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
Tags:

How good is Tascam HS-P82 recorder vs sound Devices? Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 7th February 2018
  #61
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by supoUSA View Post
I have had the Millenia and got rid of it. It was boring. Lifeless. It’s strange actually because it was accurate minus life. I know that seems odd but it sounded odd to me. It’s like it took away from the microphone. There was just a flat lifeless quality to it.

The Tascam example above is not what I am getting. The transparency yes but not the harshness I am hearing. Don’t beat me up as I am not being critical I just label things as I my ears hear them and I label them for m own purpose. The preamps I’m the Tascam are not typical clouded colored pres. This sample sounds equalized I’m some manner because I am not getting the piercing highs (again my terms for my mind).
Thanks for the critical remarks. Yes, the sound is a bit piercing, but that may be partly due to a lot of glass in that venue, and partly due to my attempt to come through with that music on a video mostly played on sub-optimal playback devices.

If I worked on a CD project I'd do it totally differently.

In any case I prefer the sound of the Tascam over the Millenia, and though I wouldn't say Millenia is lifeless, it is not really captivating my ears.

If I would want to deal with heavy equipment I'd go for Pueblos, but I don't want to.

Is there any light one unit 19" box of preamps you would think would top the Tascam?

Thanks
Robert
Old 8th February 2018
  #62
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don S View Post
I felt the same way when I first heard a Millennia. It was a 2 channel single space box rented by a local company coupled with a pair of Schoeps MK4's. Dull and lifeless.
I wound up buying a quad HV3-B unit that was made in 80's and it sounded different to my ears. A bit warmer maybe? The power supply is separate from the pre, but I'm not sure if it has anything to do with why I like the sound. The only thing I've heard that blows it away is the Pueblo.
Finally some validation. Anytime someone says something negative about Millenia, Sound Devices, Grace, etc....it’s like laughing at a funeral.
Old 8th February 2018
  #63
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
Thanks for the critical remarks. Yes, the sound is a bit piercing, but that may be partly due to a lot of glass in that venue, and partly due to my attempt to come through with that music on a video mostly played on sub-optimal playback devices.

If I worked on a CD project I'd do it totally differently.

In any case I prefer the sound of the Tascam over the Millenia, and though I wouldn't say Millenia is lifeless, it is not really captivating my ears.

If I would want to deal with heavy equipment I'd go for Pueblos, but I don't want to.

Is there any light one unit 19" box of preamps you would think would top the Tascam?

Thanks
Robert
For instruments, like jazz and wind band, I prefer Apogee Mini Me. I cannot divorce myself from it. For strings and vocals, Nagra. Nagra pretties everything up.
Old 8th February 2018
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
On the contrary, Nagra presents everything as it is. The Nagra is neutral and transparent. What you feed it is what you get.
Old 8th February 2018
  #65
Gear Addict
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
Thanks for the critical remarks. Yes, the sound is a bit piercing, but that may be partly due to a lot of glass in that venue, and partly due to my attempt to come through with that music on a video mostly played on sub-optimal playback devices.

If I worked on a CD project I'd do it totally differently.

In any case I prefer the sound of the Tascam over the Millenia, and though I wouldn't say Millenia is lifeless, it is not really captivating my ears.

If I would want to deal with heavy equipment I'd go for Pueblos, but I don't want to.

Is there any light one unit 19" box of preamps you would think would top the Tascam?

Thanks
Robert
Check out Sonodore preamps, can be custom made to be small and battery powered or whatever needs and A++ sound.
Old 8th February 2018
  #66
Gear Addict
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
I did some loopback testing of 744T vs. Heijnis preamp from a Prism Lyra 2, this doesn't really tell you all that much maybe and it's not a wonderfully accurate test, the stuff is zoomed way in (to <0.1db) and I didn't properly account for impedance as I was working with near-line level sources.

I have to emphasise the level of zoom going on here and impedence mis-match which mis-represent the cutoff points of preamps, I was also working at 96khz so the high end drop off is that, not actual preamp behaviour.
Attached Thumbnails
How good is Tascam HS-P82 recorder vs sound Devices?-screen-shot-2017-11-04-18.38.08.jpg   How good is Tascam HS-P82 recorder vs sound Devices?-screen-shot-2017-11-04-18.40.37.jpg  
Old 8th February 2018
  #67
Lives for gear
 
celticrogues's Avatar
 

I have a MixPre-6 that I'm very happy with.

If anyone in the NYC area has the Tascam and wants to set up a blind test sometime I'd totally be down for that. I have a 788t as well that we could add to the mix.

-Mike
Old 8th February 2018
  #68
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
@celticrogues It'd be great if that comes down...
Old 9th February 2018
  #69
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by celticrogues View Post
I have a MixPre-6 that I'm very happy with.

If anyone in the NYC area has the Tascam and wants to set up a blind test sometime I'd totally be down for that. I have a 788t as well that we could add to the mix.

