders are able to set the midi chs on which they should communicate?
Using the C4 would be great as well for ch parameters like Eq, comp, gate, send levels etc.

Cheers,

Tamas

[Craig Allen]

I meaned the latency between when you move your controller until the screen fader also moves, not between screen fader moves and sound.
It's none that I've ever noticed.

[Bob L]

Unfortunately the MCU uses all 16 channels for one unit... that is the nightmare of the design... so each unit eats another midi port... and midi ports can be hard to come by past 8.

I am looking into it... maybe 4.0 will have the extended midi port availablity... not certain... but we'll see.

Bob L

[antiClick]

Sorry to re-quote, but feel like two important questions has falled in the bin...

USB connections should add more latency and eat more CPU than MIDI cables, doesn't it?
(at least theorically, because of the protocol, as midi cables transmission seems asyncronous)

Bill ... what about Tranzport peak level meter? latency adverted?
Thankx agn

[SoundSuite]

USB should be more latency and more cpu drain than a hardware midi interface, yes.
In a perfect world, i'd prefer a hardware i/o.

As always, my world is not perfect.
My MQX-32M is no workie in my latest DAWs, so I use a USB Midisport 2x2 for the MC and cannot notice the latency or drain, even though I'm sure it's there.

[antiClick]

USB should be more latency and more cpu drain than a hardware midi interface, yes.
In a perfect world, i'd prefer a hardware i/o.

As always, my world is not perfect.
My MQX-32M is no workie in my latest DAWs, so I use a USB Midisport 2x2 for the MC and cannot notice the latency or drain, even though I'm sure it's there.

I'v been searching for usb specs 'bout this latency issue, but nothing concluding.
Just this quote about wireless usb: "With an average latency of less than 8 milliseconds with four concurrent devices connected and less than 20 milliseconds with the maximum number of devices connected, Wireless USB is also capable of serving the high-demand gaming market where a latency of 30 milliseconds is generally the maximum allowed".

Anyway, wireless or not, if there's latency this has to be very low as most MIDI USB hubs seem to be useful to get keyboards connected.

If someone knows concluent non-wireless USB latency specs, please post it.

Thanks!

[antiClick]

About usb connection.... this is also very interesting:
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/techinfo/lola_usbkills.htm

[trock]

the thing that kind of kills this for me and my setup is if bob did do the extensions i would need to buy a MIDI card with 2 more ports at least, running about 200 bucks, then 1400 for 2 extenders, unless i get lucky on ebay.

so i think the thing for me is going to be keep the MCU i have that works great

put the money towards my SAW upgrade and walk away from it

[Bill Park]

About usb connection.... this is also very interesting:
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/techinfo/lola_usbkills.htm

Look at the date, 2001. Look at the conclusion. Is it really a problem today? I am a minimalist, something learned from the old Compuserve computer audio forums. But I do have a USB wireless keyboard/mouse, which seem to add no ill effects under XP. I've just added the Frontier Designs Tranzport, but I've been doing too much work to take the time to hook it up and check it out. But the FD people were quite high on Bob's support of their product, so I don't expect any problems.


Bill

[Bill Park]

the thing that kind of kills this for me and my setup is if bob did do the extensions i would need to buy a MIDI card with 2 more ports at least, running about 200 bucks, then 1400 for 2 extenders, unless i get lucky on ebay.

so i think the thing for me is going to be keep the MCU i have that works great

put the money towards my SAW upgrade and walk away from it

In my studio I have the Mackie Control, and I got quite comfortable with bank switching. I thought that I might like to have 24 faders at hand, but afte a short while I discovered that I did not need it.

It might be interesting to have the C4 supported, but it won't break my heart if it doesn't happen.

Bill

[trock]

Hi Bill

yes the bank switching has been a bit of a struggle for me cause i lose track of my tracks - haha

seriously though i am getting faster and better with it. to me spending 1600 bucks for some faders at this point doesn;t make sense

i just like the look of ALL those controls though!

