The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
tascam uh7000 Audio Interfaces
Old 8th October 2015
  #151
And the drivers!! (Latency). I wish I could've used it solely as my interface, but I use a lot of vi's and that's a no go for the Tascam. They have a new usb 3 interface out called the Celesonic, but the specs don't seem to be on par with the UH7000. It's funny, because when the UH7000 first came out, I laughed because of the lower end US line by tascam. I had the Audient ID22 at the time. Then when I got it, some time later, I was really, really impressed. I've chased interface/converters for quite some time - due to low budget in my earlier days, just got whatever I could afford and make do, and then upgrade when I had the funds. I can say from my own personal experience, while good conversion is important, it's not as expensive as it was years ago to good really good results. The most money I spent at one time was the RME UFX, and here comes Tascam with the UH7000, which at the time was like 4x less, and to me I liked the sound better on the UH7000. Don't get me wrong, I was very proud of the recordings I did with the RME, they sounded killer!! And less headache with the latency!

I used to get so tired of reading on here, where some person would come asking about how a certain interface would sound, and next thing you know they're getting all kinds of questions of how their room is treated, mic placement, etc. And then on to saying the singer, and musicians is more important. I'd read what people were asking, and think to myself "Just answer the guy's question already!" But those words ring true. I was down on my luck one day, and a client that's paid me really well in the past called me and asked me to do a track. Mind you, I had no interface at the time. No way I was about to turn that down, so I hunted on craigslist and found an Maudio Profire 610 for $80 - talked the guy down to $40, and went to work. I produced the track and sent it over that night. I think it was about 4 or 5am, the next morning, the client had deposited money into my account, and told me how fantastic it sounded. Honestly, if you have good production/mixing skills, you should be capable of getting really good to excellent results with what's out there today as far as interfaces go. With some exceptions, I really believe within a certain price range, there's really not much difference in interfaces as far as sound. As producers / engineers we have our preferences, but most interfaces out there now shouldn't hold you back from a good recording. But, but, but... Some make life a hell of a lot easier than others. I say find what interface has the feature set you're looking for, and that's going to give you the least amount of time focusing on working on it, instead of focusing on music. I can't tell you how many times, I've had a musical idea that had me drop everything I was doing to record it, and the interface not being able to handle what I was doing.

P.S. I've all but given up on that Focusrite Clarett, lol.. It was announced earlier this year, and I went and bought a windows computer with thunderbolt, and finally after a bunch of other companies come out with their interfaces in that stretch of time, it becomes available, and not for windows!! I'm still curious about it though.
Old 8th October 2015
  #152
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I found some of the features of the iD22 to be lacking in quality. To me the Tascam offers a more streamlined feature set at a slightly higher quality, and a lower price. For me the quality became a more important factor than the feature set. What's the use of an extra feature if you don't really want to use it.

To say there is no difference in conversion quality is to be ignorant of converter design. The DACs of the iD22 and the UH-7000 clearly have their own character. They are both very good. I can't even pick a favorite, both certainly usable for reference. You could flip a coin on that one.

But it's true, the preamps and the headphone amp, along with the volume control design, is really where the Tascam starts to take the lead in a clear way, for my ears. These differences are more substantial in nature than DAC and ADC sound. The iD22 headphone amp is average. The Tascam's is top-class, just really good. The Tascam mic preamps are more transparent and full sounding, more "natural". To me these are deciding factors.

If it's your main and only interface, maybe the audio drivers of the Audient would be preferable. That would be a critical feature for that kind of use. I have not messed around with the new Tascam drivers too much yet, so I can't report on that, hopefully someone else can.
Old 9th October 2015
  #153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximalC View Post
Can anyone recommend a low-latency interface with spdif/aes out that would pair well with the UH-7000. I'm intrigued by the idea of combining the high quality DAC of the UH-7000 with improved latency of a 3rd party interface, as long as it's not cost prohibitive (I don't fancy paying as much for a low-latency interface whose DAC I'm never going to listen to).
There seems to be enough evidence, over well over a decade, of excellent, stable, best in class low latency (with low host CPU utilisation) from RME devices. Depending on your connectivity needs (interface to host) there's a good selection of USB, Firewire, PCI and PCIe options from RME., to which the UH-7000 should pair well with over AES/EBU or SPDIF.
Old 9th October 2015
  #154
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
I found some of the features of the iD22 to be lacking in quality. To me the Tascam offers a more streamlined feature set at a slightly higher quality, and a lower price. For me the quality became a more important factor than the feature set. What's the use of an extra feature if you don't really want to use it.