-Mike
A 2 or 3 way mic splitter would ensure that each recorder gets identical inputs
Old 9th February 2018
  #70
Lives for gear
 
celticrogues's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
A 2 or 3 way mic splitter would ensure that each recorder gets identical inputs
For sure. I'm thinking it might be fairest to have a standalone phantom power unit before the splitter as well? Not sure if it would really make much difference if one device is providing phantom and the others aren't but a standalone unit would eliminate that variable at least.

-Mike
Old 9th February 2018
  #71
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by celticrogues View Post
For sure. I'm thinking it might be fairest to have a standalone phantom power unit before the splitter as well? Not sure if it would really make much difference if one device is providing phantom and the others aren't but a standalone unit would eliminate that variable at least.

-Mike
To achieve some greater compatibility the usage of a splitter and maybe a stand alone phantom power unit probably would be the best thing.

Otherwise a splitter changes the source in a way, so that maybe none of them will shine as they could??? (I have no experience with splitters, I once have tried a splitter cable and it was terrible).
Old 9th February 2018
  #72
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
To achieve some greater compatibility the usage of a splitter and maybe a stand alone phantom power unit probably would be the best thing.

Otherwise a splitter changes the source in a way, so that maybe none of them will shine as they could??? (I have no experience with splitters, I once have tried a splitter cable and it was terrible).
Splitter cables are an invitation to disaster, or at least sub-optimal matching...likely with RF or other noise added.

An active splitter box is better than passive. There will be output transformers involved in the splitter...ideally applied to each output to the 2 recorders.

Check the output impedance of your source microphones without a splitter, then measure output impedance of the splitter (with mics connected). Either the splitter or recorder should supply phantom, not both.

My guess is that the splitter will level the playing field between mics for both recorders, feeding them essentially identical mic outputs.
Old 9th February 2018
  #73
Gear Addict
 

As unscientific as this is - if you simply have the group play "A" in one recorder - then, direct connect to the other device and have them play "A" again....it's good enough. I don't there is going to be temperature or humidity changes or any other variable that would effect the listeners perception - wrong notes, and all that. You can hear the converters and preamps through anything the performer does.
Old 9th February 2018
  #74
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by supoUSA View Post
As unscientific as this is - if you simply have the group play "A" in one recorder - then, direct connect to the other device and have them play "A" again....it's good enough.
No, no, no! This is why blind testing was invented, for cripes sake. If you know which box is which, you CAN NOT make an unbiased comparison.

But then, you already know which box will win because the other is just not any good.

As they used to say in the newspaper business, "waste of ink."

Sheesh!

D.
Old 9th February 2018
  #75
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
No, no, no! This is why blind testing was invented, for cripes sake. If you know which box is which, you CAN NOT make an unbiased comparison.

But then, you already know which box will win because the other is just not any good.

As they used to say in the newspaper business, "waste of ink."

Sheesh!

D.
Same mics, same cables, same room, same group, same everything. You are comparing the sound of the preamps and converters, not the group. It accomplishes more effectively then introducing a splitter with different electronics and specs. You aren’t evaluating the group, you are evaluating the preamps and converters. Nothing wrong with this unless you are married to everything needs to be identical without a single variant or it’s flawed. It’s not cancer treatment. It’s preamps and converters. Honestly, I don’t even need the group. I can hear the ambient enough to be mostly accurate. When you listen for a living and know your equipment, sticking a recorder in it you can hear the difference immediately and typically the group is only validation to what the ambient demonstrated anyway.
Old 9th February 2018
  #76
Lives for gear
With the same group playing the same material twice...once for each recorder...you are guaranteed to get differences in volume between each performance of a few 10ths of a dB...either instantaneous or averaged over the performance duration.

So one will sound fractionally louder than the other, no way to avoid it.
In that instance, guess which recorder wins ? (Hint: it's not the 'better' one)

The only way to factor out this volume difference is with the use of a splitter...end of story. Anything else is an amateur hack, and not worthy of serious consideration. Seems that this might serve your needs perfectly, except the price is too low: Musicrow Preamp Emulator VST- Free preamp VST plugin

Last edited by studer58; 9th February 2018 at 10:42 PM..
Old 9th February 2018
  #77
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
Wouldn't you get enough good information using a matched pair of mics positioned as closely as it goes and recording to a single track on each recorder: I thought that would give you at least a pretty good idea of the differences between two devices after matching the levels ...
Old 10th February 2018
  #78
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
Wouldn't you get enough good information using a matched pair of mics positioned as closely as it goes and recording to a single track on each recorder: I thought that would give you at least a pretty good idea of the differences between two devices after matching the levels ...
Depends on the source material and the acoustic it's recorded in...using your method you'd be generating 2 mono files (if an omni pair were used you'd get better rendering of the surrounding acoustic).

Most folks recording acoustic music in situ are accustomed to hearing stereo....and since you're hoping to elicit consideration of subtle spatial cues I think stereo (via splitter) would be the better way.

