S
songsj
Member
Looking at buying the Tascam 16x08 USB interface for my new set up to use with Reaper. Anyone use this, are their latency issues etc. Any better suggestions in the same price range?
S
songsj
Member
Bump since no replies, Any Users? opinions? I'm concerned with latency as I usually record a track at a time , 8 if it's my drum kit but still one player. I get how you monitor from the interface when recording live but at that time do the prior recorded tracks get played back through the same USB interface headphone mix. Also when you want to punch in a part or a line or a word how do you do that and is it easy. With my Tascam 2488 it is just a foot switch for record in and out. I'm looking at Tascam, Focusrite, and Berhinger. I need 8 ins andouts for my live drums. minimum. And REAPER is my main DAW right now.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
I used the previous versions for a few years. Tascam US1641 and US 1800. The 16x08 is just the newest version that has DPS effects and more line outputs. It still only has 8 preamps, well, like the older ones you could use inputs 9/10 in addition to the 8 mic inputs. But you need to buy preamps to use the other 6 input channels. Or whatever mixer or something with line level outputs. That worked for me for quite a while.
Playback latency has more to do with the abilities of your computer than the interface. I never had latency issues with the Tascam US series. I upgraded because I needed to record more than 16 tracks at once.
Punch in with an interface and DAW setup varies as to how it is done, but you will basically set markers to the point where you want to punch in/out. No foot switch. Kinda funny though because that would be an awesome feature I do not have....But would be very convenient when recording myself.
On a budget I would still recommend the Tascam for the price. But you are limited by it in the future if you decide you need more inputs.
Playback latency has more to do with the abilities of your computer than the interface. I never had latency issues with the Tascam US series. I upgraded because I needed to record more than 16 tracks at once.
Punch in with an interface and DAW setup varies as to how it is done, but you will basically set markers to the point where you want to punch in/out. No foot switch. Kinda funny though because that would be an awesome feature I do not have....But would be very convenient when recording myself.
On a budget I would still recommend the Tascam for the price. But you are limited by it in the future if you decide you need more inputs.
Last edited:
S
songsj
Member
The foot switch really has me spoiled as I pretty much just record myself. The in and out for a switch is pretty clean, I split phrases or verses all the time if I don't like the way I sing something. I've even punched in a specific word several times to get it just the way I want it. Same for playing instruments, I do use the in and out points on the Tascam 2488 for drum edits but otherwise it's the foot switch. Probably one of the strangest least expensive possible deal breakers you've heard of. I suppose if you get really good at setting the in and out points there is not much difference time wise. The foot switch is just pretty idiot proof. Surprised some of the interfaces have not figured out a way to incorporate this feature. Maybe not as easy as it sounds, a foot switch on the interface would need to activate the software in the DAW. I guess my advantages to the interface are hopefully better pre's and converters, and my original takes tracks will be in the DAW right away without the need for file transfers. That is about it.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
"Latency has more to do with the abilities of your computer than the interface"
Sorry Jimms' but I must, respectfully disagree slightly with that. Yes, as you drop sample size to get lower latency the CPU has to work harder but everything I have read in the last 5 years or so (from trusted sources!) tells me that the interface and more specifically its drivers have THE greatest affect on latency. My NI KA6 for instance plays back perfectly on this 5yr old HP i3 laptop at 64 samples. Not exactly Deep Thought?
Re the footswitch: I still have a Frontiers Tranzport (somewhere) a great idea, not sure it has ever been replaced? However I am sure a MIDI controller could have the rear F/S jack re- assigned to suit your purpose? I am sure I read somewhere of USB F/S that could be programmed to affect any keyboard function?
Songsj, do NOT desert us but, ask again over at soundonsound forum. Bound to be a user of that AI.
Dave.
Sorry Jimms' but I must, respectfully disagree slightly with that. Yes, as you drop sample size to get lower latency the CPU has to work harder but everything I have read in the last 5 years or so (from trusted sources!) tells me that the interface and more specifically its drivers have THE greatest affect on latency. My NI KA6 for instance plays back perfectly on this 5yr old HP i3 laptop at 64 samples. Not exactly Deep Thought?
Re the footswitch: I still have a Frontiers Tranzport (somewhere) a great idea, not sure it has ever been replaced? However I am sure a MIDI controller could have the rear F/S jack re- assigned to suit your purpose? I am sure I read somewhere of USB F/S that could be programmed to affect any keyboard function?
Songsj, do NOT desert us but, ask again over at soundonsound forum. Bound to be a user of that AI.
Dave.
Pinky
and The Brain...
