New portable multitrack recorders from Tascam

[sonare]

I am NOT trying to start a pointless contest between Lunatec, SD, and Core Sound (which I sometimes stupidly refer to as "core audio"-- a habit from my Mac audio days) but for a while I had an early SD USBpre and it was not a magical experience.

Personally I think that unless you are in Lunatec land the audible differences between similarly priced products from reputable companies are microscopic. The only meaningful differences will be found in features.

While the metering on the USBpre is superior, in real-world use with the DR-680 it may not be significant simply because it is much easier to be looking at the levels of all channels. In trimming gain I found that it is 1) impossible to keep things with any transients at -16 on the "meter" in the 680 but 2) that is moot because when you import the files into the DAW of choice for mixing and balance you see that they are peaking about -10 which is my goal anyway.

As I noted many posts ago the 680 metering is a joke except in real-world use. If you aim for peaks at the ONLY mark on the "meter" (-16) between nothing and 0dBFS you will be surprised later to find that with the inevitable overshoots you end up with -10 levels. Guess the TASCAM designers were more clever than I originally thought.

Len tells me that stepped controls are planned for the next version of the CORE SOUND 2496, which would answer the only real concern I had with it. The sound is superb, which was the goal anyway. Is it the equal of a Millennia Media? Who knows or cares-- different applications; different expectations.

Rich

[MichaelPatrick]

Just to clarify a technical point: The signal path is different between USB Pre and USB Pre2. The later is transformerless and the preamps are the same as those in the 744T. The original USB Pre models used a design akin to the MP-1 which is meant for dialog and sonically inferior for music.

[sonare]

Thanks for the clarification-- I wonder if SD would like to enter the fray with a USBpre 2 to evaluate? Unfortunately the 2496V2 is headed back to Core Sound and I do not expect to be back at the site of the orchestra concert soon.

Rich

[ysmgj]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

the preamps are the same as those in the 788T.

the website says 744T:

These preamplifiers provide the highest performance in any portable interface. Their topology is shared with Sound Devices award-winning 744T Digital Audio Recorder.

i did get in touch with SD though and they also said quote" AD converters are the same as we use in the 7-Series recorders."

[MichaelPatrick]

I appreciate the correction. I'll fix my prior post so others won't be mislead.

All 7xx recorder preamps are excellent for music.

Originally Posted by ysmgj

the website says 744T:

These preamplifiers provide the highest performance in any portable interface. Their topology is shared with Sound Devices award-winning 744T Digital Audio Recorder.

i did get in touch with SD though and they also said quote" AD converters are the same as we use in the 7-Series recorders."

[sonare]

Originally Posted by ysmgj

These preamplifiers provide the highest performance in any portable interface. Their topology is shared with Sound Devices award-winning 744T Digital Audio Recorder.

I seriously doubt they trump the NAGRA VI. Have you tested both?

Rich

[ysmgj]

that was a quote from the sound devices website, not my own assessment.

[mathieujm]

I clearly prefer BeeB. More depth and richness. A seems simplified, with more harshness and C lacks the cohesion of the previous takes.

JMM

[sonare]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

I clearly prefer BeeB. More depth and richness. A seems simplified, with more harshness and C lacks the cohesion of the previous takes.

C has the omnis of the Faulkner array added-- the "bloom of the room" as well as beefier LF. For now the identity of the Mk21s in C is not stated. The cohesion comment is interesting given the fact that the phasing in the array is "aligned" between all mics.

Rich

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

I clearly prefer BeeB.

Was not so clear for me but was also my choice.

[rumleymusic]

I thought A had more character, B seemed flatter and more sterile. Both were okay and usable.

So what is what?

[sonare]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

So what is what?

A= Core Sound 2496V2

B= TASCAM DR680

C= Core Sound plus Mk2H (-9dB)

Rich

[CGBrian.M]

While I listened when the samples were first posted, I didn't reply into now. My choices were B, C, A in order.
I actually thought that B would be the MK2's mixed in. Really shocked that B was the Tascam.

Brian

[sonare]

I said in the original post

"The third snip is with ONE of those pair plus Mk2H down 9dB"

so I cannot fathom how you thought what you did.

Personally I do not hear a huge difference-- I could accept either one. It is notable that the standalone and DR680 micamps were this close.

Remember-- this is my "B" rig for quick in/out live jobs. The moment has not yet arrived when I MUST have 8 tracks. If I can get a USB Pre2 from SD that should be interesting. Stay tuned--

Rich

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by sonare

A= Core Sound 2496V2

B= TASCAM DR680

C= Core Sound plus Mk2H (-9dB)

Rich

Nicely done Rich. I ordered a DR680 about a week ago for the same kind of gigs you do with yours, and to backup a 788T. Thanks much for the clips and to all contributors for their helpful analysis.