Mono collapses ambience into the centre, and it's likely that one parameter of a shootout between recorders would be their rendering of stereo space and depth (too wide, too narrow, a sense of layering, being able to hear 1st reflections, phasing problems, revelation of background noises etc etc). All more easily done in stereo.
Old 10th February 2018
  #79
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
Yes, I understand that; I thought at least one would know something about the transparency, transients, noise etc.

But if one wants the spatial information as well, of course the splitter solution would be best. It wouldn't represent how the recorders handle the specific microphones used, but it would represent how the recorders handles an identical source.
Old 10th February 2018
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Splitter cables are an invitation to disaster, or at least sub-optimal matching...likely with RF or other noise added.
Using a passive splitter cable, what happens if the mic input of one recorder is supplied phantom power from the other recorder or if both supply phantom power (voltages will never exactly match). Are phantom powered outputs usually protected?
Old 10th February 2018
  #81
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoeller View Post
Using a passive splitter cable, what happens if the mic input of one recorder is supplied phantom power from the other recorder or if both supply phantom power (voltages will never exactly match). Are phantom powered outputs usually protected?
If you have to ask the question......how safe is it to cross your fingers and try ?

There are several threads of this question in the Remote forum over the last 10 years...do a search to discover more. Try it out with your own mics', if you can afford to lose them to 'experimentation'?

Then discard the splitter cables and get a proper transformer isolated hardware splitter box...problem solved, with no nagging uncertainty
Old 10th February 2018
  #82
Lives for gear
 

I certainly won't try to use a splitter cable. Not an audio expert but my very basic rudimentary technical knowledge tells me to not try some things.

Indeed I asked more about how well mic inputs are protected against various user mistakes.
Old 10th February 2018
  #83
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoeller View Post
Using a passive splitter cable, what happens if the mic input of one recorder is supplied phantom power from the other recorder or if both supply phantom power (voltages will never exactly match). Are phantom powered outputs usually protected?
The splitter cable can be designed for that particular purpose, to avoid
the possibility of damaging the mic or recorder. Vark Cables is a good
option for custom built splitter cables.
Old 10th February 2018
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
This is why blind testing was invented
I agree with tourtelot, that that we can only start to understand the degree of how much is imagined through blind tests. Mic preamp threads offer a wonderful realm of fantasy in which audio engineering rests mainly in the choice of preamp.
Old 14th February 2018
  #85
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
All this stuff we are discussing here is great. As for the talk about the hsp82 being noisy I don’t hear it at all. It’s as clean and quiet as a 702.

The mixpre 10t is the new compelling thing. At $1800 is deserves a look. I don’t need more pres right now but if I did it would be at the top of my list.
Old 16th February 2018
  #86
Have to say that HS-P82 sound really nice. The only thing that puzzle me is, the gain seems to be much higher than other pre/recorders I have used. At least 20dB lower value needed. I have to use the -25dB pad next to the XLR input socket for up close miking. That I usually set to 20dB to 26dB gain with other devices.
Old 16th February 2018
  #87
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9sbean View Post
I have to use the -25dB pad next to the XLR input socket for up close miking. That I usually set to 20dB to 26dB gain with other devices.
I interpret this to say that you're seeing about 50dB more gain on this device than on others??? That's a LOT of additional gain! And it's quiet enough to support that amount of gain?
Old 16th February 2018
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by blwatlongwood View Post
I interpret this to say that you're seeing about 50dB more gain on this device than on others??? That's a LOT of additional gain! And it's quiet enough to support that amount of gain?
No, I felt HS P82 is about 20dB hotter than the other.
If I need 35dB gain on the other system, I can get the same level with 15dB gain on P82.
If I need 25dB gain on the other system, I need to activate -25dB pad and add some gain back on P82 otherwise it clip easily.
Old 16th February 2018
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Splitter cables are an invitation to disaster, or at least sub-optimal matching...likely with RF or other noise added.

An active splitter box is better than passive. There will be output transformers involved in the splitter...ideally applied to each output to the 2 recorders.

Check the output impedance of your source microphones without a splitter, then measure output impedance of the splitter (with mics connected). Either the splitter or recorder should supply phantom, not both.

My guess is that the splitter will level the playing field between mics for both recorders, feeding them essentially identical mic outputs.
All good points. The right passive splitter could work just fine. Something like a Radial JS3 would be a good option. The JS3 has one direct and 2 ISO outs. have the two recorders being evaluated on the ISOs; then use something else (perhaps a 3rd recorder) on the direct to feed phantom.
Old 16th February 2018
  #90
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9sbean View Post
Have to say that HS-P82 sound really nice. The only thing that puzzle me is, the gain seems to be much higher than other pre/recorders I have used. At least 20dB lower value needed. I have to use the -25dB pad next to the XLR input socket for up close miking. That I usually set to 20dB to 26dB gain with other devices.
yes you ned to set the pads sometimes. If you dont you will dance between mutes and very high headroom. I do wish the pads were a software setting. The switches feel like an accident waiting to happen. Software would be cool because I could have a project with high gain set and just switch to that based on the material.
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