I concur, changing interfaces and nothing else has seen improvements in latency for me. Interface manufacturers even offer lower latency on certain (usually higher end) models as a selling point.
That's not to say a computer can't cause increased latency, but that would be a factor of it malfunctioning or having competing resources. Additionally, the number of tracks you're running and the types of effects/VSTs being used (especially in realtime) also plays a part.
mjbphotos
Moderator
Note- OP is asking about latency regarding direct monitoring and tracks already recorded. The DAW takes care of that automatically.
As to the 'foot switch' thing, can certainly understand that use. With computer recording, you learn that you don't have to do punch-in/punch-outs the same way as with a stand-alone recorder - you can just record the new take on a new track (or also 'take' in Reaper) and edit accordingly after. And for the beginning of tracks, just use a few measures count-in time (which can then be deleted/muted during editing.)
As to the 'foot switch' thing, can certainly understand that use. With computer recording, you learn that you don't have to do punch-in/punch-outs the same way as with a stand-alone recorder - you can just record the new take on a new track (or also 'take' in Reaper) and edit accordingly after. And for the beginning of tracks, just use a few measures count-in time (which can then be deleted/muted during editing.)
S
songsj
Member
Great info thanks, And I have been thinking of alternative ways to get around the foot switch thing, like using separate tracks for additional takes. . I think I'm getting close to making the jump to all DAW, recording and mixing. I think there will be a learning curve[ hopefully not too steep ] and then it will actually save time. I'm also looking to improve my mic pre's and converters in this change. Hard to Compare the 2488 to the Tascam US16 x08 or the Focusrite 20x whatever. Everyone raves about their pres and converters so who is to say? The Focusrite is twice the money but maybe 3 times the unit making it a decent buy. Looking for advice on units as well. Buying studio gear is so hard because most manufacturers have made some really good equipment and some real junk. You can't just count on the name anymore. All information is welcome because I would hate to make a bad interface purchase, it is one of the most important links in the recording chain. Some would argue the most.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Ok, let me try to be clear here as to what I meant. I did edit my post to 'Playback' latency.
I was responding to how songsj posted about hearing back what he recorded and recording to it. Latency from DAW after recording and processing will be more of a computer performance issue than a interface driver issue.
I am not trying to sell anything. I do not doubt the more expensive Focusrite may be better in some ways than the Tascam's. I only gave my take on my experience with the Tascam's I have used. They did not have poor input latency and the preamps were not bad at all. The Tascam headphone amp left a bit to be desired, but the units I used worked quite well. Yeah, I get much better performance from the interfaces I use now, but more the power of the computer that allows me to run 24 input tracks to DAW, while hearing back 60+ recorded tracks, a shit ton of VST's, and record at acceptable latency. That is all the PC ability in action. Not necessarily the interface drivers...Though yeah, more expensive ones will likely perform better than others.
I was responding to how songsj posted about hearing back what he recorded and recording to it. Latency from DAW after recording and processing will be more of a computer performance issue than a interface driver issue.
I am not trying to sell anything. I do not doubt the more expensive Focusrite may be better in some ways than the Tascam's. I only gave my take on my experience with the Tascam's I have used. They did not have poor input latency and the preamps were not bad at all. The Tascam headphone amp left a bit to be desired, but the units I used worked quite well. Yeah, I get much better performance from the interfaces I use now, but more the power of the computer that allows me to run 24 input tracks to DAW, while hearing back 60+ recorded tracks, a shit ton of VST's, and record at acceptable latency. That is all the PC ability in action. Not necessarily the interface drivers...Though yeah, more expensive ones will likely perform better than others.
R
RFR
Well-known member
What do you record so you need more than 16 tracks at once? Is that all mic inputs?
I've recorded whole bands and only needed 12 to 16 mic inputs.
Just curious
Last edited:
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
So have I. But then realized I needed more to make it a better experience for the performers as well as capturing everything I want during tracking.
Basic setup for my band template:
1. Kick
2. Snare 1
3. Snare 2
4. Tom 1
5. Tom 2
6. Tom 3
7. Tom 4
8. HH
9. Ride
10. OH L
11. OH R
12. Drum room
13. Guitar 1
14. Guitar 2
15. Bass
16. Vocal
17. Backup Vocal
18. Drummer TB
And it goes even further if drummer wants to use his own click track (Iphone) or drum triggers.
Usually keeps under 16 as I don't always have metal bands with huge drum kits or multiple guitar players or singers during tracking, but the need came up enough to have the tracks available.
After initial tracking, I really only need 1 or 3 input tracks at a time.