[musicmanwolf]

I use a Tascam fw-1082 and I can't say eniugh good things about it. I have used it with the SS demo alot and it seems to work very well. I am currently usuing Nuendo but as soon as Bob gets the tape machine style monitoring working I am going to switch over to Sawstudio. Back to the FW-1082 It has Mackie emulation and everything works with SS exactly as it is suppose to. This thing rocks. If you like hands on like I do check it out on Tascam's web site. I have not had any problems with it at all.

[Naturally Digital]

I use a Tascam fw-1082 and I can't say eniugh good things about it. I have used it with the SS demo alot and it seems to work very well. I am currently usuing Nuendo but as soon as Bob gets the tape machine style monitoring working I am going to switch over to Sawstudio. Back to the FW-1082 It has Mackie emulation and everything works with SS exactly as it is suppose to. This thing rocks. If you like hands on like I do check it out on Tascam's web site. I have not had any problems with it at all.Interesting... I was just about to ask if anyone had experience with the FW-1884 on SAWStudio. Thanks.

[trock]

me too david

the MCU i have is OLD and i got it off ebay and it does work great, however a couple of the buttons stick down when i hit them and the fader tips can fall off

so if i did get a new one the 1884 looks nicer to me than a new MCU. and i have heard a lot of negative things about the new mackie's FROM the mackie forum in terms of quality

i can get the 1884 shipped to me from my sweetwater guy to try out. maybe i will do that and see what the deal is.

[trock]

i have to say, and don't hate me bob, that i just like the LOOKS of this stuff vs all in the box :) and i work better this way

http://www.tascam.com/Products/FW-1884/FW1884wFE8.jpg

[Naturally Digital]

i have to say, and don't hate me bob, that i just like the LOOKS of this stuff vs all in the box :) and i work better this way

http://www.tascam.com/Products/FW-1884/FW1884wFE8.jpgWell, I've been wondering if this could offer an alternative and make a great front-end for sawstudio, especially for portable rigs. I haven't tried one but since it's firewire and co-designed by Frontier Design, could it be exploited by SAWStudio? Possibly even the expander packs?? ;)

[ecroxford]

Is anyone using this controller and if so how is it working for you as far as Saw goes.

thanks
Ed

[Bob L]

Any controller will have to have a custome template designed and compiled within the program code to work fully and with any real control inside SAWStudio... its complicated and can sometimes take weeks and months of every day work to truly integrate all the controls and lights and switches.

Even with the emulations I have yet to see any of them work properly until the template is custom designed.

Try the Mackie Universal Control if you want a well integrated control surface for SAWStudio.

Bob L

[trock]

the mackie universal works great with SAW, the most comprehensive one i have seen, and it works flawlessly

if your looking for a front end this would be the one to get

[ecroxford]

Thanks for the info... However there are some nice features to the tascam that are not in the mackie... Just checking to see if anyone is using this and how it works. I may go for the mackie if i can't find anyone using the tascam, although i've been known to ignore advice before:D

thanks again
Ed Croxford

[trock]

Hi ed

just so you know, bob custom wrote a template for the MCU that is very extensive, there is a help file somewhere that lists all it does. i think its on www.sawstudio.com somewhere. check that out before pulling the trigger on the tascam

[Bob L]

The details are in the helpfile... you can see the extensive use of virtually every control and the full use of the readout display.

Bob L

[musicmanwolf]

Hi,
I have been using a Tascam FW1082 controller for about 2 years now and I love it. The 1082 is basically the same as the 1884 with less inputs. I have tried it with SS demo and it does control it very well. I use it mostly with Nuendo. I like the preamps very much they are nice and clean. If you like hands on real faders then i think you will like this baord a lot. It does have Mackie control as well as several others. The asio drivers are solid and i only get 3ms of latency. I can't recommend this board high enough.