Topic: Tascam CF Recorder Announced.

[d5]

ugly?  fugly!

I think it's beautiful

[d5]

How was the stock preamp on the DA-P1 ? I assume that the HD-P2 will be similar.

[Daryan]

I bet you are correct, in that the pre will be very similar to stock p1 units, and I would summarize that performance as marginal at best.  It should be a prime candidate for modding however.

D----

[BayTaynt3d]

Anyone see anything about how it handles the 2GB file size issue?

It was my understanding that .bwf did not have the 2GB file limit issue. I believe it's good up to 4GB.

My understanding is that the 2 gig limit has nothing to do with the file format at all (be it wav, bwf, or whatever). That limit has to do with the FAT filesystem itself. FAT = 2 gig issue, NTFS = no issue. So, considering the spec sheet says FAT, they'll have to deal with the 2 gig limit one way or another (or not).

[wbrisette]

My understanding is that the 2 gig limit has nothing to do with the file format at all (be it wav, bwf, or whatever). That limit has to do with the FAT filesystem itself. FAT = 2 gig issue, NTFS = no issue. So, considering the spec sheet says FAT, they'll have to deal with the 2 gig limit one way or another (or not).

This is from another board (Peak/Bias) where this question was asked... You can substitute WAV for AIFF since they both share the same RIFF heritage. The BWAV format is not limited to 2 GB, however files larger than 2 GB have very limited use since most applications can't handle them properly.

Wayne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Most file formats use internal 'fields' to store information about the file. For example how long the file is, where the markers are located or where the regions begin or end. For some file formats these fields are 32 bits in length (meaning 32 binary digits) this equates to an absolute maximum value of 4GB. So the field can't store a value larger than 4GB, which means the file can be no longer than 4GB, you can't have a marker beyond 4GB or a region etc. For some formats this length is 31 bits (the 32nd bit is used to indicate a positive or negative number) which in turn equates to 2GB.

Changing the size of these fields to 64bits would allow them to store enormous numbers and hence have enormous files - however simply making the change 'unilaterally' would make it such that your 'new AIFF' file couldn't be read by an app supporting the 'old AIFF' standard. Worse if you made the change without identifying the 'new AIFF' differently (i.e. a new suffix or new filetype etc) applications wouldn't be able to tell old from new. What's needed is a new file format .

[wboswell]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would be shocked if Tascam would be so shortsighted as to not include an autosplit function like m-audio.  The two companies are on differest sides of the professional audio spectrum imo.  I also expect Tascam to deliver a little quicker than SD or m-audio also.  It very well may be buggy on its first gen firmware, but if you think about how they launched the dsd recorder, this thing should follow suit and come on the heels of the first ads.

This may be the most promising unit from a pricepoint yet...  If rumors are correct and the$1250 price holds, we're talking the same thing as a P1, which I had no problem using as a transport only.  Granted you've got to dump some cash on CF media, but considering the multiple thousands of dollars I spent on DAT media, a few CF cards are cheap and will be getting cheaper.

[Bravin Neff]

Wavelab absolutely recognizes broadcast wave files.  There seems to be this misunderstanding that .bwf are idiosyncratic or proprietary and .wav files are not.  In fact it is the other way around: .wav files are proprietary to Microsoft whereas broadcast wav files are an inter-company, inter-nationally recognized standard file format.  Obviously Microsoft is big enough and widespread enough to make it SEEM like .wav files are the standard (and every application obviously recognizes them), but it only seems that way. 

Broadcast wave files have the advantage of having timestamping built into the file, so you can reassemble multitrack recordings with nothing other than the files themselves, unlike .wav (or other) files that need edl's (edit decision lists) in addition to the files.

High-definition Recording, To Go
The HD-P2 records in stereo from 44.1kHz to 192kHz, at 16- or 24-bit, to affordable Compact Flash media. Not only is Compact Flash absolutely silent, so no transport noise will show up on your recording, but the recorded audio is written directly as Broadcast WAVE files for immediate use in digital audio workstations. The unit even includes a FireWire jack for the fastest possible transfer of files to your PC or Mac computer.

so this will only record to .bwf files?  is that a problem?

nope.  .bwf files are just .wav files with time code within the data. you can use them just like you would with normal .wav files.

do the typical audio programs (wavelab, etc) recognize .bwf files?  i believe audition does, but i don't know if wavelab does.