Last edited:
R
RFR
Well-known member
Gotcha. You're using a lot of drum mics.
I've always gotten by with less.
Usual setup.
Kick 1
Snare 1
L&R toms 2
L&R OH 2
So thats 6 mics, and sometimes a bottom snare.
As to the room, the OH mics capture that fine. (AKG 414)
Never gone over 8 mics for drums leaving 8 channels left.
I've always gotten by with less.
Usual setup.
Kick 1
Snare 1
L&R toms 2
L&R OH 2
So thats 6 mics, and sometimes a bottom snare.
As to the room, the OH mics capture that fine. (AKG 414)
Never gone over 8 mics for drums leaving 8 channels left.
S
songsj
Member
I have been limited to 8 because of my Tascam 2488, My drum kit looked like this
1. snare top
2. kick front
3. tom 1
4 tom 2
5 tom3
6. OH R
7. OH L
8. Crash cymbal
My HH cut through so much on the overheads so it was not needed.
Pretty live room. Overheads sound kind of crappy, I do a lot of gating and eqing etc. I also don't have the best sounding kit. These are my own recordings I do not sell studio time.
1. snare top
2. kick front
3. tom 1
4 tom 2
5 tom3
6. OH R
7. OH L
8. Crash cymbal
My HH cut through so much on the overheads so it was not needed.
Pretty live room. Overheads sound kind of crappy, I do a lot of gating and eqing etc. I also don't have the best sounding kit. These are my own recordings I do not sell studio time.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Re Jim's point about the weak headphone output on the Tascams? This is a well known critique but is not confined to the Tassies! The fact is it is more an issue of 'gain' than absolute raw power.
The headphone outs of most AIs can hit you pretty hard for signals around -6dBFS but when tracking those signals will be some 12dB below that and even cranked, the headphone amp just does not deliver the goods.
I dare say some DAWs have a means to boost the signal sent to the headphone amp but I don't know of one?
(and there might be the cold, dead hand of the 'Nanny State' in here as well!)
The solution is easy if a bit messy, a separate H/P amp. They start at around $30 with the Berry HA-400 which is pretty good, then, yer pays yer money....
Dave.
The headphone outs of most AIs can hit you pretty hard for signals around -6dBFS but when tracking those signals will be some 12dB below that and even cranked, the headphone amp just does not deliver the goods.
I dare say some DAWs have a means to boost the signal sent to the headphone amp but I don't know of one?
(and there might be the cold, dead hand of the 'Nanny State' in here as well!)
The solution is easy if a bit messy, a separate H/P amp. They start at around $30 with the Berry HA-400 which is pretty good, then, yer pays yer money....
Dave.
S
songsj
Member
I've got a vintage Harmon Kardon HK505 integrated amp I almost gave away in really good shape that would probably make a great headphone amp, especially for just myself, Just need a line out to one of the amp line in's and I'm good to go. It even has a tone defeat button. Looks like this.Harman Kardon hk 505 Vintage Stereo Integrated Amplifier in Factory Box | The Music Room. I bought one like this new way back and am the original owner. Never thought I'd have a use for it. Well there ya go.
S
songsj
Member
I guess I should be sure it's okay to run this thing with no load/speakers hooked up. Should be, anyone here know for sure.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
"I guess I should be sure it's okay to run this thing with no load/speakers hooked up. Should be, anyone here know for sure. "
Personally I would never run any power amplifier without some sort of load. Valves of course MUST be loaded and within 50,. better 20% of nominal AND at a max power rating and then some.
Transistor OP stages are easier but you can still fall foul of 'offset voltages and crossover distortion. I would load the amp with 8 Ohms rated at 10% of amp power. You want the amp to be putting out around 5 volts rms and then attenuate that by about 5 times. The attenuation is need not only to prevent you blowing the cans but also to reduce residual noise. One solution is an 'L pad'
Try as I might I cannot find any speccs for that amp. If you give me the power OP spec I will do some numbers for you.
Dave.
Personally I would never run any power amplifier without some sort of load. Valves of course MUST be loaded and within 50,. better 20% of nominal AND at a max power rating and then some.
Transistor OP stages are easier but you can still fall foul of 'offset voltages and crossover distortion. I would load the amp with 8 Ohms rated at 10% of amp power. You want the amp to be putting out around 5 volts rms and then attenuate that by about 5 times. The attenuation is need not only to prevent you blowing the cans but also to reduce residual noise. One solution is an 'L pad'
Try as I might I cannot find any speccs for that amp. If you give me the power OP spec I will do some numbers for you.
Dave.