---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: schoepsMS
Date: 20 Jan 2006 14:32:21 -0800
Subject: Re: How's the TASCAM HD-P2 working out?
To:
I was able to secure a demo unit to try.
I set up a very unscientific test by placing a schoeps MS mic set up in
my living room and re-recorded a "The Bad Plus" track several times
using combination of mic pres, recorder, bit and sample rates.
The two recorders I used were the tascam DA-P1 and HD-P2.
I used the stock pres as well as my Sound Devices MP-2 pres.
The mic setup was always the schoeps.
@48kHz / 16 bit / each using recorders stock pres:
The HD-P2 stock pres are only marginally better in capturing a more
open tone than the DAP1. However, they are significantly quieter -
almost no electronic noise.
@48kHz / 16 bit / each using sound devices MP-2 Pres
The HD-P2 again was only marginally better than the DAT (mostly) but
compared to the stock pres each recording unit had a clearer defined
focus the instruments but the overall stereo field was wide. I actually
think the DAP1 has a better stereo field.
@48kHz/ 24 bit / stock pres of HD-P2
The jump to 24bit greatly improved the recorder. It "breathed" more and
sounded richer in detail.
@ 48 kHz / 24 bit / Sound Device Pres with HD-P2
As expected. the image was tighter and the frequency response didn't
lack. Better than the stock pres.
@96 kHz / 24 bit / stock pres of HD-P2
This was the clearly best quality when using the HD-P2 stock pres.
Again, more "breathing room" in the dynamics, but the recording sounded
more fluid at the higher sample rate. Also, the imaging was more
tightly defined than lower sample rates.
@96 kHz / 24 bit / using the Sound Devices Mic Pres
This sounded quite good. The image was the best and the frequency
response sounded complete without any spurious boost or cuts.
Overall...
When using the HD-P2 with its stock pres my recording lacked deep bass;
and what was there was muddy and boxy sounding. Compared to the DAP-1,
the HD-P2 had much quieter pres and a smooth top end. (The DAP1 lacks
top anyway)
The imaging was imprecise and lacked focus and width. It also had a
strange "waving" feel like there was some phasing issues. This didn't
occur with the Sound-Devices MicPres, so deductilvely it seems to be
the HD-P2 mic pres, and not the converter. But who really knows. Maybe
a bad unit. Like I said, it was unscientific.
For my purposes (nature recordings), If I were to buy a HD-P2 I'd want
to use different mic pres and record at 24bit / 96kHz. At those higher
rates, I'd chew through memory cards quickly. The Sound Devices 722,
with it's built in hard drive, suddenly seems a great value.
Physically the unit is nearly the same weight and dimensions of the
DAP-1. It has a very solid feel, much more so than the Fostex FR-2
Unit. This unit can take some bumps. The control wheel is somewhat
inconveniently located when placed in a portabrace bag; at least until
protabrace comes out with a specific bag. It was very easy to
manipulate the menus and you could always go into record.
I wouldn't completely shy away from the unit. I't just not my first
choice due to sound and other form factors. Quite a bargain though if
you need to sync timecode and want to record at 48kHz /24 | 16 bit.
Utlimately I'm going to buy a 722 or possibly a 744t.
My deflated 2=A2.
schoepsMS
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|