I'd be interested to know if anyone here has been using the Tascam HD P2
recorder. If so, how you got on with it.

I have a specific interest in using it with a Linux box. e.g. Does the
'firewire' link work OK and present recordings as accessible for transfer?
Ditto for using its memory cards as storage devices that a Linux box can
read (and write?)

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to 192k/24bit,
play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or two. Want to use
something like this for various purposes.

If there is a cheaper/better alternative I'd also be interested.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:43:24 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has been using the Tascam HD P2
recorder. If so, how you got on with it.

I have a specific interest in using it with a Linux box. e.g. Does the
'firewire' link work OK and present recordings as accessible for transfer?
Ditto for using its memory cards as storage devices that a Linux box can
read (and write?)

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to 192k/24bit,
play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or two. Want to use
something like this for various purposes.

If there is a cheaper/better alternative I'd also be interested.

Slainte,

Jim

I'd pop this one onto rec.audio.pro if I were you, Jim.

d

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:43:24 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to 192k/24bit,
play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or two. Want to use
something like this for various purposes.

If there is a cheaper/better alternative I'd also be interested.

Jim,

My nephew has found his Edirol recorder very good. You might like to
take a look at the Edirol R-09HR as a cheaper alternative. (This uses
USB rather than firewire.)

Chris.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:43:24 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to
192k/24bit, play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or
two. Want to use something like this for various purposes.

If there is a cheaper/better alternative I'd also be interested.

Jim,

My nephew has found his Edirol recorder very good. You might like to
take a look at the Edirol R-09HR as a cheaper alternative. (This uses
USB rather than firewire.)

Thanks, I'll have a look. However the requirements I have a

1) Does all the commonly defined rates up to 192k, and at 24 or 16 bits

2) has line level analogue inputs and outputs with wide bandwidth and low
noise, etc.

3) had digital inputs and outputs

4) can easily have the recordings transferred to my Linux (and.or RO) boxes
for analysis purposes.

Would also be nice if I can use it to play test files so could be used as a
high precision arbitrary waveform generator.

The idea is that it will be a test instrument as much as a home recorder.
Although being able to make continuous recordings much longer than 80mins
would be good even at 44/16.

FWIW I prefer to use 'stand alone' devices like this and then transfer data
to/from a computer as a separate process.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf said...

The idea is that it will be a test instrument as much as a home recorder.
Although being able to make continuous recordings much longer than 80mins
would be good even at 44/16.

Have a look at the Alesis MasterLink hard disc recorder it does what
you want the only drawback is that to transfer to a computer would be
more complex than using CF cards, £100 quid cheaper too.

Details:
http://www.alesis.com/masterlink

Review and measurements:

http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/605/



--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

In article ,
UnsteadyKen
wrote:
Jim Lesurf said...

The idea is that it will be a test instrument as much as a home
recorder. Although being able to make continuous recordings much
longer than 80mins would be good even at 44/16.

Have a look at the Alesis MasterLink hard disc recorder it does what
you want the only drawback is that to transfer to a computer would be
more complex than using CF cards, £100 quid cheaper too.

Details: http://www.alesis.com/masterlink

Gives a blank page with NetSurf. May try FireFox later.

Review and measurements:

http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/605/

Only 96ks/sec, not 192ks/sec. Weighs over 13lbs. Mains powered only. So not
as convenient as the tascam. If I can transfer data to/from the tascam
easily as seems possible then that wins hands down over the above!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to
192k/24bit, play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or
two. Want to use something like this for various purposes.

I hope this doesn't come across as being sharp or whatever its not
intended.

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?


Hah! As the 'hologram' says in 'I Robot': 'now, that *is* the right
question'!! :-)

Personally, I can't really hear 'digital differences' much or anything above
a 256K MP3 even with valve amplification and singlr driver speakers, but
then that's just me! What has been interesting lately is to see is the
'digital denial' that has come from certain quarters here (not the
originator of this thread AFAIK) simply because 'digital audio' has moved
on - outside their own particular 16/44.1 comfort zones!

See my other thread - you can/might/probably will deny differences in
digital audio but a kid in short trousers can immediately see the
differences in 'digital video' providing the playback equipment is revealing
enough?

Maybe that's where 'digital 'audio' mostly gets by - most people are playing
it on sludgy kit or 'ear buds'...?? ;-)

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

44.1/48k 16-bit is fine for playback. Recording and processing at
higher bit rates or word lengths is sensible. It provides, for
example, extra headroom for live recordings. Information can all too
easily be lost, and once lost it can never be reliably recovered.
(That's entropy, man!)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you
signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he has
stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage, not to
learn about what he doesn't understand.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris
Isbell wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom
you signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human
hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he
has stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage,
not to learn about what he doesn't understand.

I was referring to the above statement being attributed to Keith, who
did not write the above question, I did.

Sorry, didn't notice that you were responding to your own question! Lost
track of the quote indents! :-)

I've now commented elsewhere wrt my reasons for wanting a recorder like the
Tascam. Its partly for convenience - being able to make long recordings,
etc. e.g. being able to make them from something like a DTTV receiver at
48k with no resampling to 44k. Partly for a range of test/ experiment/
investigation purposes.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html