Topic: TASCAM DR-680 portable 8-track Part 2

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

I've been tempted to sell off the 744 and pick up a 680 plus a 3rd v2 plus a V3.  mmmmm.  8 channels of Grace pres.     Plus I'd have about $500 in my pocket leftover.  Not to mention we could link them Kirk.  Damn....  The Pickathon stuff you did sure sounds swell.

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

I've been tempted to sell off the 744 and pick up a 680 plus a 3rd v2 plus a V3.  mmmmm.  8 channels of Grace pres.     Plus I'd have about $500 in my pocket leftover.  Not to mention we could link them Kirk.  Damn....  The Pickathon stuff you did sure sounds swell.

Thinking about that setup makes my back hurt. 

I'm pretty sure my ears would be pretty happy with it.

[Todd R]

On the Oade CM R44 vs the 680:

I owned an Oade R44 for awhile and sold it to get the 680.  Both are great pieces of gear, but I do find they sound noticeably different.  Before I got the 680 when I still had my R44, I did a comp with Chuck and his new 680.

We ran mics (Milabs? Gefell m210s? not remembering now) into my EAA PSP2 preamp.  Then PSP2 XLR outs to my Oade R44 and PSP2 1/8" mini out to Chuck's 680 (using an 1/8" > RCA cable, some RCA>XLR adapters, and XLR cables).  I doubt the difference in cabling had too much of an effect, and supposedly the XLR and 1/8" outs on the PSP2 share the same signal path.

The Oade R44 recording was definitely tilted towards the warm/smooth/musical side.  It sounded very nice, but did not have a huge amount of detail and attack.  The 680 recording was much more detailed with more attack, and less warm. On the bright-to-dark scale, the Oade R44 leaned towards the dark side and the 680 leaned towards the bright side (not said in a positive or negative way, meaning I'm not saying too bright in a bad way or too dark in a bad way, just trying to give perspective on one sound vs the other). To my ears the 680 sounds more like a Lunatec V3, and the Oade R44 perhaps more like the apogee sound.

About the same time, Chuck did a comp of AKGs>V3(digi)>680 and AKGs>680 straight in (can't remember the details on his comp -- I think it was two different sets of AKG 460's).  The V3 sounds nicer to my ears than the 680 straight, but they have a similar sound.  I also listened quite a bit to the 680 vs Oade R44 comp. The Oade sounded great, but I like the type of sound the 680 has better.  I also listened quite a bit to the 680 worried that the detail/brightness might be too much and fatiguing over long listening spans.  To my ears, it is closer to that edge, but doesn't go too far to be too bright or fatiguing. 

I do think that people who like that more classic warm Oade sound may not want the 680.  Likewise, people who find a brighter, more detailed sound objectionable may not like the 680.  But people who like the V3-type sound will probably favor the 680.

My friend Scott picked up a 680 and got it modded by Busman.  One of these days we'll put together a good comp of the Busman 680 vs the stock 680.

[justink]

On the Oade CM R44 vs the 680:

I owned an Oade R44 for awhile and sold it to get the 680.  Both are great pieces of gear, but I do find they sound noticeably different.  Before I got the 680 when I still had my R44, I did a comp with Chuck and his new 680.

We ran mics (Milabs? Gefell m210s? not remembering now) into my EAA PSP2 preamp.  Then PSP2 XLR outs to my Oade R44 and PSP2 1/8" mini out to Chuck's 680 (using an 1/8" > RCA cable, some RCA>XLR adapters, and XLR cables).  I doubt the difference in cabling had too much of an effect, and supposedly the XLR and 1/8" outs on the PSP2 share the same signal path.

The Oade R44 recording was definitely tilted towards the warm/smooth/musical side.  It sounded very nice, but did not have a huge amount of detail and attack.  The 680 recording was much more detailed with more attack, and less warm. On the bright-to-dark scale, the Oade R44 leaned towards the dark side and the 680 leaned towards the bright side (not said in a positive or negative way, meaning I'm not saying too bright in a bad way or too dark in a bad way, just trying to give perspective on one sound vs the other). To my ears the 680 sounds more like a Lunatec V3, and the Oade R44 perhaps more like the apogee sound.

About the same time, Chuck did a comp of AKGs>V3(digi)>680 and AKGs>680 straight in (can't remember the details on his comp -- I think it was two different sets of AKG 460's).  The V3 sounds nicer to my ears than the 680 straight, but they have a similar sound.  I also listened quite a bit to the 680 vs Oade R44 comp. The Oade sounded great, but I like the type of sound the 680 has better.  I also listened quite a bit to the 680 worried that the detail/brightness might be too much and fatiguing over long listening spans.  To my ears, it is closer to that edge, but doesn't go too far to be too bright or fatiguing. 