To say there is no difference in conversion quality is to be ignorant of converter design. The DACs of the iD22 and the UH-7000 clearly have their own character. They are both very good. I can't even pick a favorite, both certainly usable for reference. You could flip a coin on that one.

But it's true, the preamps and the headphone amp, along with the volume control design, is really where the Tascam starts to take the lead in a clear way, for my ears. These differences are more substantial in nature than DAC and ADC sound. The iD22 headphone amp is average. The Tascam's is top-class, just really good. The Tascam mic preamps are more transparent and full sounding, more "natural". To me these are deciding factors.

If it's your main and only interface, maybe the audio drivers of the Audient would be preferable. That would be a critical feature for that kind of use. I have not messed around with the new Tascam drivers too much yet, so I can't report on that, hopefully someone else can.
Definitely agree with you on there being differences in conversion between higher end and lower end. What I meant was interfaces that are within the same price range, like the Focusrite Saffire 56 and the Steinberg MR816, both of which I've had. I've seen and have been asked if one blew the other way. They were different sounding and had their strong points, but to me as far as sound neither blew each other way. The same with the Apollo Duo Firewire and the RME UFX, neither of them to me sounded leagues better than the other. Just different. And they all share simular price points with one another.
Old 11th October 2015
  #155
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by daxmaestro View Post
P.S. I've all but given up on that Focusrite Clarett, lol.. It was announced earlier this year, and I went and bought a windows computer with thunderbolt, and finally after a bunch of other companies come out with their interfaces in that stretch of time, it becomes available, and not for windows!! I'm still curious about it though.
Apparently the 4Pre (the one I want) will be out only in 2016. I'm fine with that but will need Windows support.
I'm constantly maxing the 10 inputs of my iD22+ADA8200 combo so increasing that to 16 inputs would definitely be interesting to me (I track full bands).

The Celesonic uses the HDDA preamps, vs the HDIA design on the UH7000.
It's basically a US-series with onboard DSP upgraded to USB 3.0. Still a very interesting product for what it is.

If they can come up with a bigger UH-series interface with more inputs and ADAT I/O by then, I will look it up. But it's going to be hard to beat the Clarett's latency without going Thunderbolt.
Old 11th October 2015
  #156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnickSound View Post
Apparently the 4Pre (the one I want) will be out only in 2016. I'm fine with that but will need Windows support.
I'm constantly maxing the 10 inputs of my iD22+ADA8200 combo so increasing that to 16 inputs would definitely be interesting to me (I track full bands).

The Celesonic uses the HDDA preamps, vs the HDIA design on the UH7000.
It's basically a US-series with onboard DSP upgraded to USB 3.0. Still a very interesting product for what it is.

If they can come up with a bigger UH-series interface with more inputs and ADAT I/O by then, I will look it up. But it's going to be hard to beat the Clarett's latency without going Thunderbolt.
I think the new USB 3 offerings may be on to something. I got the zoom uac 2 which sounds good and the latency is really low. I posted some results of the latency in the other uac-2 thread. I used the oblique rtl utility and Centrance. I believe down at 32 samples, they were reporting about 2.67msec. I got it curious to see what USB 3 could do. So far USB 3 seems to be quite capable.
Old 20th October 2015
  #157
I received my UH-7000 today and I have to say that it sounds great compared to my old Duet FW BUT when recording audio, the latency is just grazy!! I'm on Mac / Logic X / cMacPro 12-core and when when using 128 buffer, latency roundtrip is 51 ms and output 41 ms (Duet 10 / 5 ms) and even on 64 buffer, roundtrip 49 ms and output 39 ms (Duet 7,3 / 3,7 ms). This makes it totally unusable for me. Arghh!! And yes - I already updated the latest driver and firmware.
Old 21st October 2015
  #158
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacCartney View Post
I received my UH-7000 today and I have to say that it sounds great compared to my old Duet FW BUT when recording audio, the latency is just grazy!! I'm on Mac / Logic X / cMacPro 12-core and when when using 128 buffer, latency roundtrip is 51 ms and output 41 ms (Duet 10 / 5 ms) and even on 64 buffer, roundtrip 49 ms and output 39 ms (Duet 7,3 / 3,7 ms). This makes it totally unusable for me. Arghh!! And yes - I already updated the latest driver and firmware.
Anyone else experiencing this on Mac?
Old 23rd October 2015
  #159
Lives for gear
 
