Tascam HD-P2 for Live Concert Recording

D

drdobs

Active member
I own 2 Sony HDR-FX1 camera's and my buddy and I are beginning to shoot live Concerts in small venue's. We're trying to pick up a solid digital recorder so that we don't have to run a line from the mixing board in the audio booth all the way to one of the camera's each time we do a shoot.

Not having a lot of experience with these units, It appears as if the Tascam HD-P2 is the answer to our dreams. My assumption with this unit is that I can put batteries in it, take it back to the audio booth and have the audio guy plug it into his mixer and record the entire concert in full digital quality all back there while we shoot the video and then later compile the footage and sync both video and audio in post environment.

Before I drop $1000 on this unit, will this HD-P2 do the trick?

A few things about what we need...
- High quality recordering is very important to us.
- Each concert venue has different equipment, but they all appear to be pretty much the same in that they have a big mixing board with usually a bunch of line in's/line out's. So I can't tell you which specific equipment I'll be hooking it up to.

Any suggestions or help on this matter is greatly appreciated. The other unit I was looking at that is much cheaper is the Fostek MR-8 mkII for $250.00.
 
I'd say yes and no.

1st, the HD-P2 is OVERKILL for this application... if you just need line inputs, other cheaper units will do fine. But the Tascam should be fine.

However, as has been recently discussed somewhere, you may be counting too much on the sound guy. In brief, the sound guy's mix (if he's any good) won't be a great recording mix; his levels won't be recording levels (they'll be determined by their interaction with the funky house speaker system), and he may not know how to feed you a proper mix. He may not be inclined to take your unit, spend time figuring it out, plug it in, and properly run it for you. He certainly has other priorities (though if you pay him for his effort, it might help).

Anyway, forget "take it back to the audio booth and have the audio guy plug it"; think instead something like "talk to the sound guy a few days before the show so I can make sure to breing all the proper connectors; perhaps go to an earlier show to test everything and get an idea of house levels; arrive for the recording a few hours early to connect and test everything, and, hopefully having made a friend of the sound guy, see if he can play something back during the check." Pay the sound guy, or at least, after the show, bring him a copy of your final product, with his name credited. You shouldn't think of the sound guy as a gift from heaven that solves your audio problems - you get what you pay for and work for!
 
Hi I'm getting ready to by the tascam and I love what it can do. For what your doing there are two ways of working with the unit. It has time code in and blackburst in so if you need to sinc up your audio to the video frame to frame then you will have to run a cable from one of your cameras to the unit or you will have to sinc it up in post. With music it shouldn't be to hard in post but for dialoge its a must. Also you can record up 192k which with a 8 gig card gives you 1 hour in stereo mode. You can set it for 44.1 to 192kHz and 16bit or 24bit. Every time you double the kHz you cut your time in half.

With 16 bit at 48K you can get about 4 or 6 hours of recording. At 24bit 192kHz on an 8gig card it gives 2hours. From the posts that I've read it amazing at that level. I belive that you can get the sony to sinc up with some kind of time code but you need to check it out. It shouldn't be very hard to sink it up in an nle. 8 gig cards last week were $175 at Fry's.
It has fire wire so if you have two cards you can dump the card to a firewire laptop or you should be able to use one of the older Ipods to dump to with little work.

I found the best price at Guitar Center in downtown Seattle with Romie. I buy alot of stuff from him. Thousands a year so I get a pretty good price. For the tascam and a set of Rode nt-5 matched stereo pair in their own case out the door price including tax I was quoted $1300 for all. Good Luck and call me at 206-851-6534 if you have any questions.

http://www.tascam.com/Products/hdp2_rectimes.html
 
Last edited:
Thank you both for the comments..

If the HD-P2 is overkill, which product is the one that should work just great that costs less?

As far as counting on the sound guy, these are all great suggestions and I'll certainly consider and implement some of the ideas you are talking about.

Yes, I'm aware of the time code limitations of the device and frankly, I don't think I'll be using it much. I'm also aware of all the different recording levels and how much space you can fit onto the various sized CF cards. On Tascam's website it shows all this data in an easy to read table. That's not really my problem or question...

What I need to know is will the HD-P2 do what I need it do, and if it's Overkill as suggested above, what's a better, more price effective unit? I was looking at this Fostex MR-8 MKII.

The only downside I see in this unit is that it only records 44.1/16-bit. No compression which is good, but I'd rather hoped I'd find a device capable of a little better.
 
Well, timecode capabilities, for example, add a lot to the price of any device. I think you'll do fine with devices on the level of the M-Audio Microtrack 24/96 or the small Edirol CF recorders (R-09, etc.). I haven't surveyed the field lately (e.g., this week), but you don't really need mic preamps or the built-in mics, so I don't know if there's something that trades those off for price or features... but if you're basically recording stereo line-level, many of the little devicwes like I've mentioned will give you 24/48 or higher bitrates.
 
drdobs,

If the concerts are rock or some other loud genre, you will be VERY disappointed with signal coming out of a front of house (FOH) mixer.

