Hi Grant-- Who is "SchoepsMS?" I read through it
and gained a sense that s/he is looking for a
recorder for best possible performance for nature
recording. S/He found quality differences between
the two Tascam pres/recorders and the MP-2 and
felt that neither of the recorders is up to
snuff. Its hard for me to identify the qualities
being described. "Openness," I have gathered from
reading tapers comments from time to time, can
refer to spatial rendering abilities. Its
possible, I suppose, to use music played in a
living room to evaluate some performance
differences relative to nature recording. Is the
ability to render the spatiality of a living room
similar to that needed for large spaces, outside?
I don't know. Going on what I've read on this
list, we do seem to know that one can move a mic
rig around in a field with plant and geographic
relief around us and detect differences in the
way the "space" is being conveyed. Would
performance differences in the pres/recorders be
greater or less than these differences? I suspect
the differences in mic placement would be
greater. It might add (or detract) substance to
discussions about spatiality to able to compare
sound files from different recording systems made
in three different mic positions in such a
setting. Shall I put this on the Midwest Nature
Recordist Spring Campout list of things to
possibly explore? ;-) Rob D.
At 2:49 PM -0800 1/20/06, engaudio wrote:
>---------- 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
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|