Tascam US 428?????????

  • Thread starter Thread starter reflexa
  • Start date Start date
R

reflexa

New member
Does anybody here use a Tascam 428 USB with Sonar?? Was thinking of getting it but it was being ripped by Sonar users on the Tascam site. Was thinking of ez buz but that only can record on two audio tracks at a time. As an i/o device I would hope it comes with four i/o's (unlike the M-Audio Quattro that I am using which doesn't support newer window drivers thus it is only a duo) so I could record on four audio tracks at once in Sonar! Any info on this Tascam thing would be welcomed. Thanks
 
I've got it and I think it's great.

I had a little (make that a lot of) trouble getting my laptop set up but it always worked great on my desk top machine.

I resided on that Tascam forum for a good amount of time. You have to remember, that site is provided for people to ask questions and fix problems. Everyone with a working 428 is out making music. That's why you rarely see complimentary comments regarding it. There's a lot of frustrated people who in many cases just want to reap benifits without any work.

Sonar has full support for the 428. You can record 4 tracks at once. It's 24bit full duplex. And it's nice to put your fingers on actual sliders to do your mixing.

Anyway, now that my lappie is working as well as my desktop, I'm lovin' it.

Simply my $.02

p.s. If you do pick one up, hang out at that site for a while. There's a few very knowledgable people who have the same setup (doctordale is a great resource if he's still there).

Good luck
 
Do you have another card as well?
I tried the Tascam 428 and thought it was decent, but I get a lot more mileage out of my Fostex VM200 digital mixer. It not only works as a controller better than the 428, but it has flying faders, I can record 16 tracks at once through it, and it was cheaper than the 428. Plus it is a mixer, so I can use it for other stuff as well.
 
i also have the US-428 and I love it both as a 'on the road' recorder with my laptop and for its physical nobs when i'm mixing in sonar.

if you have windows xp then make sure to get the service pack 1 or you will get stutters and dropouts and swear that USB recording sucks when its really just microsucks at it again.

as far as the VM200 according to its docs you can record 8 at a time and you still can only mix 8 channels at a time just like the us-428.

the selling point for me regarding the us-428 is the USB capability. the mixer part was a bonus that has really been a pleasant surprise and made envelopes much easier in sonar.
 
crosstudio said:
as far as the VM200 according to its docs you can record 8 at a time and you still can only mix 8 channels at a time just like the us-428.
Click to expand...

huh? you can record/mix 16 channels. 8 analog +8 via adat optical. Plus you can essentially get 100 moving fader channels plus knobs when used as a control surface. Plus 2 onboard fx, 4 aux's total, inserts, mic pre's with phantom, scene automation, mix automation, adat i/o, spdif i/o, et al. However, the mileage does depend on the soundcard or interface as far as simultanious recording tracks goes.

I'm not knocking the 428.. hell, I nearly bought 2 of them plus the 424. I"m just showing another alternative. I still might get one to go with the laptop.
 
Would the difference be in the A/D converter.

24bit in the 428 vs. ?bit in the VM200?

Not trying to be a wise guy. Just asking because it sounds almost too good to be true that you can get something with so many features for less than $500.

I'll have to do a little homework but if it's everything you say it is and 24bit AND Sonar has Native support for it...sounds pretty good.

But I'll have to see for myself -no offense of course-.
 
tpresz said:
Would the difference be in the A/D converter.

24bit in the 428 vs. ?bit in the VM200?

Not trying to be a wise guy. Just asking because it sounds almost too good to be true that you can get something with so many features for less than $500.

I'll have to do a little homework but if it's everything you say it is and 24bit AND Sonar has Native support for it...sounds pretty good.

But I'll have to see for myself -no offense of course-.
Click to expand...

drawback.. the vm200 uses 20 bit converters running 16 bits 44.1k. However, I can run out of the analog outs of the vm200 and into my audio card and get converted to 24/96. It's an extra conversion stage and it knocks out my adat optical to the pc advantage. However, I mix within the PC most of the time, so my mixes stay at 24/96 while I retain all of the controller advantages of the vm200.
 
Are you saying your able to bypass the A/D converters altogether and mix from separate analog outs? Otherwise once you've sampled 16/44, that's your resolution.
 
tpresz said:
Are you saying your able to bypass the A/D converters altogether and mix from separate analog outs? Otherwise once you've sampled 16/44, that's your resolution.
Click to expand...

bypass where? i'm not sure I catch yer drift.
 
JR#97 said:
However, I can run out of the analog outs of the vm200 and into my audio card and get converted to 24/96.
Click to expand...

If you pass through the 16bit A/D then through D/A then through analog out then convert to 24/96 all you have done is processed the reconstructed 16/44 signal. Thereby not gaining true 24/96.

Sorry. Didn't mean to turn this into a hardware forum. This product just sparked my curiosity especially at the price mentioned.
 
tpresz said:
If you pass through the 16bit A/D then through D/A then through analog out then convert to 24/96 all you have done is processed the reconstructed 16/44 signal. Thereby not gaining true 24/96.

Sorry. Didn't mean to turn this into a hardware forum. This product just sparked my curiosity especially at the price mentioned.
Click to expand...

oh ok.. well, that's where the quality of the converters makes a difference. If you spent $350 on a behringer or some other budget mixer, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Processing is where the 24/96 becomes more noticeable. So with that in mind, it's the card that makes more of an impact than the mixer in this case. But it is a bit of a trade-off. One that I don't mind making. Having flying faders and tons of automation and options makes a more impact to me than the slight difference in going through a digital mixer to the card than an analog one. My system is also a lot more complex than mixer/pc. I use a digital recorder and a 2nd pc all synced together. no way in hell the 428 would work by itself with the way I work now.
 
Cool.

Hey, I'm kind of laughing at myself right now but can you tell me what flying faders are?
 
tpresz said:
Cool.

Hey, I'm kind of laughing at myself right now but can you tell me what flying faders are?
Click to expand...

motorized faders. very handy feature. you can automate a mix and record/playback fader or movements. My vm200 can also do pan and other knob functions. plus, when switching banks of faders, they jump around to where they're supposed to be instead of guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top