digiman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacCartney View Post
Anyone else experiencing this on Mac?
I had the same issue (among others). Great converters, but just waaay to many work arounds involved to make this a viable interface in my setup, which is why I now have a ID22 and lovin' it.

I will say the converters on the U7000 are top notch. Had an engineer say their sound and character was as close to hitting 2" tape with saturation as he's ever heard in digital interface.
Old 24th October 2015
  #160
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
I had the same issue (among others). Great converters, but just waaay to many work arounds involved to make this a viable interface in my setup, which is why I now have a ID22 and lovin' it.

I will say the converters on the U7000 are top notch. Had an engineer say their sound and character was as close to hitting 2" tape with saturation as he's ever heard in digital interface.
Thanks Keith. I returned my UH-7000 to the seller so the "problem solved" .
You are on Mac? What kind of latencies you get with ID22?
Old 25th October 2015
  #161
Lives for gear
 
digiman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacCartney View Post
Thanks Keith. I returned my UH-7000 to the seller so the "problem solved" .
You are on Mac? What kind of latencies you get with ID22?
I don't remember the exact numbers but they were in the single digits in terms of latency ms, very negligible.
Old 26th October 2015
  #162
I just recently sold my UR28M and bought a UH-7000 almost based purely on this thread, and in general I'm pretty happy with it. I miss the extra inputs on the UR28M even though I never record more than two mics at a time these days, and the latency is certainly not as good but still workable for me. The DAC is unquestionably better on the Tascam, and the preamps and conversion sound great but I kind of miss a certain roundness the D-Pres from the UR28M and my Steinberg mr816 imparted to the sound. Sounds great though, and I don't see myself wanting to upgrade any time soon. I was debating between the Tascam, the Audient ID14/22, and the SPL Crimson/Creon and based on the sound samples I found online the Tascam seemed like a good middle ground between the almost overly hi-fi sound of the Audient and the darker/analog-ish SPL stuff.
Old 9th November 2015
  #163
Gear Nut
 

I was hyped reading this thread but that cooled as I saw all the comments about latency...
Old 9th November 2015
  #164
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
I was hyped reading this thread but that cooled as I saw all the comments about latency...
Same here

I like TASCAM but there are reports all over the net about abysmal latency with these devices so since I am mostly ITB I moved on.
Old 11th November 2015
  #165
Gear Addict
Does latency even matter if you are using direct monitoring when recording? Im new to usb recording, coming from an old pci card
Old 11th November 2015
  #166
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjari View Post
Does latency even matter if you are using direct monitoring when recording? Im new to usb recording, coming from an old pci card
Nope. Only matters for things coming back from the DAW computer, like soft synths, etc. Which is why I don't have too much problems in my life with latency, since I use hardware almost exclusively.

It's always a crying time trying to find the not-too-hot, not-too-cold Goldilocks buffer setting, but once you set it pretty well for your setup, you shouldn't need to fuss with it too much afterwards.

Anyway I was able to record a 3 song EP for a friend using only the Tascam, and I didn't lose any audio or have any real problems in real world use. I mixed it down with a hybrid software/hardware mixing rig and it sounds as good as anything I've ever produced.

I don't know if I've said it yet, but these preamps are almost Neve-ish. They have that same sort of warm response. Albeit much cleaner, of course. But the character is just lovely, I don't know how they did it. These are the best clean pres I've ever probably used. Perfect for rock and roll, classical, whatever you throw at them.
Old 12th November 2015
  #167
Gear Addict
Great! I may pick one up tomorrow to try out. I'm really excited to hear the DAC on this unit. Im coming from a BLA modded M-Audio Delta 1010
Old 12th November 2015
  #168
Gear Head
 

are any of you guys running the UH-7000 balanced XLR outputs into unbalanced RCA inputs ?
if so, what wiring scheme are you using ?

my Bryston amp is unbalanced RCA input only so i'll need to make up some cables.
i'v emailed Tascam trying to find out the electronic design used in the output stage but so far no response.

in this link - Sound System Interconnection
if you scroll down to the wiring diagrams i think it'll be either 4b or 6

does anyone know ?
Old 12th November 2015
  #169
the convertes in tascam uh-7000

The converters in the unit are texas instruments (the info is in the thomann web).

