Tascam FW1082 & Tascam FW1884

Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by theapex, Feb 6, 2008.

  1. theapex macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2008
    Does anyone know anything at all about both of these items. I am really looking at grabbing the 1082 but then I heard about the 1884 so now I am considering that also. The 1884 may be a bit much for my set up (not $$$, just more than what I need)

    What are the major differences in the two? Thanks
  2. AviationFan macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    The differences are spelled out on Tascam's website - just look at the spec for both models.

    I own the FW-1082 and have used it as a FireWire mixer (for multi-channel recordings) as well as a control surface (for mixing). It has served me well for both, even though I have replaced it with a much better (and much more expensive) multi-track recording solution a few months ago - my Windows laptop decided to end the FireWire connection halfway through the recording of a live event, and I needed something more reliable. But I have no reason to believe it was the FW-1082's fault.

    The unit is a lot of value for the money. If you need an audio interface, a mixer and a control surface, you get all that in one very affordable unit. Great if you are starting out. I am still using it as a control surface today, and it's a great value even just doing that.

    The 1884, looking at the specs, has more of the same. More pre-amps (the 1082 only has four, the remaining channels need to be fed as line level), more line-outs (the 1082 only has two, so if you want to monitor surround sound, for example, the 1884 will do that). I cannot tell you what the quality difference is between the two, there may be better pre-amps, for example, but I've never worked with an 1884. If I recall correctly, the 1884 can also be extended to have more inputs and more faders, by adding extension modules.

    With the 1884, though, I wonder if you might be better served by buying individual items - a good audio interface and a separate control panel. It's quite a step up from the 1082 pricewise, and that same money (or at least not much more) would buy you really good separare components. For example, you might decide that you need a control surface for your studio, but you really want a portable solution for the audio interface. Well, even the smaller 1082 is not exactly easy to carry around.

    Bottom line: I can recommend the 1082 if you are looking for a FireWire mixer and a control surface - great value for the money. I think the case would be more difficult to make with the 1884, but I hope someone here who owns an 1884 will chime in and give us his/her perspective.

    - Martin
  3. theapex thread starter macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2008
    thank you very much for the detailed response. i have several sparatic questions....(i think)

    is surround audio monitoring the only reason to have all those outputs? well i know they say you can output it to a mixer....or something like that (see the thread i posted this morning about outputs....) but I dont really understand the purpose of that...if you can make me understand that may help justify the 1884 a little more.

    when you say you replaced it with a "better" what makes the other one so much better...I understand the more expensive part, but "better"

    too bad about the windows laptop and the live recording....

    the only real difference that i am seeing it the more preamp inputs (right now 10 is way to many of those for me, but i may need them later on) other main difference is the outputs (and i dont understand the need for them yet)

    i really think the 1082 is perfect for me right now, but (i have a problem with always going for bigger and better) I want the 1884 just cause it will (somewhat) future proof me. and i just automatically think it is better cause it cost more and all the extra inputs and outputs.

    since the 1082 is not easy to carry around...what makes it not easy? how much does it weigh? do you have a case for it?

    are you saying that buying separate components is only a better option when you are thinking of getting the 1884

    i really don't see the need to get all those different things when you can just get it all in one with this.

    ok one more thing. right now i have a roland vs880 (i know it is old, but i like it and it had pretty much everything that i needed in it, so i liked it and kept it.) i also have a 12 track behringer (spelled wrong) mixer.... my question is can i most likely sell both of these if i get the 1082 or the 1884? would i have any need for the behringer mixer (it does have some pre amps on it. 4 to be exact and it also has phantom power....) SHOOT I THINK I SHOULD KEEP IT. the exact model of it is the behringer eurotrack MX 1604A.

    let me know guys and thanks for all your help
  4. AviationFan macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    I believe this has been discussed in the other post you recently started, so I won't go into detail.