I do think that people who like that more classic warm Oade sound may not want the 680.  Likewise, people who find a brighter, more detailed sound objectionable may not like the 680.  But people who like the V3-type sound will probably favor the 680.

My friend Scott picked up a 680 and got it modded by Busman.  One of these days we'll put together a good comp of the Busman 680 vs the stock 680.

good review.  can you elaborate on the busman mod?  i wasn't aware that anyone had put together a mod for the 680 yet.

[kirk97132]

Mark...Thanks for the Kudo's on the pickathon stuff.  Glad to hear you liked it.  There is some stuff that is stellar.  I'm home for a bit now and will get the rest to ya soon.  It was an interesting experience to say the least.  In reality I ended up being the stage manager in there, and an eight track setup that changed every 45 minutes sure makes ya work for the recordings.  the Artists themselves deserve a ton of credit for trying to make it work too.   And HELL YEAH get a 680 and then we'll talk Josh into a 680 and with Chris running one...almost all of PDX will be running them, we could link them all together and pull 28 tracks if we wanted

As for the Busman mod...at Pickathon Chris and I talked about our respective 680's.  And Chris said that stock the 680 is a good sounding unit.  A point we both agreed on.  I'm sure the mod addresses specific things...IE: warm or transparent, Loud or soft input signals.  But we both thought it is a great deck for a great price right out of the box.  For me, I'm like mark and pack outboard preamps.  I like being able to change and not be locked into a "certian" sound.  I sold my V2 & UA-5 to fund the new Sound Devices USBPre-2.  So I'll have the Apogee, and an MP-2 plus the USBPre-2 whenit comes in.  Figuring that two tracks would most likely be SBD feeds I don't see a need for 4 preamps, and if I need to I can use the stock pre's. 

[hummat]

Kirk - Speaking of multi-680 setups. . . I'll have mine with me for the JMOS NYE run!

-jay

[kirk97132]

Yeah, wonder what the stance will be on that since they will most likely record it for sale.

[TomBoisseau]

Can someone explain to me why this doesn't work?

I purchased this cheap AD converter, a StarTeck.com / ConvergeAV model AA2SPDIF (see link below).  The manual says it has a 48K sample rate, but the DR680 only recognises it when I set the the Tascam's menu for 44.1K.  Why would that be?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Tom

http://us.startech.com/product/AA2SPDIF-Stereo-RCA-Left-Right-Analog-to-Digital-SPDIF-Toslink-Audio-Converter

This is really weird!  I just tried ANOTHER “cheap” consumer A to D adapter much like the other one I mentioned above.  It’s a line level RCA in to SPDIF out.  It didn’t work either!  Well… sort of. 

Like the first one, this unit supposedly outputs 48k, however the DR-680 comes up with a “DIN UNLOCK” error.  It’s only when I set the 680 to 44.1 that the interface seems to work.  Again, when I check it with my Whirlwind AESQbox, it says the interface IS outputting 48k, but the 680 says no.

What is the name of that guy at Tascam who’s an expert on the DR680, and how do I contact him?  I’m getting tired of spending money for interfaces that don’t work.  Maybe he has some insights…  or maybe someone here?

Any ideas?  Anyone else tried the SPDIF with 48K?

Tom

[kirk97132]

I run my deck at 24/48 all the time.  I use the rca input.  I have run both SPDIF and AES input.  There have been zero problems.  I have used a variety of devices (Edirol, Apogee, Tascam) and they all gave me a lock at the correct rates.  One thing you could try is either having the converter powered up BEFORE you power the 680 OR the opposite  have the 680 powered up BEFORE you power up the converter.  I think your main problem is covered by your own description of the units you are trying....."I purchased this cheap AD converter"...... Maybe by the term "supports 48z" they mean it will convert a toslink signal to spdif even if it's at 48Hz?  I dunno, but the 680 is not seeing a 48 signal, regardless of what the manual says those units are putting out.  You'd do better with one of the UA-5's in the YS, but if I were you I'd stay away from the cheaper low end converters.  Do you really want an $80 unit doing the digital conversions of signal for your $800 deck?

[TomBoisseau]

I run my deck at 24/48 all the time.  I use the rca input.  I have run both SPDIF and AES input.  There have been zero problems.  I have used a variety of devices (Edirol, Apogee, Tascam) and they all gave me a lock at the correct rates.  One thing you could try is either having the converter powered up BEFORE you power the 680 OR the opposite  have the 680 powered up BEFORE you power up the converter.  I think your main problem is covered by your own description of the units you are trying....."I purchased this cheap AD converter"...... Maybe by the term "supports 48z" they mean it will convert a toslink signal to spdif even if it's at 48Hz?  I dunno, but the 680 is not seeing a 48 signal, regardless of what the manual says those units are putting out.  You'd do better with one of the UA-5's in the YS, but if I were you I'd stay away from the cheaper low end converters.  Do you really want an $80 unit doing the digital conversions of signal for your $800 deck?