[wbrisette]

Wavelab absolutely recognizes broadcast wave files.  There seems to be this misunderstanding that .bwf are idiosyncratic or proprietary and .wav files are not.  In fact it is the other way around: .wav files are proprietary to Microsoft whereas broadcast wav files are an inter-company, inter-nationally recognized standard file format.  Obviously Microsoft is big enough and widespread enough to make it SEEM like .wav files are the standard (and every application obviously recognizes them), but it only seems that way. 

ALL these formats: WAV, BWAV (BWF*), and AIFF all share the same lineage. They all come from the RIFF standard. Broadcast wave is NOTHING more than a standard wav file that the EBU has tacked on a 254 byte broadcast audio extention chuck onto. This chuck contains the metadata. By the way, for more clarity timecode is only stamped at the beginning of a file, then everything is relative to that point. timecode is not inserted throughout the file.


* The .bwf extension is unique in that Zaxcom being the first to market with a hard drive recorder (DEVA II) that recorded in this format had to come up with a file extension. Howy at Zaxcom decided on .bwf and it stuck. More interesting is that they no longer use .bwf, but simply .wav since that is what they really are.

Wayne

[muj]

http://media.harmony-central.com/ramgen/119AES/Tascam-HD-P2.rm

[sygdwm]

http://media.harmony-central.com/ramgen/119AES/Tascam-HD-P2.rm

very nice.

[noahbickart]

As a long time DA-P1 user, I can say that I am very exiced about this product!

I also think that the preamps on the P1 always got a bad rap. Yes, they brickwalled easily, however with the -20db pad and a pad engaged on the mics, I always thought that the P1's preamps were at least as good as any outboard preamp untill one got into the Sonosax, Aerco, Grace level of gear. It certainly sounded better to my ears than a MP2 or a beyer.

If the HD-P2 adds only modest changes to the pres, we may have a really good stand alone unit. Now, what to do witht he old P1?

-Noah

[Flarnet]

Wow. The non-linear market sure has exploded in the last 2 years. We now have the entire price/quality spectrum covered and hence something for everyone.

[d5]

ugly?  fugly!

I think it looks super sweet, I really like how the screen is tilted for easy viewing. A tad clunky, I'll admit.

Thank god for easy powering, etc.

I imagine it will have a $1000-$1500 price tag though. Still very affordable.

$1299 according  to the video, availabe before the end of the year

[d5]

i wonder how much empty space there is inside that box...

...for an Oade mod 

It has dedicated hardware switches should make for an easier mod. Marantz's use of software switches in the 660 is the reason you lose the built in mic's and line input with the ACM mod.

[phr]

This is a pretty big unit and the price isn't that much lower than an Edirol R4, which has four channels AND a hard drive.  The R4 only goes to 24/96 but does anyone really use 24/192?  Any thoughts on this unit vs the R4?

I think there's some serious gaps in the market for this stuff.  First of all they should use good preamps.  It looks like you need an SD machine or that.  Second, I don't see why these machines are so power hungry and huge.  They need a pre/a-d which doesn't need THAT much power (see Core Sound mic2496, Denecke ad20 etc) plus they have to munch the data a little to write to CF.  Third, none of these things mention FLAC support, which is just nuts considering that FLAC is license-free and CF memory is still very expensive.  (FLAC is less important for a HD recorder).

It seems to me that they could make a PMD660 sized unit with good preamps, 24/48 (I don't even care about 24/96), and a hard drive, all for about the PMD660 price level.  That's what I want to buy.  It's obvious they could do it since even a couple years ago they were able to sell the NJB3 for $200 or so, and all it needs is some decent preamps and slightly different packaging, plus lose the lithium ion packs and use AA's (or a camcorder pack like SD uses) which should make the cost LOWER.  If they stay with CF instead of an HD, then include FLAC, and maybe a USB host port for an eternal hard drive.

So, I think they have a ways to go with this stuff.