Tascam Us 122 Problems, Can't get mic signal into Logic express Options

[synthpro]

OK Star Fox... your a dope... a big one. You know why???... cause your useless.... and you dont even realize it! You had this big time problem, that believe it or not... so many other MAC OS X 10.4.3 users using Tascam US 122's have. Anyways, I was one of them... and then to my dissapointment... when you said "YEAAAAHHHHHHHH I FIGURED IT OUT!!!... BUT UH... DUH..... I DONT KNOW HOW I DID IT... SORRY... I JUST DID... I'M A RETARD.... DUH"

Anyways, based on all the forums I went to, and gooling everything in site, I know there's alot of you out there... and so many have already returned either their Power Book, or their TASCAM. I came close myself. So here's the answer to the problem. I figured it out...

Go to the Tascam website: www.tascam.com/Products/US-122.html.
Click on the driver OSX 3.3.2 (or whatever the specific number is I can't remeber). Now you will see that once downloaded... you probably wont be able to open it in your Power Book. Thats because OS X 10.4.3 doesnt recognize the extension of the driver.

To open this unreadable extension, you need to download the free STUFF IT application from the Alladin website (It is FREEWARE... or there is a free 30 day trial... so don't worry).

Now you have everything you need to open the driver. Go to the downloaded driver and chose OPEN WITH... and then pick STUFFIT. It will open it, then you can install your driver. Make sure you dont have your TASCAM connected. Reboot the computer, connect your USB, then open your cubase... and voila!!! It will pick up the signals from your TASCAM.

If it still doesnt, go to your preferences on the Power Book. Go to sounds. There are 3 tabs (EFFECTS, INPUTS, & OUTPUTS). Click on Inputs and Outputs, and change it from Built in stereo, to TASCAM US122). Now you will be all set!

Just so you know, it took me a whole weekend to figure this out. I hope this helps!

Synthpro

[hahaworld]

Must we resort to name-calling? If we must, can we use correct tense? Synthpro, you should have told Star Fox, "You're a dope," as in, "You are a dope." What you are trying to say, I believe, is that Star Fox IS a dope. Not that he possesses "a dope." When you use the possessive, "your," you imply that Star Fox has "a dope" and that he also has "useless," but the ellipsis leaves us hanging. Perhaps you could have finished the thought by saying, "Your a dope is nicer than your b dope," or "Your useless brain is taking up space on MacMusic," if you really wanted to use the possessive tense.

Also, "dont" should have an apostrophe. The apostrophe takes the place of the "o" in the word "not." This way, it becomes clear that a contraction is being used.

[synthpro]

OK HAHAWorld.... who knows... maybe your realing me into this absolutely geeky debate for laughs. But I'll bite.

If you are going to correct someone's english (which I know mine aint perfect)... than you must make ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY GODDAMN SURE, AND CERTAIN TO THE ONE THOUSANDTH PERCENT.... that your phrazes in the rebudle your using to the grammar in question, is going to be impecable.

"I believe, is that Star Fox IS a dope. Not that he possesses "a dope."

Bro... using 2 Is's in your sentance makes no sense, but only if the person reading it is an idiot like you and can't see past these details. The rest of us can, and if your on this website, its to solve peoples problems and ask questions about music. If you wanna practice your grammar, go to university and study english. As a matter of fact, I see you well suited in an english play, maybe Hamlet.

And guess what... I'm not even going to proof read this thread, so let's just end the matter here.

[hahaworld]

I WAS laughing till you typed G...D... in ALL CAPS.

I still stand by my defense of StarFox. You have no right to resort to name-calling on this site. You are correct in stating that the purpose of this website is to solve problems and answer questions about music. The tragedy of this entire argument is that you don't even see the irony. Explain to me how foul language and personal attacks are valid and acceptable avenues to problem-solving, and I'll concede the argument to you. Until you can do this intelligibly, I'm happy to keep this thread alive if only to further demonstrate my point.

And guess what...I proofread your last post.