Kirkd,

I appreciate your response and I see your point.   However, my purpose for using a “cheap” AD converter was so I could put a timecode signal on channel 8, therefore I really don’t care about the audio quality, just so long as it plays back and is still readable.

What doesn’t make sense to me is that my Whirlwind AESQbox tester clearly identifies the converter as putting out 48k.  Further testing on my Yamaha LS9 digital console seems to also indicate that the converter is in fact putting out 48k.  So, yes, this is a “low quality” device, but it seems that there might also be some peculiarity with the DR680 causing this incompatibility.

Tom

[kirk97132]

 "However, my purpose for using a “cheap” AD converter was so I could put a timecode signal on channel 8, therefore I really don’t care about the audio quality, just so long as it plays back and is still readable."

Not really sure I understand what you are doing?  Are you putting an audio signal on channels 7&8 or are you trying to input a some type of timecode?  If it is the latter then maybe that is the problem?  And I assume it is just a typo but by using the spdif input you are sending signal on both 7 & 8, not just 8.  Sending a clocking type signal into that converter might not work?  If in fact you are trying to get it accept another time code have you set it to be a slave deck?  I'm not sure of the menu setting without looking but I know it has to be changed IE: if you are using two 680's and want one to accept the other's signal.  And at that point you lose the ability to use channels 7 & 8 for audio.  If you are trying to sync it with other decks why not just use the 680 as the master clock and send that spdif/AES signal downstream and sync the deck to it?  Which leads us back to I'm not really sure I understand what you are doing?

[oleg]

"However, my purpose for using a “cheap” AD converter was so I could put a timecode signal on channel 8, therefore I really don’t care about the audio quality, just so long as it plays back and is still readable."

Not really sure I understand what you are doing? 

he is doing that to avoid bleed of TC to other tracks  if he was going analog input - now you understand  :-)?

check  with another recorder to see if it happens
it might be   the converter doesn't give you stable 48

[kirk97132]

Tom,
I think the main problem you are having.....if this is actually a timecode input attempt....is that your logic says "Timecode can be input on an analog track to be later pulled out and used, hence I'll use tracks 7&8 for my time code input and all I have to do is convert it to a spdif input"  Or, at least that is what I think you are trying to do.  I believe that part of the problem is that the spdif signal which is designed to carry audio with the related timing signal embeded into that signal.  So the way I read it is that the TOS link/Spdif converter is only able to handle an audio signal and then it embeds(or adds) the associated timing signal (Spdif) .  I think you are asking the unit to do a digital encoding of a signal that is not audio in nature so at that point it fails,  and then there is no digital lock into the 680.  Another, maybe even better use of channels, might be to send the timecode signal in to say channels 6, which from what I understand can be done.  Then use some other preamp/converter to use channels 7&8 for mic and/or line level inputs.  This would allow you to get 7 channels of audio and still have one channel of time code.  The one other thing I didn't ask was are you sure you deck is not set for a digital input on channels 5&6 instead of 7&8, even though I don't think it would solve your problem.   Or use the 680 as your master clock source, you can set the deck to output AES which should be stable enough for video which is what I am also assuming that you main use is.  The Deck automatically senses SPDIF or AES input without any menu changes on your part.

[TomBoisseau]

"However, my purpose for using a “cheap” AD converter was so I could put a timecode signal on channel 8, therefore I really don’t care about the audio quality, just so long as it plays back and is still readable."

Not really sure I understand what you are doing? 

he is doing that to avoid bleed of TC to other tracks  if he was going analog input - now you understand  :-)?

check  with another recorder to see if it happens
it might be   the converter doesn't give you stable 48

Ah yes!  Oleg, YOU understand. 

I am trying to record timecode (such as is used in film and video production) on one of the digital audio channels.

Kirkd,

I should mention that all my initial tests have been done with either NO analog input connected to the AD converter, or using a analog output from a CD player.  So, no, the timecode signal is not interfering with the SPDIF signal.  I haven’t gone that far yet.

Any other thoughts?  And who is that guy at Tascam?

Tom

[oleg]

kirk d - ltc tc is exactly as any other audio analog signals you use , has nothing to do with ability of the 680 to get 48 digitized signal .
no any analog input connected or not connected have something to do with that issue .
check if the recorder could axsept any 48khz at all if it does  from other source , if it does check the stability or check for differnce between the a to d worth to any other source .