FOH mixing is all about sound reinforcement and balancing the house levels with the sound coming off the stage. Specifically, vocals are always the "instrument" that require the most boost in the FOH mix and typically lead guitar requires the least becuse it's pumping so much volume off the stage and so. THe result is a very lousy recoding mix.

If you want to minimze problems just stick 1 or 2 very good mics ( with high spl capability) near the stage and take those directly directly into the DVX.

Ken :)
 
Hmmm..

I must need to do some more research in this... We've recorded at two locations, both times hooking into the "soundboard" in the back. One time the audio came out fantastic, at the other place, it was just horrible. Not sure if it was the equipment, something I did, or perhaps the sound guy doesn't know what the heck he is doing.

In regards to the Edirol or M-Audio units, those little suckers run $400.00. For $250 I can get the Fostex MR-8 mkII. This unit seems do everything those do but costs $150 less and also offers you more input/output options and multi-track recording as well. No, you can't slide the thing in your pocket, but who cares. I'm dragging 3-4 boxes of hardware to each shoot anyway... What's the benefit of these things other than their size?

Jon
 
drdobs said:
I must need to do some more research in this... We've recorded at two locations, both times hooking into the "soundboard" in the back. One time the audio came out fantastic, at the other place, it was just horrible. Not sure if it was the equipment, something I did, or perhaps the sound guy doesn't know what the heck he is doing.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you should also listen! To what kenackr just said, to what I said earlier - house mixes (done right) are not good recording mixes. They're tuned for the house, its unique speaker setup, the performance space, and the sound coming off the stage. A good sound reinforcement engineer plays the house like an instrument, balancing all these factors which do not exist in any other playback environment. He'll be compensating for lots of things. So the "horrible" one may have come from the guy who knew what he was doing, while the "great" mix may have been lousy in the live performance.

I myself would tend to do as kenackr suggested - or, if possible, both!

In regards to the Edirol or M-Audio units, those little suckers run $400.00. For $250 I can get the Fostex MR-8 mkII. ...
Click to expand...

No problem with this. Just make sure you have a little flexibility with the input levels. I don't know if the MR-8 needs AC; and, as you yourself said, it only does 44.1/16... if you can live with these limitations, it should be fine.
 
I had mixed results also. Recording with microphones can be as tricky. Quality depends on many factors, including distance from speakers. When I was too close, results where bad. Same when I was too far. The best spot was somewhere in the middle.

M-Audio Microtrack is not the cheapest unit, but offers variety of sample rates which may be very useful. Standalone it can record non-stop for about 90 minutes (with no phantom power engaged). With power supply the only limit is the CF memory. If you decide to buy it, make sure the latest firmware is installed. Older versions had a few serious bugs.

Recording both with small digital recorder wired to the soundboard and good stereo mics on the camera is the best idea. If both work out nice, you will have great material for final mix.

I 100% agree with ullanta. Arrive early. Talk to the soundman and pay him for help. He still may not be willing to mix the sound especially for you, but at least will do necessary tests before the concert starts.
 
Bogdan & drdob,

I spent 15 years doing : studio recording, live sound, live sound recording, and audio for professional broadcast video. The things you may have missed in mic placement was the spl ability of the mic and knowing where the "sweet spots" are. You need to understand acoustics to figure out where the primary soundfield exists and for video you need to understand at what distance the audio will sound in sync with the video.

It is significantly easier and cleaner to capture a "stereo" mix with 2 good large diaphram mics placed in a primary field "sweet spot " than any other method. The keys are understanding what spl you are getting at what point and how that relates to your mics rated spl level. If you don't have the "experienced ears" to determine this by walking around then you should get an spl meter and / or spectrum analyzer to help "see" the sound. I always used the meters to back up my ears.

The down side to this stereo mix vs. live multitrack is that it goes to the can mistakes and all whereas in multitrack you can always bring someone back in to do a track over.

Multitracking in live situations really requires a good sound truck and double mic-ing each instrument, running your own snake, having a stage manager with a headcom system to the truck, some stage techs with walkie talkies or headcoms, a good sound engineer on the board, and lots of time to set up, run sound checks, etc.

Audio is a real sleeper in terms of technology for most people. The average guy thinks all mics are the same, doesn't understand the inverse square rule, and has no concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary soundfields - let alone what happens to sound fields inside closed venues.

drdobs, it's your right to spend any money you have burning a hole in your pocket in any way you choose. If it were me, I would buy the best large condenser mic or 2 I could afford and record direct to the DVX. If you wanted to, you could go for a decent mic pre (after getting the good mic(s))- like the M audio dmp3 and run that into a compressor or limiter and then into the DVX.

I realize that people aren't born with audio knowledge and that's OK. Take it from someone who did this for a living for 15 years that there is a whole lot more to it than sticking any old mic up in the air to catch the breeze going by.

What ever you do, have fun and it really helps if you play around with it before hand.

Ken :happy:
</IMG>
 
Ken -

Thank you for your comment. Best spot in the middle is the sweet spot you mentioned. I've never used such advanced techniques to locate it, but rather just relied on test, moving around in space.

While finding the best spot in acoustic space is very important, from my humble experience, it all changes very much when crowds of people arrive. In other words, exact position becomes less critical, sound waves disperse in much softer way.

I guess the room characteristics has the most influence. If it was designed incorrectly, recording live with mics will be tough task.
 
From his comment:
kenackr said:
The average guy... has no concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary soundfields - let alone what happens to sound fields inside closed venues.
Click to expand...
I think Ken was referring first to the "sweet spot" created by the loudspeaker system and sound directly off the stage... if you don't know that then trying to find room nodes or compensating for different reflective surfaces (ie. people instead of concrete floor) can leave you chasing your tail.

That being said, I think the room acoustics of a room are important. If you know or can learn what your doing, stereo mic'ing the room will give your the most accurate sound. The other option would be to get individual channel outs from the board, but even when this is done, say for a "live" CD, they still set up those mics.
 
Last edited:
Bogdan,

You're right in saying that people make a big difference. Each one of them acts not only as an absorber but also as a reflector. It's standard for the FOH engineer to have to fine tweek the EQ and channel gains as the crowd grows. The sound also varies with air density changes from temerature changes too.

Assuming that the venue has hard surfaces, the people basically take out the ground return waves from the ceiling and side and back walls as well as the ground primary field from the stage and FOH reinforcement speakers. Net result is that the highs fall off quickly and the mix sounds more bassy unless adjusted for. In essence, the people and their clothing act as an absorber for one of the six sides of the box. Boominess of the room also falls.

The sweet spot does appear to grow somewhat but that "extra" space (like the overlap in a Venn diagram) is filled with more secondary quick reflections that can cause a slight coloration and shade of fuzziness compared to the primary field. The largest sweet spot can be created with side and back fill but as a videographer you'll have no control over that.

Ken
 
Keep in mind that there's also a major tradeoff as a small-operation videographer between hitting the sweet spot just right and the risk of ending up close-micing the beer-sticky floor. An important aspect of any situation in which you're operating in a crowd (especially in a dark, crowded place) is safety concerns, for the audience as well as your equipment.
 
Yes, plus there is the added difficulty of knowing where the sweet spot is GOING to be prior to the concert. The groups I'm shooting are not typically at the venue 3 hours prior with all venue's staff in place for them to do a live rehersal so that I can walk around the room and try to find that perfect sounding spot and then try to stick a mic there. It's just not going to happen. These places on a Friday or Saturday night typically book 3-4 bands and these guys setup ALL their equipment in typically 10-15 minutes and begin playing all to be basically tossed off the stage when the next group is introduced 5 minutes after getting their equipment hooked up. This isn't to say the people I'm recording don't sound good or don't have talent, because nearly all of them really do. It's just not practical in these environments to go through all the process of pre-mic'ing a stage and testing, etc, etc.

I suppose so much of this is truthfully the opnion of the listener. Remember I did already record right into my Camera (It's an HDR-FX1, not a DVX actually) from one location and the sound coming right out of the guys sound board and directly into my camera (via beachtek XLR adapter) sounded really darn good. Was it "CD-Quality".... Maybe not, but honestly not far from it and to the average listener, perfectly fine and even the discerning listener probably "acceptable".

Also, I've talked with many of the musicians and many of them have said "OH yeah, after we play at venue X or venue Y, the sound guy usually hands us a CD of the concert and it always sounds good".

So that tells me most of these smaller venue's are already setup to do some basic recording and if the people playing the music are of the opinion that it sounds alright, then I'm probably going to find it okay too wouldn't I?

I've seen spending big $$ before on electronic/audio equipment really starts to deteriorite in return. I could just see spending $1500 on this audio recorder, $800 on this MIC, etc, etc.. and then some MAC geek walks in with his next generation IPOD and hooks it up to the mixer board and plays it back later and it sounds just fine.
 
drdobs said:
... Also, I've talked with many of the musicians and many of them have said "OH yeah, after we play at venue X or venue Y, the sound guy usually hands us a CD of the concert and it always sounds good".
...
I've seen spending big $$ before on electronic/audio equipment really starts to deteriorite in return. I could just see spending $1500 on this audio recorder, $800 on this MIC, etc, etc.. and then some MAC geek walks in with his next generation IPOD and hooks it up to the mixer board and plays it back later and it sounds just fine.
Click to expand...

That's great for them, but I wouldn't count on live mix from the soundboard unless sound guy is paid and willing to cooperate. Even then, final quality is not guaranteed. That's why I think recording both from the mixer and with good microphones is the best idea. And hey, some iPods are more expensive than audio recorders like M-Audio Microtrack for example :) I've been using mine for a year. It's been scratched and beaten around and I am very satisfied with its audio quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top