On a side note considering the 6 tracks, how would this compare to the zoom h6(plus the extra 2xlr) or are we in a different "class" regarding the noise floor.What do you think? The h6 is definitely smaller though

I suggest to check H6 topic :-) It has various shortcomings.

The Tascam has very high quality sound, the only thing is it is not built like a tank, so get a case for it, and take it out if the case in a warm environment.

@DrDave

I concur with your assesment. Basically not worth it for the upgrade :( If I have some time I may conduct another test in a quite carpet covered room just to see if that makes a difference. I don't think it will but I will try it anyway. My conclusion is that for what this recorder is intended for there is no discernible difference in sound quality between the regular preamps and the Busman Audio preamps so it is not worth the extra coin for the upgrade :(

Oh well, I hope this test helpful for anyone else thinking about the upgrade...

Best regards

some compared this vs the Marantz PMD 661 in audio quality??

Yes, please - if someone could compare the Tascam DR 680 to the Marantz PMD 661 that would be great (as I'm using the Marantz and I'm very pleased with the quality, but beeing only a two track recorder sometimes sucks).

Thanks @Azo I used exactly that chart to make up my mind - but that was before the price drop. Now the Tascam looks really like the best choice, even on a budget.

@Psyco

I have no idea. Usually it is quite useless to spend your emotions. You can just buy it using Shipito intermediate, ask them to remove invoice and all original papers and write your own :-)

Tascam DR680 looks like good value. Can this record 8 stereo tracks (or only 8 mono track)? Also, can I plug in 3 XLR mics and record each mic to 2 separate levels, so I'd have 3 tracks at -12 and then an additional 3 tracks recorded at -30?

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Thanks.

@matt_gh2 Assuming you want a backup level at a lower gain, you can use a simple Y cable to connect one mic to two of the xlrs (or trs) inputs on the 680. You could then use a different gain structure on the backup channel, or add a limiter, or route the signal to the stereo pair using the internal mixer, or combination of all three. Plus you could, for example, create a submix, either digital or analog, and route this to a backup stereo recorder, a laptop, ipad, etc. The 680 can be configured to use all eight channels, or engage a submix from line 1-6 to lines 7-8, internally and externally, digital, analog and internal recording.

For example, you could split the signal (and this is a simple Y cable, although you could use other kinds) into two equal streams, and plug one into a high gain input, and the other into one that has the limiter on, and set 6dB lower. Then you would have a simple system for concerts that guarantees no overs. Assuming the limiter does not kick in, the recordings would be identical except that at 6dB lower gain, you would effectively be recording at 23 bits instead of 24 bits, which of course is inaudible for our purposes. You could also simple record everything 6-12 dB lower, which is what many ppl do, effectively recording at 22 bits. You recapture all the gain at mixdown if you are using more than two mics, or simply boost the gain, which is more or less lossless for 16 bit output, aac, MP3, etc.

I myself use the same Y cables, but feed for example two identical 24 track systems, so that if one fails, the other continues. You could do the same with two 680s, or use a 6+2 combo or a four+four combo on a single 680.

This is how expensive gigs are recorded, where it would be impossible to raise the money to reshoot or rerecord the scenes, or where for example the performers would be unavailable to redo a scene, event, film, concert, etc. It does not address the all too common problem of overloading the mic capsule, upstream of the gain structure, for which you would need two mics, one with a pad circuit between the capsule and the electronics.

However, if you have such a "once-in-a-lifetime" event, then it is interesting to consider redundancy at all the levels of the recording, including hanging two sets of identical microphones. The failure rate for Schoeps mics is close to zero (I have never had one in the set fail in thirty years, but it could happen, for sure), so one option is to split the mic cable, but not duplicate the mics (keeping one spare on the set), and this is one typical system.

At half the price (or less) than what I paid for the 680 when it was released, it is a no brainer. However, unlike the Fostex FR2 LE, it does not always keep recording if you yank the power cable out, so in my backup I split the main pair into the Fostex (with batteries as well as plugged in) instead of using the submix on the 680. Statistically, the likelihood that the power will fail, or the cord will be pulled, is higher than the failure rate for the other elements in the system.

However with two recorders, the 680 could fail--like in a power outage--but the Fostex would seamlessly switch over to battery backup and keep recording on the other end of the Y cable.

You are very welcome, what little I know I am happy to share. It's a handy machine, so don't think twice abaout buying it if you have the $$$. You will need XLR to TRS if you plan to use tracks 7 & 8 with XLR cables.

I have a DR680, it eats AA cells. So I investigated external battery power. I found much mention of failures with various supplies.

I've contacted Tascam and the party line is that there are no approved external battery supplies and that the input specification is 11.5V through 13.5V.