Tascam DR-100 MKiii Field Recorder Review

[Francis Vaughan]

The Sennheiser MK600 seems to beat the competition hands down but it makes the outfit heavier and more complex

DPA 4097? Getting it to work with the Olympus might be a bit fraught. They make adaptors for most wireless systems, and the Olympus might be compatible with one of those. Powering the mic is where you may have issues, especially with size. The Olympus can't provide phantom power.

 

[laurelkurt]

For anything remotely like that to happen I would need a great body massage, fantastic meal, and $1000 in my pocket. Even then, I may be reluctant!

YOU SLUT!

 

[Willem]

The DPA 4097 is some four times more expensive than the MK600. That MK600 can be used with or without phantom power and via rca or xlr.

 

[jerryfreak]

DPA 4097? Getting it to work with the Olympus might be a bit fraught. They make adaptors for most wireless systems, and the Olympus might be compatible with one of those. Powering the mic is where you may have issues, especially with size. The Olympus can't provide phantom power.

numerous cheap battery boxes/small preamps can power the DPA microdots, like coresound, soundprofessionals, church audio. they are pretty easy on power consumption, 5V@1mA

 

[LTig]

What would be the best program to analyze a pre-recorded file like amirm did here?

Just drop the file into REW.

 

[LTig]

The other thing we are pondering is an external microphone. The Sennheiser MK600 seems to beat the competition hands down but it makes the outfit heavier and more complex. But as with stereo systems where it is the speakers that are decisive for sound quality, here it may well be the microphone.

I own a Rode Stereo VideoMic Pro (~ € 220) and later inherited a Beyer Dynamic MCE 72. I compared them once and for my cloth ears they are pretty close in SQ, much better than the builtin mics of my small Panasonic GX7, the Nikon D800 and my Edirol R09 field recorder.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

The DPA 4097 is some four times more expensive than the MK600. That MK600 can be used with or without phantom power and via rca or xlr.

I didn't say it was cheap It is however both very good and very small. But it is a pro mic, and expects to live in a pro environment. The DR-100 this thread features does provide phantom power. The little Olympus packs a lot in a small package, but eventually something had to give. XLR inputs and phantom power. That extra flexibility in the MK600 is part of why you pay a price in size.

 

[Guermantes]

Or a calibration (correction) file...

This is an interesting idea, but not offered by manufacturers of these devices as far as I can see. It's a shame as, in photography, many good photo editors now include lens correction profiles. It would be nice to have correction profiles for recorders like this as, in my opinion, the on-board microphones are the weak link in their capabilities.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile DIY calibrating a unit like this. Use some flat on-axis response speakers and record a tone sweep to determine corrective EQ/convolution.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

numerous cheap battery boxes/small preamps can power the DPA microdots, like coresound, soundprofessionals, church audio. they are pretty easy on power consumption, 5V@1mA

Yeah, it isn't a difficult one, but the use case seems to be that it should all up be significantly smaller than the MK600, and an external power box is eating into that difference, and adding an additional box. No free lunch.

This is an interesting idea, but not offered by manufacturers of these devices as far as I can see. It's a shame as, in photography, many good photo editors now include lens correction profiles. It would be nice to have correction profiles for recorders like this as, in my opinion, the on-board microphones are the weak link in their capabilities.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile DIY calibrating a unit like this. Use some flat on-axis response speakers and record a tone sweep to determine corrective EQ/convolution.

Lens correction has the advantage that you have a clear and complete target to correct to. A microphone is dire in comparison. The problem is that off axis response can vary wildly. A pixel has no off axis response. What you see is what you get. correction is in the first part geometric in nature, moving the field about. Chromatic aberration is harder, and in general is not exactly reversible, but things can be improved. A microphone is like a single pixel.
With a mic your sound depends as strongly on the off axis vagaries as the direct on axis. Turning the mic axis is often a useful tone control. Ambient sounds come from all directions and each angle has a different response. It is intrinsically impossible to correct this. If you had a single source and only direct sound, and if you knew the position of the source you could correct it. But add diffuse field, unknown positions and multiple sources and you are screwed. A pure omni can be corrected, but most people will be starting with some form of cardioid. For video probably a hypercardioid.
Audio is just plain hard to manage.

 

[Ron Texas]

Field recorders, way cool. It's a whole new world to look into. Thank you @amirm

 

[Count Arthur]

Is that pressing anyone else's buttons?

 

[Guermantes]

Lens correction has the advantage that you have a clear and complete target to correct to. A microphone is dire in comparison. The problem is that off axis response can vary wildly. A pixel has no off axis response. What you see is what you get. correction is in the first part geometric in nature, moving the field about. Chromatic aberration is harder, and in general is not exactly reversible, but things can be improved. A microphone is like a single pixel.
With a mic your sound depends as strongly on the off axis vagaries as the direct on axis. Turning the mic axis is often a useful tone control. Ambient sounds come from all directions and each angle has a different response. It is intrinsically impossible to correct this. If you had a single source and only direct sound, and if you knew the position of the source you could correct it. But add diffuse field, unknown positions and multiple sources and you are screwed. A pure omni can be corrected, but most people will be starting with some form of cardioid. For video probably a hypercardioid.
Audio is just plain hard to manage.