[CGBrian.M]

Originally Posted by sonare

I said in the original post so I cannot fathom how you thought what you did.

Personally I do not hear a huge difference-- I could accept either one. It is notable that the standalone and DR680 micamps were this close.

Remember-- this is my "B" rig for quick in/out live jobs. The moment has not yet arrived when I MUST have 8 tracks. If I can get a USB Pre2 from SD that should be interesting. Stay tuned--

Rich

Sorry. Need to read a little closer next time.

I didn't hear a huge difference either (between the Core Sound and DR680), and I also thought both were plenty acceptable. But I didn't get the feeling you posted the comparison to see if everyone thought both were acceptable.

Brian

[sonare]

Originally Posted by CGBrian.M

I didn't hear a huge difference either (between the Core Sound and DR680), and I also thought both were plenty acceptable. But I didn't get the feeling you posted the comparison to see if everyone thought both were acceptable.

Actually I put this up out of "scientific curiosity." Sometimes we don't all hear alike <G> and I am curious what other experienced ears detect.

If anything this proves that good mics, a good room, and good players will yield a good recording with almost any hardware.

Rich

[Remoteness]

Well said!

Originally Posted by sonare

Actually I put this up out of "scientific curiosity." Sometimes we don't all hear alike <G> and I am curious what other experienced ears detect.

If anything this proves that good mics, a good room, and good players will yield a good recording with almost any hardware.

Rich

[rumleymusic]

A= Core Sound 2496V2

B= TASCAM DR680

C= Core Sound plus Mk2H (-9dB)

That was my guess. It looks like a lot of people favored the tascam. I thought it was a little thin in the low register, but still very good, and not a gritty as some of the previous tascam preamps I have heard.

Thanks for the comparison.

[JEGG]

Thanks so much!!!! to the people who posted examples here. I'll look forward to ordering a 680.

Recorded examples are always really interesting and informative. But these examples are even more exceptionally so (than usual) for all sorts of reasons, one being the exceptionally low price of the Tascam. It was great to hear the orchestra clips which so clearly revealed so many differences.

It's nice when the clips sound all sound quite different yet all sound quite good.

The quality is not completely unexpected, as I have had consistently positive experiences with the 3 HD-P2's and the 1 DR-100 I have used on a regular basis for several years.

I could use this for all sorts of things, and I won't feel compromised at all. I have good mic's, so I'm enthused about the possibilities. I refuse to use a computer for anything live, so it's either 2 track or a live mix (which I don't mind at all, I use modest numbers of mic's) but this will add flexibility and fun to many occasions.

And thanks to the user who confirms the "non metering" issue. I do classical, try to hold things to <-12dBFS (at most) and think that this won't be hard to do.

Some people have thought about getting another two digi channels into the 680. I'm wondering how many of those folks might have a portable stereo recorder (HD-P2 or something else) that might be enlisted. That also might be a safety for a main pair. I'm under the impression (that I've gotten from others) that a lot of "destination" gear sounds best when clocked internally-even if a better clock is available externally. So, without inviting too much of a hijack, I'd welcome anyone's short(?) commentary on that very simple issue......

Anyway, thanks so much again for the wonderful and useful recordings!

[Plush]

Nice samples here, Rich.

I liked A and B. The C sample seemed a little "awash in sound."

Good performance from budget recorders (maybe not budget mics or source though).

[rlhess]

REVISED 4:40 PM

This discussion has been most enlightening. I originally started doing field recording with a MOTU 828 MK II, then added an 8Pre and sold it almost immediately. I bought a Sound Devices 722 as most of my work is done with a pair of DPA 4006-TL mics, but there are still some recordings that need more than two tracks and some judicious post production. I can mix live-to-two on the fly for many things, but I prefer for serious work to have the tracks available, hence my interest in the DR-680.

Thanks for the two sets of samples. As to what to use for the preamp for channels 7 & 8, I have that easy: the SD722, of course. That gives me the advantage of the same preamps I've come to love with the DPAs plus a backup of the main stereo pair on the SD722 as well as the recording on the 680.

Alas, upon close inspection of the MP3 files, there is a graininess in the low-level signals from the 680 that is not there in the Core Sound unit. This sound is all-too-common, and was worse and more annoying in the 8Pre. I have elected not to get the 680 and continue with the MOTU 828 MK II and the Yamaha or Mackie mixers as a "front end" for the times I need more channels. I doubt I'll ever get an SD788T, as the things that need multitrack the most are the non-paying gigs. The more experienced ensembles that I record don't need as much post production which is, of course, no surprise. I have also been working with the conductors as I've proven through judiciously placed Zoom H2 recorders that if my mics aren't capturing it, the audience isn't hearing it. We've paid more attention to soloists and their micro acoustic environment and that effort has paid off both for the audience and the recordings.

