The CD and Flash card recordings sound great with good speakers. I have also recorded myself and students on the clarinet, sax, and piano, as well as live performances of a western band I sing with. The playback on good speakers is amazingly good. The playback speakers on the unit itself are poor....not very loud and mediocre sound. The unit speakers are useful only to check what has been recorded. The Superscope has much better speakers, but the recorded sound is about the same on better speakers.

It came with the ac cord, instruction manual, cd, compact flash card. Would have liked to have the RCA connectors. Also would like to use it with batteries, but has to have ac.

I have used the Superscope and it does not have the compact flash. The Roland is far easier to use, although I would like to have a jog wheel similar to the Superscope to scroll through tracks, but other than that and a battery compartment, I like using it. The Roland has a small dial that shifts through the different programs easily.

It does seem to be well made. The feature buttons are on top and again are easy to use.

The item is somewhat expensive, but does what I want.

I called the tech dept. before I bought the machine. It was fairly quick to reach a real person and he answered my questions in clear English.

Not too intrusive .... it is smaller than the Superscope.

Studio teacher

classical, gospel

This is well and away the most important consideration for me, and I am still working on it. I use the CD2 to assist me in my cello practice sessions and to record performances. Quality of tone production is a huge issue for a cellist. So what I want is a recorder capable of very high fidelity in reproducing an acoustic instrument capable of great tonal subtlety but relatively low capacity for volume. So far I have only used the built-in mics and mostly the built-in speakers. My impression so far is that the mics are both pretty good, but that I certainly not getting the sound that I would from a professional CD played on a good stereo system. Playing a CD on my computer through the computer speaks helps a lot, so I am guessing that the speakers are more of a limitation than the mics. I am still experimenting with input and output levels, placement, etc. so my comments are preliminary. I have had no regrets that I bought it and it has fairly high fidelity, but I think I can work with it to make it better.

Lots of recording features, most of which I will never use, but there are several levels of reverb that make the recordings sound more realistic. There is a tuner function adjustable roughly between A435 and A445, there is a metronome function, and there are functions for adjusting speed and key which are very useful for practicing a "music minus one" type of CD.

Considering how many features and controls there are, the CD2 is surprisingly easy to use. How easy is it to get it to sound its best? That will probably take a period of experimentation.

Seems good. No trouble yet but I have only had it for a few weeks.

Other types of records are considerably less expensive.

No experience yet.

It is a working tool for me.

Serious non-professional musician

classical

Active Musician & Recording Engineer

Classical, Bluegrass, Punk, Weird Stuff

The sound quality is what turns me off the most about the unit. Not great for electric guitar which is ultimately what I wanted it most for. Acoustic and 'clean' electric is a different story though, I'd say a 7.

Many different modes to play with, some are actually kindof fun. Most don't sound very good but again someone else might like them.

very easy to use

Parts have held up fine although I've only had mine for two weeks. They seem like they will last.

For me not much since it doesn't excel at what I want, but for others it might be pretty handy at recording many different types of events.

Haven't dealt with them.

not sexy, its an inanimate object

musician

metal, blues, bluegrass