    The three top differentiators for me are:
    - More inputs (24 on the recorder, even though I'm feeding it "only" 16 through my new recording mixer)
    - Much better pre-amps, meaning less noise to deal with
    - More reliable - I can't stress this enough, I charge people money for what I do, so equipment failure means loss of income for me.

    Not sure if I can help you there. I could flip a coin for you if that helps... :D

    Oh, it's not too heavy, just large. My new recording setup, by the way, is way heavier and larger. It's all packed into a rack very neatly, but the darn thing is so heavy that you can really only carry it with two people, or wheel it around on a cart. Compared with that, the 1082 is light-weight, but if you are looking for a truly portable solution, maybe something like the MOTU Traveler would be better - fits in a small bag and is battery or bus driven.

    I think so, because the 1082 is so cheap. I don't think you can buy everything separately for that kind of money, at least not high-quality devices.

    That is entirely your choice. Some people prefer integrated things, others like individual component where every single item is optimized for their needs, or where I can take just one item with me on the road and leave the rest at home.

    I really don't know. I guess it depends on what exactly you currently do with these devices in your workflow. Have you thought about how precisely you would use either the 1082 or the 1884? I think if you draw some connection diagrams and go through your workflow with each one, you should be able to determine the answer.

    - Martin
  5. theapex thread starter macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2008
    man you are so much help. i am glad i signed up for this site.
  6. theapex thread starter macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2008
    aviation when you said that you could use the 1082 as a control surface did you mean for programs like reason?

    if so I think this is going to have to be the direction that I go. I have recently installed reason and i am really going to need a way to control all those faders and stuff.

    let me know.
  7. AviationFan macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Sorry, I don't know reason, so I can't tell you. However, the FW-1082 has a Mackie emulation mode, so check reason's documentation if they say anything about Mackie control surfaces. Or, better yet, send a message to Tascam's support staff.

    - Martin
  8. theapex thread starter macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2008
    I went back and read out discussion...aviation. And now I really am not sure where I want to go.

    I do need:

    audio interface (at least 8 inputs for sending tracks to Logic out of Triton 6 tracks at a time.) (maybe i should say at least 6 inputs, cause the triton only has 6 outputs. but 8-10 would be nice (just cause of other devices that I have)

    DAW Controller
    I do not want to use a mouse to controller logic or reason. So I really would like one of these.
    Mixer I have a mixer already, but I am not really sure how to implement it into my setup. If I have a daw controller, can't I use it as a mixer....

    The mixer that I already have (you can see the name of it mentioned earlier in the post) I am keeping it cause it has 4 preamp already (xlr mic inputs) and it is a 14 channel mixer. If I could think of a way to output these inputs to Logic at the same time (like I can do using the audio interface) That would make this mixer even more valuable to me cause of the inputs

    I need some help on this on pretty bad. I am so anxious to start making music, but all this equipment stuff is getting in the way!!!!
  9. Gartner macrumors newbie

    Mar 20, 2009


    I got the FW-1884 for two weeks now
    Im very happy for the moment even with many things to learn

    Im using it with Live 7

    if you are looking for a audio interfase, midi interfase, a mixer and a controller this is for you!!!

    I have 3 Midi Synths connected with their respective audio and works nice, and the motorized fader are a great feature, I have been using the X-Station as a Daw Controller, but always with some restrictions.

    The Manuals are very poor explained
    And don't wait for Tascam support.

    I hope this forum will help us

    All the best
  10. mrbongo macrumors newbie

    Dec 14, 2009
    Tascam FW 1884 Crashes new Mac Pro

    Hope you didn't go buy one of these yet. They are crashing the new Mac Pro quad i7 running Snow Leopard.

    The firewire light won't come on and if you try to unplug it or turn it off while the Mac is running it will crash the whole system.

    No word on when a driver fix is coming. I called support and they say that it is working. They say I am wrong.

    Good Luck on your decision. I think it's a nice box but the driver updates and support is lacking.

Share This Page