I know that you want to give good advice but you can't praise one machine over another when you have no idea what either of them can and cannot do.

I'm guessing that you don't swap files with a lot of other people. In my work, I send and receive with dozens. Many use an assortment of portable recorders that are never hooked up to a computer. This is big and more than enough to tell users to avoid the DP03 (and ancient Korg and Roland with the same specs).

Quote:
TASCAM: If you want to import audio into this unit that is of a different format, you must convert it to a 16-bit, 44.1-kHz mono/stereo WAV file

R8 (recorder/sampler): 44.1 / 48 kHz, 16 / 24-bit WAV format


Another advantage the R8 has is that it can be run on batteries if you want while the DP03 cannot.


Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
That the R8 is more versatile because it can be connected, ships with Cubase DAW software and is an audio interface and control surface are not pluses in a PC/DAW-less home recording studio. The R8's on board, internal editing is limited to divide and trim. Anything more advanced than that is totally dependent on transferring the audio files to a DAW.


That is incorrect:
Quote:
…When your multitrack recording is complete, you can use the R8's internal mixer, complete with real faders, equalization, panning, and over 140 built-in DSP effects—including amp models and mastering effects like multi-band compression—to create a stereo mix with studio-quality sound.


CREATE MUSIC ANY WAY YOU LIKE
The R8 is a pad sampler and rhythm machine too. Eight velocity-sensitive pads allow the triggering of up to 24 samples, drum sounds, or loops.

In addition, you can create your own custom samples and loops from recorded audio tracks. Quantization and time-stretching can be applied to ensure perfect synchronization. Three playback modes are available for each pad (Repeat, Gate, and 1Shot), and the onboard audio sequencer allows step entry when absolute precision is required.

Best of all, the R8's multitrack recorder is fully integrated with the pad sampler and rhythm machine, allowing a wide variety of production styles to be accommodated. However you choose to build your productions, you'll find the R8 to be the ultimate creative tool.


Yes, really, it can do all that.
R8 Manual


Although both can transfer files via USB, the TASCAM's app requires a PPC for Mac users — which Apple stopped shipping in 2006. The DP03 is a tired, old obsolete machine that should have been updated years ago.

DP03-SD owners manual


An advantage the R8 has is that it can be run on batteries if you want while the DP03 cannot.


Again, really, I don't have a problem with the TSSCAM other than I would never, ever recommend buying one new. For the same money, the R8 is superior whether you agree or not. That the reviewer doesn't know this makes it yet another, ignorant fanboy rave that can be safely ignored without harm. If the DP03 was a hundred bucks less expensive, I wouldn't be so hard.


My original objection to that video still stands and that's the crappy, mismatched mics.

Rated output (both) 150Ω

Ideal output, dynamic: for the TASCAM 600Ω or higher; for the Zoom 300Ω–600Ω

Rated input impedance, mic pre — TASCAM 2400Ω; Zoom R8 1500Ω. Although not much of an issue with condenser mics, it's a big deal with dynamics. The Shure is much better matched to the R8. Again, that the reviewer doesn't know this tells me he doesn't know much at all.

I learned this stuff from Ampex engineers including my dad in the late 1960s. Here's an excellent article on the subject.

Impedance, Dynamic Mics, SM57

BIAB 2025 Audiophile Mac
24Core/60CoreGPU M2 MacStudioUltra/8TB/192GB Sequoia, M1 MBAir, 2012 MBP
Digital Performer11, LogicPro, Finale27/Dorico/Encore/SmartScorePro64/Notion6 /Overture5