So, for classical work, it seems that the 680's preamps and/or A-Ds are not equivalent to the original 7-series Sound Devices which apparently are improved further in the SD788T. Of course, there is that $6000 difference and the 680 might work for many applications. For example, the differences in the close-mic'd guitar solos was not as noticeable as in the classical MP3s.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Cheers,

Richard

[Remoteness]

If you can hear the different and it's not what you're looking for...

Just don't go there.

If economics plays a role you may need to reconsider your position on the matter...

Just thinking out loud I'm afraid.

[philper]

Originally Posted by rlhess

REVISED 4:40 PM

This discussion has been most enlightening. I originally started doing field recording with a MOTU 828 MK II, then added an 8Pre and sold it almost immediately. I bought a Sound Devices 722 as most of my work is done with a pair of DPA 4006-TL mics, but there are still some recordings that need more than two tracks and some judicious post production. I can mix live-to-two on the fly for many things, but I prefer for serious work to have the tracks available, hence my interest in the DR-680.

Thanks for the two sets of samples. As to what to use for the preamp for channels 7 & 8, I have that easy: the SD722, of course. That gives me the advantage of the same preamps I've come to love with the DPAs plus a backup of the main stereo pair on the SD722 as well as the recording on the 680.

Alas, upon close inspection of the MP3 files, there is a graininess in the low-level signals from the 680 that is not there in the Core Sound unit. This sound is all-too-common, and was worse and more annoying in the 8Pre. I have elected not to get the 680 and continue with the MOTU 828 MK II and the Yamaha or Mackie mixers as a "front end" for the times I need more channels. I doubt I'll ever get an SD788T, as the things that need multitrack the most are the non-paying gigs. The more experienced ensembles that I record don't need as much post production which is, of course, no surprise. I have also been working with the conductors as I've proven through judiciously placed Zoom H2 recorders that if my mics aren't capturing it, the audience isn't hearing it. We've paid more attention to soloists and their micro acoustic environment and that effort has paid off both for the audience and the recordings.

So, for classical work, it seems that the 680's preamps and/or A-Ds are not equivalent to the original 7-series Sound Devices which apparently are improved further in the SD788T. Of course, there is that $6000 difference and the 680 might work for many applications. For example, the differences in the close-mic'd guitar solos was not as noticeable as in the classical MP3s.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Cheers,

Richard

I applaud you for doing serious testing to find out what you like. I caution you about making pronouncements that there is an absolute "better" about anything in audio recording--it's pretty subjective, right? When I do web searches about opinions about audio gear (esp mics and pres) I'm pretty well assured of finding just about every degree of positive or negative about most pieces of gear....which is why I applaud doing your own tests....

phil p

[Brackish]

I have a quick question on the 680.

Can two channels be set up to be recorded either as two mono tracks OR
one stereo track? I mean ... Say I have mics plugged into channels
1 and 2. Can I set those channels to be recorded as a stereo track
where channel 1 is Left and channel 2 is Right?

[sonare]

www.avisoft.com/DR-680.pdf

[PoxyMusic]

Originally Posted by Brackish

I have a quick question on the 680.

Can two channels be set up to be recorded either as two mono tracks OR
one stereo track? I mean ... Say I have mics plugged into channels
1 and 2. Can I set those channels to be recorded as a stereo track
where channel 1 is Left and channel 2 is Right?

You can indeed record as dual mono or single stereo.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by PoxyMusic

You can indeed record as dual mono or single stereo.

Thanks! More good news!

[Ozpeter]

Big news for some -

"
DR-680 Version 1.20 Includes Mid-Side Monitoring and Decoding
San Francisco, CA – AES Booth 909 (November 5, 2010): TASCAM's DR-680 portable recorder will be updated to version 1.20, which adds features for recording with mid-side microphones. Popular with sound effects recordists, mid-side recording offers a solid mono image with adjustable stereo width. But MS signals must be decoded before used in a mix.
DR-680 version 1.20 offers two modes for mid-side decoding. The encoded signal can be recorded and decoded through the headphone outputs, or the input can be decoded internally and recorded.
The TASCAM DR-680 is a portable recorder that records 8 tracks (or six discrete tracks and a stereo mix) at 96kHz/24-bit resolution. Six microphone inputs with phantom power are available for multi-channel or surround recording. It records to SD/SDHC card media in WAV, Broadcast WAV or MP3 format, and stereo 192k recording is also available.
The free firmware update for the DR-680 can be downloaded from the TASCAM website at the end of November. "

[PoxyMusic]

My 2 big wishes:

1. I'd like the ability to link input gain for stereo pairs.
2. Fix the headphone gain thing. It responds very slowly to adjustment, something I've never encountered before. No big deal, but it bugs.

Nice about MS.