Yes, I agree that "correcting" a microphone involves more complexity than static images, however de-/re-convolving microphone signals is offered by quite a few developers (as I'm sure you're aware) such as Antelope Audio, Antares, iZotope, etc. Some of these involve using the signal from a specific microphone that has a known response as the source which is adapted to the target microphone response. I don't know how effective they are at modelling the off-axis response of the targets, perhaps they are only "correct" for one particular axis (like a stopped clock is right twice a day). Also there is little that can be done about the distortion and self-noise of the source mic, I suppose.

Recently I used a Sony PCM-D50 recorder for a voice over pick-up because my usual AKG C414 was not available. The PCM-D50 recording had to be edited in with earlier recordings done with the AKG. After passing it through iZotope EQ Match, I was surprised at how close they sounded -- the casual listener probably wouldn't have picked it. But a voice-over in a controlled acoustic environment is rather different to the complex soundfield of a location recording or musical performance . . .

 

[Blumlein 88]

The directionality of microphones is largely down to the diaphragm size. There can be small differences in the structure around the diaphragm, and there can be capsule resonances. If you use a 1 inch size mic to model another 1 inch mic on axis then you probably are going to get very close. Especially if you use convolving/de-convolving rather that straight EQ. But if you use a half inch mic for LDC's then it isn't going to actually work.

Here is the pattern and FR for a .75 inch KSM32

Here is a 1 i nch KSM27 which has a very different FR and poor off axis response at higher frequencies.

Here is a 1 inch Lewitt LCT540 which looks very similar in polar pattern and not terribly different in FR to the KSM 27 which is also 1 inch.

 

[sarumbear]

I wish you could test the Microphone pre-amplifier quality. Afterall the only reason a portable recorder like this exists is to record in the field -- through a microphone...

 

[Guermantes]

The directionality of microphones is largely down to the diaphragm size. There can be small differences in the structure around the diaphragm, and there can be capsule resonances. If you use a 1 inch size mic to model another 1 inch mic on axis then you probably are going to get very close. Especially if you use convolving/de-convolving rather that straight EQ. But if you use a half inch mic for LDC's then it isn't going to actually work.

Here is the pattern and FR for a .75 inch KSM32
View attachment 80799

Here is a 1 i nch KSM27 which has a very different FR and poor off axis response at higher frequencies.

View attachment 80801

Here is a 1 inch Lewitt LCT540 which looks very similar in polar pattern and not terribly different in FR to the KSM 27 which is also 1 inch.

View attachment 80802

Yes, this makes sense, thanks @Blumlein 88. But what if the target convolution model is an ideal (i.e. neutral) version of the source microphone? I'm not thinking about making the Tascam DR-100 microphones sound like a pair of U87s, just looking to improve what they are -- a pair of small diaphragm omnis (ok, ok, I really want them to sound like a pair of KM 183s ).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, this makes sense, thanks @Blumlein 88. But what if the target convolution model is an ideal (i.e. neutral) version of the source microphone? I'm not thinking about making the Tascam DR-100 microphones sound like a pair of U87s, just looking to improve what they are -- a pair of small diaphragm omnis (ok, ok, I really want them to sound like a pair of KM 183s ).

You can get clone products here.
https://beesneezproaudio.com/our-products/

I don't think they have the KM183, but do have a clone of the U87. $645 so not that cheap in itself.

Or $749 for a pair of Warm Audio KM84 clones.
https://warmaudio.com/wa-84/

Or $599 for a U87 clone.
https://warmaudio.com/wa87/

Never used such things. Quite a few say they get really, really close to the real thing. Might be better than faking it in DSP.

Townsend labs makes a dual diaphragm LCD which claims to do the processing to mimic directional characteristics of most of the famous LCD's. But that system is $1500 itself.

 

[Guermantes]

You can get clone products here.
https://beesneezproaudio.com/our-products/

I don't think they have the KM183, but do have a clone of the U87. $645 so not that cheap in itself.

Or $749 for a pair of Warm Audio KM84 clones.
https://warmaudio.com/wa-84/

Or $599 for a U87 clone.
https://warmaudio.com/wa87/

Never used such things. Quite a few say they get really, really close to the real thing. Might be better than faking it in DSP.

Townsend labs makes a dual diaphragm LCD which claims to do the processing to mimic directional characteristics of most of the famous LCD's. But that system is $1500 itself.

The Beesneez clones are well regarded and the pricing is good in Australia (they are just 200 km from me). They do make KM84 clones . . .

Sorry for the off topic diversion everyone!

 

[Newman]

Any comments from those experienced in field recorders as to what models they like or recommend? I’m sure there is more to them than just the aspect that Amir has tested.

 

[jerryfreak]

depends on your application (soft music, loud music, nature sounds, recording yourself) and whether you plan on using internal or external mics, hot balanced signals vs consumer line level vs mics that might need phantom or plug-in power

tons of good-sounding reliable units out there

 

[MRC01]

... While there is a micro-USB jack on this unit, it is only for charging and moving files back and forth. It does not allow streaming of audio which made my testing quite difficult....

This limitation is the only thing preventing me from replacing my old Zoom H4 with this Tascam. It's a strange feature gap, since Tascam's less expensive DR-40X supports the USB audio interface (but its mic preamps aren't as good as the DR-100). Because the DR-100 lacks this feature, I can't use it as a mic premp to feed into my PC.