Topic: 722 users....a/d stage opinions?

[marc0789]

no, definitely keeping the 148. No offense, but I have no faith that the 722 could replace a topnotch preamp and a/d.

have the cash and the ok from the wife, which is big.....but I don't want to drop all the cash and time and find myself missing something. Still will probably do it, because frankly I need something to keep me interested in taping right now.

no offense taken...that is what I thought you were doing....so you were comparing 24 bit files to 16 bit files?  Or were you comparing post processed dithered 24 bit to 16 bit?

not comping at all nick, just sitting back and critically listening to some 148>722 tapes. and I like them a lot.

[nickgregory]

no, definitely keeping the 148. No offense, but I have no faith that the 722 could replace a topnotch preamp and a/d.

have the cash and the ok from the wife, which is big.....but I don't want to drop all the cash and time and find myself missing something. Still will probably do it, because frankly I need something to keep me interested in taping right now.

no offense taken...that is what I thought you were doing....so you were comparing 24 bit files to 16 bit files?  Or were you comparing post processed dithered 24 bit to 16 bit?

not comping at all nick, just sitting back and critically listening to some 148>722 tapes. and I like them a lot.

fair enough...curious more than anything...I am always interested to hear how people hear things....

[marc0789]

he's gonna be buried with his brick nick

my .02cents, not that you asked, is that there is no way in hell you should buy this box unless you have some immediate need to get 24bit shows.  give it another 6 months to a year to let a few more models hit the market, and then take the plunge. 

you can get a nice pc in the meantime, they're handy for audio no matter what imho

honestly, don't care about 24bit at all. Just need a new toy, been awhile.

[nickgregory]

honestly, don't care about 24bit at all. Just need a new toy, been awhile.

understand the new toy comment and when you get wife approval you have to jump almost immediately before that approval gets revoked (my wife made a comment last year about us needing a new tv...HD set bought 24 hours later )

but you dont care about 24 bits?  I know that I have heard from some they cant hear the difference...is it that or would you need to go through some changes to your playback system to be able to utilize it?

[fozzy]

before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback. 

[marc0789]

honestly, don't care about 24bit at all. Just need a new toy, been awhile.

understand the new toy comment and when you get wife approval you have to jump almost immediately before that approval gets revoked (my wife made a comment last year about us needing a new tv...HD set bought 24 hours later )

but you dont care about 24 bits?  I know that I have heard from some they cant hear the difference...is it that or would you need to go through some changes to your playback system to be able to utilize it?

yeah, I don't really think I can properly hear with my current playback. another issue.

[nickgregory]

yeah, I don't really think I can properly hear with my current playback. another issue.

understand that...I am definitely in the market for a speaker upgrade...but it will have to wait til next year...

[wboswell]

before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback. 

qft

this may be the most intelligent thing anyone's said on this site in months... 

[marc0789]

Maybe a better idea to use the wife permission to upgrade. Who has my suggestions for a heady $2300 upgrade? 

[wboswell]

Maybe a better idea to use the wife permission to upgrade. Who has my suggestions for a heady $2300 upgrade? 

after listening to your Dino Jr. tape you sent, me thinks the playback is the way to go...

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1125859434

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1128361073

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?preatube&1128136593

see Mic D for fluff

[JasonSobel]

before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback. 

qft

this may be the most intelligent thing anyone's said on this site in months... 

actually, I think it's an interesting dilema.  as soon as I upgraded my playback (to the point where 16 bit vs. 24 bit is dramatic, IMO), I decided that I needed to get more 24 bit material to listen to (don't ask why I'm still running a D8).  

So, the question is, do you upgrade your playback first so you cen better hear the deficiencies of 16 bit recordings?  or do you upgrade your recording rig, so at some point in the future, when your playback rig is up to snuff, you can enjoy your older recordings in full 24 bit glory?

BTW, the "correct" answer is to do both.  get yourself a nice playback system and start recording in 24 bit

I did some critical listening last night, albeit with only the handful of 148>722 shows I have. I do think the a/d is solid, but a *little* vague sounding, and with the tiniest grain to it. Need to listen some more. To my ears, very comparable with the HHB a/d. Which is to say very good, but not quite up to uv22 standards, definitely a few major notches above the trashcan.

not sure exactly what you mean "up to uv22" standards.  it is my understanding that uv22 is a dithering scheme to go from 24 bits down to 16 bit resolution.  (and a dithering scheme that is generally regarded as very good).  but in this context, as a comparison for the 722 A/D, I'm not really sure I understand your comparison.  were the 148>722 sources that you were listening to still at 24 bit?  or had they been dropped down to 16 bit?  and if they were now 16 bit, what program was used for the processing.  Wavelab has the uv22 dither, right?  it is possible to use that dithering process in post, not just "live" when using Apogee products.

