Tascam SX 1 better then DAW?

[cmaffia]

The problem with elevating the SX-1 to "today's standards" is that it's not possible.

Today's standard is a computer based DAW that integrates with modular interfaces. On top of that you have an industry that is looking to replace mixing consoles and control surfaces once and for all with next gen touch screens like Slates's Raven MTI 2.

High end, all-in-one recording solutions such as the Akai DPS24 and the Tascam SX-1 were abandoned about 8 - 9 years ago. Digital mixing console designs such as the Tascam DM3200/4800 have been abandoned by the industry as well (the DM4800 was discontinued last year and the DM3200 is just about EOL with no plans of a successor).

Use what you have. It's what you know best. When it's time to move on, embrace change and make your music.

 

[nabberigu]

I know it is unrealistic to revive the SX 1 but one can have dreams right? I still love mine.
The sound quality and ease of use is still amazing to me. In fact I am in the process of putting Noctua fans in one to make is more silent so I am not letting go of mine for a long time. My second SX 1 is gonna be destined to be a live recorder. In the near future I am gonna built a transport case and I might have a place to set it up as a permanent recorder/mixer for live events.
I do work in a DAW and that has it's advantages to of course.

 

[cmaffia]

Here's the future now.

 

[Muziekschuur]

This may or may not be the case. The industry was told far far in advance about the coming of windows 10. And Thunderbolt should replace all connections. And the specifications of USB3 were not even known. It were these items wich have had a major impact. Allso the number of digital audio wires have allways been an issue. Gibson has a standard. Sony oxford (and Tascam) sold their not finished standard first to Klark Teknik. And after that Behringer could buy them because of the lack of return on it's investment. Roland has a standard. And MADI (Yamaha) is a standard. Now Motu was able to come up with AVB. Wich is another standard over UTP. This and the audio branche being unable to attract the right programmers.

Now Behringer comes with (since they purchased Klark Teknik) the AES50 standard for audio over ethernet. Now the whole industry does not want to pay royalties to behringer. So AES60 was born last year.

USB3 had connection issues with usb2 interfaces so USB3.1 was released. The market for interfaces really has taken a hit. Once sales start to pickup volume I'm quite confident the current digital mixers interfaces and controllers will move towards USB3.1 and AES60 & AVB. But we will have to wait and see.

Touchscreens alltho available have not had the impact on the pro audio market wich could have. I think the expendable income of Europeans and USA people has taken a hard hit. It may be that the next invention could be a Chinese one.

 

[hudrodguy]

hello there,

i have been working with the sx1 le for over 10 years and feel that the console is timeless and well designed for any person wanting to have a complete comprehensive audio (and video) work station ... we have made many excellent recordings and use the console regularly with no issues (except the missing lines problem on the display which is a known issue...) ... i find the preamps nice and warm with plenty of headroom ... the internal effects and processing are first rate and the ability to take a project from concept to completed mixed product is outstanding to say the least ... my ability to "produce" has been greatly improved by the console ... i may get rid of this older unit when i find another system that is : affordable, easy to operate, has the same (or better) input preamps and OS, and will accomplish the results that i have become accustomed to ... the sx1 platform is a solid machine with all the options necessary for a quality studio .. period

i am saddened that tascam didn't keep this one going ....

my 2 cents

mark

 

[jook]

It's not impossible for the SX-1 mixes to sound better than your DAW mixes.

As a software engineer, I understand where cmaffia is coming from, that logically, you would have to assume a custom DAW setup with more expensive and likely higher quality individual components would be superior assuming it's setup correctly. But there's a few other factors.

When you have the D/A from one manufacturer, the monitoring from another, the A/D from yet another, summing, gain staging within the OS and myriad drivers and software layers, etc. There's a lot of potential for not just a bad setup, but also for a less than "ideal" combination of components and processing.

Perceived audio quality is not entirely objective, despite what we would like to think scientifically, no equipment is perfect and no equipment can reproduce audio faultlessly. On a very basic level, we always have to accept compromises, and some people may prioritise bright airy clarity, and others could prioritise warmth and comfortable hearing.

With the SX1, it was designed and considered all together. For the software engineers to be able to discuss and prepare according to the exact model of the hardware, and vice versa, is a heaven-send and allows for a level of accommodation and testing that you just can't do when you're making hardware or software to be used in tens of thousands of different possible configurations (with Cubase? Protools? Logic? XP? Win8? Win10? Mac?) -- no matter how properly you set that up. You can strip your Windows installation down to just run critical services for audio processing to some degree, but you're still just streamlining components designed for mass production. It's nothing like the custom build of BeOS with custom code for the hardware in question.

It is sad that there is no market for all-in-one recorders any more -- but that's more because of convenience and affordability, rather than lack of quality (well, RADAR is still alive and strong). There's not much of a market for CDs either, it's MP3 or streaming these days -- but again, not because of an improvement in quality.

So yes, for flexibility, practicality and long term maintenance, it's been beat. But I wouldn't sell the SX-1 short on quality, nor would I assume that it is technically inferior to a standard DAW setup these days. I would indeed, expect it to be capable of producing better results than most DAW setups out there.

 

[jook]

I would add that if there was ever a chance for the SX-1 code to be released into the public domain, I would love to contribute. But I know that's unlikely with proprietary rights.

Alternatively, if there's any chance for a Kickstarter project to fund further development by RedBus or whoever can continue this, that would be interesting to see if all the stray SX-1 users out there can fund enough for it to be a feasible project.

 

[nabberigu]

I love the all in one concept of the SX 1. Editing and the GUI are not up to standard but that is understandable and I am still able to work around this. It's the hands on approach and the fabulous sound that keeps me pulling in. I have done many projects on my SX 1 LE and SX 1 LE PLUS. I have transferred the projects to my Presonus Studio One daw to process and master but even with so much power and plugins I still struggle to get the sound of the SX 1. I more then often find that the ease of producing a good sounding mix on the Tascam is almost not comparable to great lengths I have to go in my DAW to approach this level.
The less is more idea seems to work in this case. Somehow the processing of the SX 1 is very effective and easy to use.
In fact I am looking into the only problem I have with my SX 1 and that is the fan noise. I just recently upgraded my desktop computer with Noctua fans and the reduction in noise level is amazing. I really cannot hear the fans (4 in total) running unless I really focus hard on them. So my next step will be upgrading the SX 1 with Noctua fans so I can work in silence on my SX 1 and enjoy more hours of recording and mixing.