Frome the web site:Convertidor AD/DA Texas Instruments PCM4220

This is correct?.

This is a new revision of the product?.

Thanks in advance.
Old 12th November 2015
  #170
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjari View Post
Great! I may pick one up tomorrow to try out. I'm really excited to hear the DAC on this unit. Im coming from a BLA modded M-Audio Delta 1010
UH-7000 sounds great (actually best that I've heard) but if you want to use software monitoring when recording audio / use a lot of software instruments like piano, the latency makes it totally unusable....bought it a few weeks ago and sent it back
Old 12th November 2015
  #171
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacCartney View Post
UH-7000 sounds great (actually best that I've heard) but if you want to use software monitoring when recording audio / use a lot of software instruments like piano, the latency makes it totally unusable....bought it a few weeks ago and sent it back
Unfortunately, you're Mac user, so you can't workaround it by other PCI card with better performance and 2ch digital I/O. Even used ESI [email protected] XTe is fine for doing that.
Previous poster can do that with his previous PCI M-Audio Delta, if he wouldn't be satisfied with UH7000 USB module performance.

Michal
Old 12th November 2015
  #172
Gear Head
 

msmucr,

if you connect the UH-7000 over AES or SPDIF to a PCIe card like you're saying, you have to clock the UH-7000 off the card, correct ?

if so, does this degrade the quality of the UH-7000 audio due to the cards clock ?
i know prism orpheus regenerates it's own clock even when syncing off another card so audio quality isn't degraded..
how does the UH-7000 work in this situation?
Old 12th November 2015
  #173
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marbles View Post
msmucr,

if you connect the UH-7000 over AES or SPDIF to a PCIe card like you're saying, you have to clock the UH-7000 off the card, correct ?
Yes, in that case PCIe card will be used as a clock master.

Usually with other devices, there is also other option for clocking setup, because PCIe card can be also slaved to its SPIDF or AES input, so external converter can be clock master.
But in case of UH-7000, there is explicit note at its user guide, that its clock source option has to be set to "Automatic", when using digital input at the unit, otherwise audio signal routed to digital out will be internally looped into digital input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marbles View Post
if so, does this degrade the quality of the UH-7000 audio due to the cards clock ?
i know prism orpheus regenerates it's own clock even when syncing off another card so audio quality isn't degraded..
how does the UH-7000 work in this situation?
Some measurement and evaluations between two mentioned clocking setups will be necessary for finding that out.
Clock regeneration isn't specific for some high end converters, but for almost any devices with digital inputs. There is usually used some kind of PLL or ASRC (asynchronous sample rate conversion, when ADC operates at fixed rate for example), I can't be more specific regarding UH-7000, because I haven't seen its guts nor measured its performance.
In my experience with several DACs, there were some units, which performed better with its asynchronous USB input and there are other units, where SPDIF or AES input was better.. So it isn't really straightforward assumption of sound degradation and particular implementation is more important than input type IME.

Michal
Old 12th November 2015
  #174
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
Unfortunately, you're Mac user, so you can't workaround it by other PCI card with better performance and 2ch digital I/O. Even used ESI [email protected] XTe is fine for doing that.

Michal
Michal, thank you for this information. My plan was to replace my old Duet FW after I read that Apogee is no longer supporting it on El Capitan. I'm still on Yosemite / Mavericks, though. I have a Mac Pro 5.1 12-core so internal PCIe card might be an option but TBH I'm not familiar with any of those cards. I only need 2 inputs and 2 outputs. Any recommendations?
Old 12th November 2015
  #175
Lives for gear
 
junior's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcanicos View Post
The converters in the unit are texas instruments (the info is in the thomann web).

Frome the web site:Convertidor AD/DA Texas Instruments PCM4220

This is correct?.

This is a new revision of the product?.

