Trapperharm - Posted - 03/19/2011:  17:51:56

---

I'm just getting into recording my tunes and bought a tascom dr03 ...$59.00... I didn't want to spend too much just getting into it. My question is do I need a mixing program or just download it to the PC? Thanks

maryzcox - Posted - 03/20/2011:  10:52:19

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trapperharm

I'm just getting into recording my tunes and bought a tascom dr03 ...$59.00... I didn't want to spend too much just getting into it. My question is do I need a mixing program or just download it to the PC? Thanks

---

Hi--just got mine, but haven't taken it out of the box yet. It's just a little digital recorder--I think you just download it to your computer on a usb cable. If you record in MP3 instead of wav--it is easier to send your tracks by email to your pals.
Best wishes,
Mary Z. Cox
maryzcox.com

me!!! - Posted - 03/20/2011:  12:18:01

---

yes, wav sucks go mp3 if youre wantin to share it

Trapperharm - Posted - 03/20/2011:  14:49:24

---

Thanks, that's what I thought. I've played with it and it seems pretty easy to record and play back while using earbuds. I need to try downloading and sending through the external PC speakers.

me!!! - Posted - 03/20/2011:  14:56:02

---

yeah, go to walmart and get a set of cheap speakers for use with the recorder, i think you will like it better, maybe

njwater - Posted - 03/26/2011:  05:41:46

---

Just bumped into the tech forum here on bho.

I have an older olympus dr-02 that I've been using for years, but was looking at the new inexpensive tascam's (DR-03, 05, 08) so interested in folks impressions / reviews.

The olympus is ok but is short on memory, by today's cheap standards, and uses a non-standard cable, so if I lose that or it breaks, it's done for! I expect (from the looks of them anyway) the built in mics on the tascam's are a bit better than that of my old olympus as well.

Trapperharm - Posted - 03/28/2011:  16:50:49

---

OK, I've recorded our band practice and the vocals are weak, you can barely hear them. The bass booms so much that it distorts the recording, almost sound like reverb. I've tried different locations to no avail. I'm using the built in mics. Do you think an external mic would help? The jack for the external mic is the 1/8 inch kind. Any suggestions?

rudy - Posted - 03/28/2011:  17:41:06

---

Trapper,
ALL of the small digital recorders that I've seen are capable of accurately reproducing what's available to them at the spot they are located at.
The bottom line for these recorders is that you will find it necessary to do a little homework on setting input levels, recording format, etc. The recorder will reproduce what it is subjected to, so consider instrument volume, recorder location, and balance between instruments as a starting point. You'll also need to be aware of the characteristics of the individual instrument sounds, such as the omnidirectional diffusion of bass frequencies and the like.

Trewq36 - Posted - 03/29/2011:  07:07:00

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me!!!

yes, wav sucks go mp3 if youre wantin to share it

---

They only "suck" if you want to email or share. Other wise the quailty is crap compared to wav. Inorder to compress the size you lose quality.

My buddy and I did a test this weekend. Had a few tunes that we had in various formats/media, Record, CD, Wav, DAT. Casettes and reel to reel.
Played them all through the same system (amp/speakers) and MP3s where hands down the poorest sounding.


So mp3s are fine for passing around samples, but if you wanna do some Real recording stay away from them.

quote:

---

do I need a mixing program

---

Yes, but not so much for mixing, but because chances are that the start and end of your tracks will need to be trimed. Or faded in and out. You would also allow you to adjust the volume if needed.
But there are many freebies ot there.. Such as the Audacity sound editor. Keep it cheap and simple at first till you learn what you need.

Never Play the same Thing Once....yor

---

Edited by - Trewq36 on 03/29/2011 07:15:39

njwater - Posted - 03/29/2011:  07:19:00

---

"sucks" is in the ear of the beholder

really it's in the mode of listening... for example 99.999% of my listening is
on inferior equipment (cheap headphones/earbuds) or in an inferior environment
(auto or other noisy environment) such that it matters not wav or otherwise.

however, for raw storage, if you have a choice, clearly sourcing in mp3 is not the way to go....depending
on intended usage.

on the ds-2, since the mics themselves have such a skewed freq response, nothing
is all that great.... I think by default it records in WMA format which is a different lossy format.
but is perfectly fine for my purposes.

bournio - Posted - 03/29/2011:  09:25:52

---

I won't get into the mp3 argument. It's what my dissertation is on.

If you've got the chance, get a DR-03 and record in wav format. Then use audacity to convert to mp3. That's the best of both worlds. Especially with the cost of computer storage now.

rudy - Posted - 03/29/2011:  11:12:24

---

Trewq36,

quote:

---

My buddy and I did a test this weekend. Had a few tunes that we had in various formats/media, Record, CD, Wav, DAT. Casettes and reel to reel.
Played them all through the same system (amp/speakers) and MP3s where hands down the poorest sounding.

---

What bitrate were your mp3s coded at? I find that the Banjohangout recommended rate of 128kbs to be a close second to 44.1/16 bit CD audio and a good compromise between size and quality.

I'm finding it a bit difficult to believe that cassette audio trumped mp3s in a blind listening test for you.

Compression algorithms can be quite good, especially at higher bitrate settings. It's not unlike photos in jpg format which can be nearly as good to the average viewer as RAW photo format. I don't see too many people insiting on RAW photo format unless they are a professional photographer.

---

Edited by - rudy on 03/29/2011 11:18:16