[marc0789]

Maybe a better idea to use the wife permission to upgrade. Who has my suggestions for a heady $2300 upgrade? 

after listening to your Dino Jr. tape you sent, me thinks the playback is the way to go...

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1125859434

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1128361073

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?preatube&1128136593

see Mic D for fluff

so does that mean you agree with me that the tape kinda sucks, or that you think it's ok and my playback must suck...which it in fact does.

[marc0789]

before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback. 

qft

this may be the most intelligent thing anyone's said on this site in months... 

actually, I think it's an interesting dilema.  as soon as I upgraded my playback (to the point where 16 bit vs. 24 bit is dramatic, IMO), I decided that I needed to get more 24 bit material to listen to (don't ask why I'm still running a D8).  

So, the question is, do you upgrade your playback first so you cen better hear the deficiencies of 16 bit recordings?  or do you upgrade your recording rig, so at some point in the future, when your playback rig is up to snuff, you can enjoy your older recordings in full 24 bit glory?

BTW, the "correct" answer is to do both.  get yourself a nice playback system and start recording in 24 bit

I did some critical listening last night, albeit with only the handful of 148>722 shows I have. I do think the a/d is solid, but a *little* vague sounding, and with the tiniest grain to it. Need to listen some more. To my ears, very comparable with the HHB a/d. Which is to say very good, but not quite up to uv22 standards, definitely a few major notches above the trashcan.

not sure exactly what you mean "up to uv22" standards.  it is my understanding that uv22 is a dithering scheme to go from 24 bits down to 16 bit resolution.  (and a dithering scheme that is generally regarded as very good).  but in this context, as a comparison for the 722 A/D, I'm not really sure I understand your comparison.  were the 148>722 sources that you were listening to still at 24 bit?  or had they been dropped down to 16 bit?  and if they were now 16 bit, what program was used for the processing.  Wavelab has the uv22 dither, right?  it is possible to use that dithering process in post, not just "live" when using Apogee products.

listened to 24 bit sources. and I can definitely hear the increased resolution. But I'm not sure I'm sold on the a/d conversion, I do understand there was no dithering going on. don't get me wrong...I think that the 722 a/d is very good...but up to standalone standards..mytek, mme? not sure.

[Ray76]

before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback. 

qft

this may be the most intelligent thing anyone's said on this site in months... 

actually, I think it's an interesting dilema.  as soon as I upgraded my playback (to the point where 16 bit vs. 24 bit is dramatic, IMO), I decided that I needed to get more 24 bit material to listen to (don't ask why I'm still running a D8).  

So, the question is, do you upgrade your playback first so you cen better hear the deficiencies of 16 bit recordings?  or do you upgrade your recording rig, so at some point in the future, when your playback rig is up to snuff, you can enjoy your older recordings in full 24 bit glory?

BTW, the "correct" answer is to do both.  get yourself a nice playback system and start recording in 24 bit

I did some critical listening last night, albeit with only the handful of 148>722 shows I have. I do think the a/d is solid, but a *little* vague sounding, and with the tiniest grain to it. Need to listen some more. To my ears, very comparable with the HHB a/d. Which is to say very good, but not quite up to uv22 standards, definitely a few major notches above the trashcan.

not sure exactly what you mean "up to uv22" standards.  it is my understanding that uv22 is a dithering scheme to go from 24 bits down to 16 bit resolution.  (and a dithering scheme that is generally regarded as very good).  but in this context, as a comparison for the 722 A/D, I'm not really sure I understand your comparison.  were the 148>722 sources that you were listening to still at 24 bit?  or had they been dropped down to 16 bit?  and if they were now 16 bit, what program was used for the processing.  Wavelab has the uv22 dither, right?  it is possible to use that dithering process in post, not just "live" when using Apogee products.

listened to 24 bit sources. and I can definitely hear the increased resolution. But I'm not sure I'm sold on the a/d conversion, I do understand there was no dithering going on. don't get me wrong...I think that the 722 a/d is very good...but up to standalone standards..mytek, mme? not sure.

jaysus, go with your gut. whatever it is.
thats easy and youll probably thank yourself for it. first instincts normally dont lie.

[marc0789]

hey ray, just heard robbie fulks on the radio, great stuff.