Thanks in advance.
No, Texas Instruments acquired Burr Brown so they're one and the same.
Old 12th November 2015
  #176
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by junior View Post
No, Texas Instruments acquired Burr Brown so they're one and the same.
Thanks Junior for your information.
I have a question, and I need honest answers.
I have a Liquid Saffire 56, and I have nothing bad to say about this sound card.
In this thread everyone says excellent D / A conversion of the tascam.
But I've seen on some website of the net, some analysis that has been made this sound card (tascam uh-7000) with a software called rightmarkAudio that I have.
The results are very very very similar to those that I have obtained to analyze the saffire 56.

Really worth to buy this converter ?.
There really is a change from the Saffire 56 in the D / A conversion ?.
It is perceptible ?.
I know A/ D conversion in the tascam is far superior to the Saffire 56 ,but this is not a problem for me because I have an ISA unit 430 mkII with the a/D card inside.

Thanks for your time and help.
Old 13th November 2015
  #177
Gear Addict
Just a FYI, I am getting 1.09ms input latency ; 8.98 ms Output Latency, all at 96kz and 32 Bit at 64 samples. So far it seems super quiet. Going to run through its paces. Sounds great.

Already really annoyed that there is no seperate monitor control, a TC Level Pilot is likely a necessity (or something similar)
Old 13th November 2015
  #178
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacCartney View Post
Michal, thank you for this information. My plan was to replace my old Duet FW after I read that Apogee is no longer supporting it on El Capitan. I'm still on Yosemite / Mavericks, though. I have a Mac Pro 5.1 12-core so internal PCIe card might be an option but TBH I'm not familiar with any of those cards. I only need 2 inputs and 2 outputs. Any recommendations?
That's bit tricky recommendation.. because Apple's straight cut from internal expansion cards in their current computer lineup and their really fast OS release cycle.
At PC platform, there can be lot of variations for possible solutions.. like used high quality and suitable PCIe/PCI cards (which can be purchased from roughly 200 USD), without much worries about driver support (eg. Win 7 will be officially supported to 2020 and many of older drivers also runs at current Win 10)..

If you have older Mac, there is more generally complicated situation. Because if you purchase PCIe card into your current computer with, there is really one option IMO.. that's RME HDSPe AIO card. Its last driver is from end of August and it is reported to be successfully running also in El Capitan.
PCIe cards by other vendors has usually last drivers somewhere from 2013 and there can be really some issues.
There is also one thing for consideration, if you purchase some newer Mac, there are two things, that needs to be covered for use of PCIe card.. suitable external TB-PCIe chassis (other investment) and driver for Apple's future OS X, if you want to follow their upgrades (next Spetember El Cap. bye-bye, we have The New shiny OS).
Advantage of RME PCIe card is, that this will be probably solution with best latency performance and efficiency at your current system with great drivers and stability.
But total price of the Tascam UH7000, RME HDSPe card and possibly chassis will be very close to some hybrid solutions by MOTU, like their 1248. This is only kind of universal option for you with very good performance via USB and future Thunderbolt.

Of course, there are some other USB interfaces, which perform very well on Mac and have respectable sound .. Like smaller MOTU Ultralite AVB and most probably also new RME Babyface Pro, which will be likely absolutely fine from latency standpoint.
(Unfortunately I couldn't compare its sound to UH7000.. and this always consists from several things Preamp, ADC, DAC, Headphone amp).

Michal
Old 13th November 2015
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Leevi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjari View Post
Just a FYI, I am getting 1.09ms input latency ; 8.98 ms Output Latency, all at 96kz and 32 Bit at 64 samples. So far it seems super quiet. Going to run through its paces. Sounds great.

Already really annoyed that there is no seperate monitor control, a TC Level Pilot is likely a necessity (or something similar)
Thanks for the info! How is the latency at 44.1 khz 256 samples?
Old 13th November 2015
  #180
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjari View Post
Just a FYI, I am getting 1.09ms input latency ; 8.98 ms Output Latency, all at 96kz and 32 Bit at 64 samples. So far it seems super quiet. Going to run through its paces. Sounds great.

Already really annoyed that there is no seperate monitor control, a TC Level Pilot is likely a necessity (or something similar)
Roundtrip? Mac or PC?
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump