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
Portable recorder for classical chamber music Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 13th January 2017
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
Since your very first statement is incorrect...

Professional tape recorders allow the erase head to be shut off, so you could record additional stuff over what was already there. And, that is what overdubbing means.

If you misuse the word, don't expect people to know what you mean.
No need for a dick size contest, there are many reference sites on the net that explains what overdubbing is in the context of sound recording, you may want to go read up on it.

You can start here:
What's an overdub? Why do it?

there's always Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdubbing

These guys:
http://www.music-production-guide.com/overdubbing.html

Last edited by Samc; 13th January 2017 at 06:35 PM..
Old 13th January 2017
  #62
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
If you misuse the word, don't expect people to know what you mean.
I hate to break it to you, but there's an entire generation (maybe more than one) that uses the word overdub the way Samc does. So, regardless of what it did mean, or should mean, most people now will understand that word as Samc uses it. Languages evolve, whether you like it or not. There's no point in fighting it.
Old 13th January 2017
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
Professional tape recorders allow the erase head to be shut off, so you could record additional stuff over what was already there. And, that is what overdubbing means.
Don't know where you got this info, but you might want to read this article:
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/1..._recording.pdf
Old 13th January 2017
  #64
Both definitions of overdubbing are valid.
Old 14th January 2017
  #65
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Both definitions of overdubbing are valid.
In theory yes, a punch is technically an overdub, but traditionally people in the recording industry have used the definition I used and in fact, i can't find any reference to the other definition anywhere.

The other claim that by eliminating the erase head on an analog tape machine you can put a new recording on top of an older recording and keep both is false. The recording process will permanently destroy any previous recordings, because the record head magnetic field alters the magnetic polarization of the magnetic particles on the tape. The erase head ensures the new recording has no artifacts from the old recording.

I have a working Studer A827, a disassembled A800 and a Sony 32 track DASH in storage and I don't remember there being a feature to disable the erase head on any of them or on any of the other dozens of machines I've ever used.
Old 14th January 2017
  #66
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Having owned a half dozen R2R machines over the past 40 years (I still have 4!) I can say that Samc uses the term "overdub" in the only way I understand it. I have never recorded one track on top of another, while preserving the original material; I don't believe this is possible. YMMV.
Old 14th January 2017
  #67
My recollections of the context of the word overdubbing:

In the really early days, overdubbing meant adding new parts by mixing existing tracks with new sources and recording on another track. This could be done with two machines, or on a single machine, you'd take signal from the record head of one track, ship it to the mixer to blend with the new source(s), and record it on an adjacent track. With a two track, you could then build up a mono track out of multiple parts, adding noise as well. With four tracks, you could bounce in stereo on a single machine. I had a 60's Sony 1/4" that had this function built in, called the..... Sound-On-Sound function. I believe in this mode the erase head (limited really to two and possibly four channel recorders) was disabled because of the potential effect on the nearby track. You are correct that when you start recording on analog tape, you're writing new magnetic patterns to the tape, not "merging" with preexisting patterns. Without an erase track, there may still be remnants of the original signal, but you'd need forensics to spot them. I've never heard of what Graywolf described, so I'm assuming that I'm misinterpreting him.

As the number of tracks grew, it became the practice to not bounce tracks and add signals, but to add signals to available "empty" tracks. If I was doing a song on an eight tracks, I'd have to get my drums right and probably add the FX like reverb at the time of tracking, because they'd get a pair of tracks. Keyboards the same, background vocals the same, with maybe the lead vocal, the bass, and the guitar getting their own track. The more parts you had in the song on the few tracks you had on tape, the more planning you had to do, the more time you had to spend getting the sounds RIGHT in tracking, because by mixdown track you were usually blending just a few stereo groups plus your lead vocals and all your FX. I felt privileged when I got to work on a 24 channel session - so MANY tracks! (ha, when I see the DAW project files of a modern record, with hundreds of parts per song, I'm still sorta shocked).

Anyway, it's been interesting to see what "overdubbing" means to different people

And, I prefer, whenever possible, to have well-rehearsed players playing at the same time, mixing live-to-finished product. Or, as an alternative, recording live-to-multitrack, with tweaking of the sound, but not the performances, in mixdown. I've always felt that the intangible vibe/groove/spirit you get when everyone is playing together is "better" than the "perfection" you get when each player comes in and overdubs their parts, punching and comping their way to a flawless track. That's one of the reasons I like to record jazz/classical "studio" and live performances of all types. I also found that in the time it takes you to build a really good set of cuemixes for the performers and a monitor mix for the control room, you were 90+% of the way to a final mix anyway. The "self-mixing" cue systems may have changed that though - they didn't exist when I started my break and I haven't yet worked with one.

Apologies for the long post, especially since the whole overdubbing thing is already an offshoot from the original topic.
Old 14th January 2017
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
My recollections of the context of the word overdubbing:

In the really early days, overdubbing meant adding new parts by mixing existing tracks with new sources and recording on another track.
This is technically a description of the definition I used; recording on one track of the machine while monitoring from one or more tracks of the same machine...

Apparently 'overdubbing' means the same thing to different people.

What Graywolf described is not technically possible and is not the same as a punch-in recording on the same track.

Anyway, my original argument is that it's strange that most modern digital recorders with multiple tracks does not allow allow the user to perform overdub recordings. It is this feature that technically makes a recorder a multitrack machine by the way.
Old 14th January 2017
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
...

What Graywolf described is not technically possible and is not the same as a punch-in recording on the same track.

Anyway, my original argument is that it's strange that most modern digital recorders with multiple tracks does not allow allow the user to perform overdub recordings. It is this feature that technically makes a recorder a multitrack machine by the way.
agreed, in audio production. Not true for other industrial uses like multichannel data recording a la an airplane black box.
Old 14th January 2017
  #70
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
It is this feature that technically makes a recorder a multitrack machine by the way.
I disagree with that. If it records more than two tracks simultaneously, I'd call it a multi track recorder (arguably, anything more than one track should qualify, but since we have a specific term for stereo, I feel comfortable setting the cutoff above two tracks.) There are plenty of legitimate applications for multi tracks with no overdub capabilities, like classical music recording, film work etc. I imagine in those fields, it may even be preferable to have a simpler system where the record button always does what you expect, and you don't have to worry about which tracks you have armed. Personally, I'm with you - if one of the film oriented Tascam recorders had individual track arm controls, I would be much more interested in it, but I disagree with your rigid semantics.
Old 14th January 2017
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
agreed, in audio production. Not true for other industrial uses like multichannel data recording a la an airplane black box.
Agreed, but the discussion was only about audio/music production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
I disagree with that. If it records more than two tracks simultaneously, I'd call it a multi track recorder (arguably, anything more than one track should qualify, but since we have a specific term for stereo, I feel comfortable setting the cutoff above two tracks.)
Multi-channel is not the same as multi-track...if it will record more than one channel at a time it is is multi-channel, but the ability to record or track any number of times over the same length of tape (or same space on a drive) without affecting the original recordings or tracks is what makes the recorder a multi-track (or multi-tracking) recorder. Think about this carefully.

Quote:
There are plenty of legitimate applications for multi tracks with no overdub capabilities, like classical music recording, film work etc. I imagine in those fields, it may even be preferable to have a simpler system where the record button always does what you expect, and you don't have to worry about which tracks you have armed. Personally, I'm with you - if one of the film oriented Tascam recorders had individual track arm controls, I would be much more interested in it, but I disagree with your rigid semantics.
Please list one "legitimate application" that would somehow suffer because of this feature...this capability does not change the function of the record button.

There are more elegant ways to disable the multi-tracking feature than to cripple the machine...this didn't seem to bother sound engineers when they used tape machines or when they use a DAW, both of which have this feature.
Old 14th January 2017
  #72
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Multi-channel is not the same as multi-track...if it will record more than one channel at a time it is is multi-channel, but the ability to record or track any number of times over the same length of tape (or same space on a drive) without affecting the original recordings or tracks is what makes the recorder a multi-track (or multi-tracking) recorder. Think about this carefully.


Please list one "legitimate application" that would somehow suffer because of this feature...this capability does not change the function of the record button.

There are more elegant ways to disable the multi-tracking feature than to cripple the machine...this didn't seem to bother sound engineers when they used tape machines or when they use a DAW, both of which have this feature.
I don't care enough to fight you on the semantics. You win.

As for legitimate applications, I already mentioned film shoots. When you're wearing the recorder around your neck, holding a boom with a mic on its far end, trying to get the best recording possible in a bustling environment, possibly outside in the elements, I imagine it's better to not have extra buttons to worry about. Simplicity in design, prioritizing ergonomics and near foolproof behavior over feature count. This isn't a revolutionary concept.
Old 14th January 2017
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
I don't care enough to fight you on the semantics. You win.
We're just having a discussion and hopefully learning from each other in the process. The distinction is not just semantic, its fundamental...multi-channel is not the same as, (and does not mean) multi-tracking. The name was originally given to the first two-track machines that had a sync head and allowed overdub recordings.

Quote:
As for legitimate applications, I already mentioned film shoots. When you're wearing the recorder around your neck, holding a boom with a mic on its far end, trying to get the best recording possible in a bustling environment, possibly outside in the elements, I imagine it's better to not have extra buttons to worry about. Simplicity in design, prioritizing ergonomics and near foolproof behavior over feature count. This isn't a revolutionary concept.
The thing is it will never be the problem you imagine it could be, Would professional recordists really be bothered and thrown off by this feature...really?

There are very simple ways of making this foolproof without crippling the machine...this is not just a fluff feature like adding iPad control to cheap digital mixers that will spend their lives in small bars.

Do you have to arm the tracks you intend to record on on an 8-track machine, or are you forced to record all 8 tracks all the time?
Old 14th January 2017
  #74
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
We're just having a discussion and hopefully learning from each other in the process. The distinction is not just semantic, its fundamental...
Fair enough. My gut feeling tells me I disagree with your hard distinctions between these words, but I'm not foolish enough to just assume I'm right. Determining with any confidence what the truth is would take more research than I care to do. I often find etymology and the subtle distinctions between words to be fascinating and useful. The reason I'm not interested in this one is because the distinction between these words would mostly effect me when shopping for gear, and I don't trust marketing and sales people to use these words with any precision. No matter what name someone slaps on the side of a product, I'm going to carefully read its specs and operation manual before assuming I know what it can do. As such, the distinction does me little good. So, I apologize if my apathy comes off as flippant or rude, but in this particular case I disagree (and may be wrong) and also don't care enough to fight.

Quote:
Do you have to arm the tracks you intend to record on on an 8-track machine, or are you forced to record all 8 tracks all the time?
This is an interesting distinction I hadn't really thought through. I read the relevant portion of the DR-701D manual to get a sense of how this works. It turns out that on that machine you can record anywhere from 1-6 channels (4 inputs and 2 mixdown channels) in your choice of separate mono files, stereo files (potentially with some channels blank for unused inputs,) or a 6-channel file. So it turns out that a lot of the complexity (many layers of cumbersome looking menus) that I thought these recorders were trying to avoid is already there, which supports your case that it would be trivial to add overdub capability.

Having said that, I still think that making a useful, marketable overdub capability would require a more ergonomic interface, with more dedicated buttons for track arming, convenient adjustment of punch in/punch out locations, etc. Adding those buttons would potentially make the machine less "safe" in the sense that it's easier to make a mistake by bumping the wrong button or forgetting to set a button, although you could probably just add a menu-driven lock feature to make those settings tamper-proof when desired. More importantly, those buttons would take up valuable real estate on already-small user-interfaces. You can make a machine optimized for film/video, or make it optimized for multitrack recording, but if you try to do both you'll necessarily be compromising on both. They already make porta-studios and the DR40/44 for your needs, so why should they compromise their film recorders to compete in that market?
Old 15th January 2017
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
This is an interesting distinction I hadn't really thought through. I read the relevant portion of the DR-701D manual to get a sense of how this works. It turns out that on that machine you can record anywhere from 1-6 channels (4 inputs and 2 mixdown channels) in your choice of separate mono files, stereo files (potentially with some channels blank for unused inputs,) or a 6-channel file. So it turns out that a lot of the complexity (many layers of cumbersome looking menus) that I thought these recorders were trying to avoid is already there, which supports your case that it would be trivial to add overdub capability.

Having said that, I still think that making a useful, marketable overdub capability would require a more ergonomic interface, with more dedicated buttons for track arming, convenient adjustment of punch in/punch out locations, etc. Adding those buttons would potentially make the machine less "safe" in the sense that it's easier to make a mistake by bumping the wrong button or forgetting to set a button, although you could probably just add a menu-driven lock feature to make those settings tamper-proof when desired. More importantly, those buttons would take up valuable real estate on already-small user-interfaces. You can make a machine optimized for film/video, or make it optimized for multitrack recording, but if you try to do both you'll necessarily be compromising on both. They already make porta-studios and the DR40/44 for your needs, so why should they compromise their film recorders to compete in that market?
Just to be clear; my argument has nothing to do with the ability to punch-in/punch-out, it is clearly not practical to include this feature on a portable stand-alone recorder…my argument concerns only the overdub feature, nothing else.

You still haven’t listed one credible or specific argument why this feature would affect the work of a film recordist…It is not a problem on DAWs and was never a problem on multi-track machines regardless what they were used for. As you yourself points out many of these recorders already have a lot of stuff going on, that don’t seem to prevent users from making recordings, and in fact there is more chance of you hitting the stop button by mistake that getting tripped up by this feature.

A Porta-studio? are you kidding me, these things are little more than toys…have you ever seen one being used in a professional situation...?
Old 15th January 2017
  #76
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Just to be clear; my argument has nothing to do with the ability to punch-in/punch-out, it is clearly not practical to include this feature on a portable stand-alone recorder…my argument concerns only the overdub feature, nothing else.

You still haven’t listed one credible or specific argument why this feature would affect the work of a film recordist…It is not a problem on DAWs and was never a problem on multi-track machines regardless what they were used for. As you yourself points out many of these recorders already have a lot of stuff going on, that don’t seem to prevent users from making recordings, and in fact there is more chance of you hitting the stop button by mistake that getting tripped up by this feature.

A Porta-studio? are you kidding me, these things are little more than toys…have you ever seen one being used in a professional situation...?
Forgive my ignorance, I've had little film recordist experience other than boom-poling for a few documentaries, but wouldn't audio overdubbing or punching in/out on location play havoc with the vision timecoding ? Isn't that why separate, discrete 'takes' are called for, where audio and video are clearly synced ?

Since film recordists are hardly in the business of 'saving film' (or tape) on location nowadays.....if they ever were....what would be gained by this change to accepted practice, simply because "it's possible" ?
Old 15th January 2017
  #77
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Forgive my ignorance, I've had little film recordist experience other than boom-poling for a few documentaries, but wouldn't audio overdubbing or punching in/out on location play havoc with the vision timecoding ? Isn't that why separate, discrete 'takes' are called for, where audio and video are clearly synced ?

Since film recordists are hardly in the business of 'saving film' (or tape) on location nowadays.....if they ever were....what would be gained by this change to accepted practice, simply because "it's possible" ?
As clearly stated in the post you quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Just to be clear; my argument has nothing to do with the ability to punch-in/punch-out, it is clearly not practical to include this feature on a portable stand-alone recorder…my argument concerns only the overdub feature, nothing else.
As for the second part of your question; how do recordist who use Protools (which have this feature) manage? Why would an overdub affect the timecode thaws already laid down unless the timecode was changed?

This is not necessarily a feature for film recordists, it makes the recorder more useful to any recordists who need/want the feature.
Old 15th January 2017
  #78
Gear Maniac
 

Well, I am not willing to call parallel tracking overdubbing, despite the Wiki agreeing with you guys usage.

But looking at my Zoom F4, all that would be needed to do parallel tracking is a way to listen to the primary track and use the timecode from it to record a secondary track. The F4 does have an arm button for each of the 4 mono tracks.

However, I do not see why I cannot record separate tracks, and then mix them down in one of my DAW's.
Old 15th January 2017
  #79
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
Well, I am not willing to call parallel tracking overdubbing, despite the Wiki agreeing with you guys usage.
Interesting, but how do you intend to communicate effectively with others if you insist on using your own non-standard terms and definitions?

Quote:
But looking at my Zoom F4, all that would be needed to do parallel tracking is a way to listen to the primary track and use the timecode from it to record a secondary track. The F4 does have an arm button for each of the 4 mono tracks.

However, I do not see why I cannot record separate tracks, and then mix them down in one of my DAW's.
Several multi-channel recorders require that you select the track(s) you intend to record on so I don't understand the excitement and fear of adding this feature.
Timecode is not necessary to record overdubs in DAWs or other recording solutions that have the feature, why would it be necessary for a stand alone box?
Old 16th January 2017
  #80
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
This is not necessarily a feature for film recordists, it makes the recorder more useful to any recordists who need/want the feature.
That makes sense, I thought it was aimed principally at film recordists.
Old 16th January 2017
  #81
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Yes, it's clumsy, but better than not having it, no other machine offer this feature as far as I know which I find ridiculous.
The Tascam DR-05 offers over-dubbing in its Firmware Update V2.00.

"V2.00 additions
• An overdubbing function that allows the input and recorded signals to be mixed and recorded as a separate file has been added."
Old 16th January 2017
  #82
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by as1734 View Post
I would like to tell you all that I have decided to place an order on the Tascam dr-100 mk3
A
Good choice. I think you'll be happy with it. Lots of useful features and excellent preamps.
Old 19th January 2017
  #83
Here for the gear
 

Dear All

I have just recorded the first string quartet concert yesterday with my new DR100 mk3.

I have some questions and hope you can help me out.

- I want to import the wav files through Final Cut Pro to connect it with the video. The wav files are always 2gb. Sometimes it started a new file in the middle of a movement. How to connect them? Because if I just put them next to each other in FCP there is an audible noise(little crack).

- The Tascam has built in FX effects called A/D. Is there anyway to export files with the effects applied on the WAV file? It would make life easier. If for example the acoustics where to dry it makes the recording sound quite decent with the built in effects. I don't want to play around afterwards in Logic Pro to put some effects on it.

Antonio
Old 19th January 2017
  #84
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by as1734 View Post
Dear All

I have just recorded the first string quartet concert yesterday with my new DR100 mk3.

I have some questions and hope you can help me out.

- I want to import the wav files through Final Cut Pro to connect it with the video. The wav files are always 2gb. Sometimes it started a new file in the middle of a movement. How to connect them? Because if I just put them next to each other in FCP there is an audible noise(little crack).

- The Tascam has built in FX effects called A/D. Is there anyway to export files with the effects applied on the WAV file? It would make life easier. If for example the acoustics where to dry it makes the recording sound quite decent with the built in effects. I don't want to play around afterwards in Logic Pro to put some effects on it.

Antonio
Not familiar with final cut pro, but other video software I've used automatically adds really short fade ins and fade outs to each audio segment. The Tascam files *should* be seamless. Maybe if you zoom in you'll see the cross fades. If you eliminate them completely so that you have a butt splice with no fades, maybe it will help. No promises, just a guess, but it's worth checking if you haven't already.
Old 19th January 2017
  #85
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by as1734 View Post
Dear All

I have just recorded the first string quartet concert yesterday with my new DR100 mk3.

I have some questions and hope you can help me out.

- I want to import the wav files through Final Cut Pro to connect it with the video. The wav files are always 2gb. Sometimes it started a new file in the middle of a movement. How to connect them? Because if I just put them next to each other in FCP there is an audible noise(little crack).

- The Tascam has built in FX effects called A/D. Is there anyway to export files with the effects applied on the WAV file? It would make life easier. If for example the acoustics where to dry it makes the recording sound quite decent with the built in effects. I don't want to play around afterwards in Logic Pro to put some effects on it.

Antonio
Try connecting the wav files together in Audacity. There should be no audible click.
Old 19th January 2017
  #86
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmusic View Post
Try connecting the wav files together in Audacity. There should be no audible click.
Agreed, then put the merged file into your video editor. Or merge the audio file, and re-cut it where you wish, and drop the re-cut files into your video editor.
Old 19th January 2017
  #87
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
My recollections of the context of the word overdubbing:

In the really early days, overdubbing meant adding new parts by mixing existing tracks with new sources and recording on another track. This could be done with two machines, or on a single machine, you'd take signal from the record head of one track, ship it to the mixer to blend with the new source(s), and record it on an adjacent track. With a two track, you could then build up a mono track out of multiple parts, adding noise as well. With four tracks, you could bounce in stereo on a single machine. I had a 60's Sony 1/4" that had this function built in, called the..... Sound-On-Sound function. I believe in this mode the erase head (limited really to two and possibly four channel recorders) was disabled because of the potential effect on the nearby track. You are correct that when you start recording on analog tape, you're writing new magnetic patterns to the tape, not "merging" with preexisting patterns. Without an erase track, there may still be remnants of the original signal, but you'd need forensics to spot them. I've never heard of what Graywolf described, so I'm assuming that I'm misinterpreting him.

As the number of tracks grew, it became the practice to not bounce tracks and add signals, but to add signals to available "empty" tracks. If I was doing a song on an eight tracks, I'd have to get my drums right and probably add the FX like reverb at the time of tracking, because they'd get a pair of tracks. Keyboards the same, background vocals the same, with maybe the lead vocal, the bass, and the guitar getting their own track. The more parts you had in the song on the few tracks you had on tape, the more planning you had to do, the more time you had to spend getting the sounds RIGHT in tracking, because by mixdown track you were usually blending just a few stereo groups plus your lead vocals and all your FX. I felt privileged when I got to work on a 24 channel session - so MANY tracks! (ha, when I see the DAW project files of a modern record, with hundreds of parts per song, I'm still sorta shocked).

Anyway, it's been interesting to see what "overdubbing" means to different people

And, I prefer, whenever possible, to have well-rehearsed players playing at the same time, mixing live-to-finished product. Or, as an alternative, recording live-to-multitrack, with tweaking of the sound, but not the performances, in mixdown. I've always felt that the intangible vibe/groove/spirit you get when everyone is playing together is "better" than the "perfection" you get when each player comes in and overdubs their parts, punching and comping their way to a flawless track. That's one of the reasons I like to record jazz/classical "studio" and live performances of all types. I also found that in the time it takes you to build a really good set of cuemixes for the performers and a monitor mix for the control room, you were 90+% of the way to a final mix anyway. The "self-mixing" cue systems may have changed that though - they didn't exist when I started my break and I haven't yet worked with one.

Apologies for the long post, especially since the whole overdubbing thing is already an offshoot from the original topic.
Is seems that some people are overdoubting your interpretation...
Old 23rd January 2017
  #88
Lives for gear
 
DirkP's Avatar
 

Lewitt DGT-650 (500,-) and your iPhone! Better results as with any of the small budget recorders from Zoom, Tascam etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XkoSk8LuuU
Old 23rd January 2017
  #89
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkP View Post
Lewitt DGT-650 (500,-) and your iPhone! Better results as with any of the small budget recorders from Zoom, Tascam etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XkoSk8LuuU
Unfortunately other than iOS no 'nix flavors like Linux or Android.
Old 23rd January 2017
  #90
Lives for gear
 
DirkP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum View Post
Unfortunately other than iOS no 'nix flavors like Linux or Android.
It comes with a USB and a lightning port cable as well as with Windows drivers. It doesn't need the iOS app to work. I use it mostly with the camera app on my iPhone and it is simply recognized as a USB device / Mic. You can do all the settings (low-pass filter, monitoring level, record level, the mode of the mic on the mic itself). So maybe?
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