[ballsdeep]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

i've used the HD-P2, nice field recorder for sure...in general, Tascam products are geared more toward the pro market, so the guts of it are gonna be better quality than Edirol which is probly what yer hearing

stepping up the pre's in whatever model is gonna give you even more clarity and depth

and I've never even used a "pre" before.

don't get me wrong, I can still pull great Edirol recordings, however, that deck is going to become the "playback" unit, and I'm seriously thinking about that $1000 Tascam model somewhere down the road...which brings me to the "mod" guys.

not to be a dumbass (even though I am), but can someone Cliff Notes the Oade/Bussman (or whatever that other guy is) reasoning in 2 simple ways:


1. why doesn't Tascam (or other mannies, for that matter) use parts that aren't subpar?

2. which is better between the two? (HA!, I'm sure there's loyalists on both sides)


I'm not really into "nature" (at least recording-wise), so that isn't much of a concern.



listening to the Crystal Method show from Sat night right now (yeah, they came to Fairbanks TWICE this year...they love rocking out in our 400 seat bar up here for some reason), and it's fucking AMAZING, what's cool is the May show was recorded with the Edirol (which also sounds amazing), it'll be fun to 'side by side' 'em and see if there's much difference.



so Aaron, you're saying it's more the guts and the ability of the guts to capture the depth/definition/richness of sound vs. the microphones used?