Topic: Sound Devices 702T or Edirol R44?

[gr8fulpete]

I am upgrading my recording rig, and am wondering what the experts think about which deck to buy.  I am currently considering the Sound Devices 702T vs. the Edirol R44.  I prefer pretty much everything about the SD unit, but the Edirol offers four channels.  To be honest, I am not sure I would ever be using anything more than two channels, but it's still a nice option.  Does anyone have any thoughts or advice?  Also open to other options (but note that the SD unit is right at about the limits of what I'd like to spend).

Planning on using Neumann KM 185s with the rig (in case that matters).

Many thanks.

[page]

It depends on how often you would use the extra two channels but no more than 4. I found i didnt get enough 4ch action to justify it so i went with the 722 (years ago). Now I face two scenarios; 2ch and >8ch, but not much in between. Occasionally i really wish i had 4 in a box the size of the r44, but thise moments are rare (usually about twice a year).

So i would answer that question first. Here at TS, the extra 2 are typically used for 2ch sbd feeds. If you wont (or will) be recording groups where you would get access to those feeds, that should be considered in your decision making. A simple look at what groups have passed near where you live will gwt you started on answering that Q.

[stevetoney]

Do you record live music or something else.  If live music, then the next question becomes do you think you'll have access to the SBD much?  If so, then perhaps four channels is the way to go.  In my own case, the place I record most of the time has a SBD thats in the back and I record at a different location, so the extra channels doesn't really do me much good.  That said, the R-44 is rock solid and I wouldn't have any problem at all recommending it for any situation at all.

The SD recorder is a professional piece of gear and, if you decide to go that route, you won't be sorry except if you ever need those extra channels.  The SD are fine pieces of gear and exude quality.  They're all metal construction will stand up to anything you throw at it.

As recorders, I don't think you could go wrong with either of these, but all things being equal (meaning the extra $$ you'd spend on the SD is not a factor) I'm saying go with the SD on quality alone. 

Since it sounds like you won't be using an external preamp, you probably also want to consider the sound of the built in preamps.  The SD has fine sounding preamps, but they do have a bit of a flavor to them and alot of people prefer the sound of their outboard preamps more.  I'd say that the same is true of the stock preamps in the R44, but you might want to consider an Oade or Busman mod to enhance the sound of the internal pres...those have had quite positive responses.  I'm not necessarily saying that the modded R44 sounds better than the 702, but you might want to give them both a listen to see what conclusions you reach since sound is so subjective and personal.

You're aware that the 702T is not the same as the 702, right?  The timecode aspect of the SD702T would also be a basic difference between the two units, in addition to the extra channels.

[John Willett]

If you don't need timecode, it would be better to get the 702 or 722, rather than the 702T.

The quality of the SD would be better than the R-44 and, personally, I would go for quality over quantity.

[F.O.Bean]

If you RARELY use 4 channels, then DEF go with the 702. I miss my old 722. Best piece of recording gear I ever bought, minus the schoeps

[Frequincy]

The specs on the SD702 A/D converters alone blow the R44 out of the water.

[F.O.Bean]

The specs on the SD702 A/D converters alone blow the R44 out of the water.

BAM! I LOVED my 722 as a preamp/adc/all-in-one My favorite was v2/v3/sx>722. The ADC was amazing!!!

[acidjack]

I am upgrading my recording rig, and am wondering what the experts think about which deck to buy.  I am currently considering the Sound Devices 702T vs. the Edirol R44.  I prefer pretty much everything about the SD unit, but the Edirol offers four channels.  To be honest, I am not sure I would ever be using anything more than two channels, but it's still a nice option.  Does anyone have any thoughts or advice?  Also open to other options (but note that the SD unit is right at about the limits of what I'd like to spend).

Planning on using Neumann KM 185s with the rig (in case that matters).

Many thanks.

As others have said, it really depends on how much you think you'd want the two other channels.  I get SBDs more than half the time I record, so for me, the R-44 is the only think that makes sense until I decide to drop $5K+ on a 788T.   

Even for an HQ 2-channel rig, you might at least consider your options between an R-44 and the 702T.  The 702 is an excellent unit and everything positive that can be said about it is true.  However, the 702 still looks to be about $2000.    You could get a pretty solid deck+pre combo that sounded every bit as good ('better' if you prefer the sound of a different preamp) for way less than wasn't larger. For example, the Sound Devices USBPre2 or Lunatec V3 are both excellent preamps with digital outs that you can connect to a Sony D50, putting your all-in price at closer to $1300 if you buy new. 

For that matter, the Edirol R-44 + USBPre2 still gives you a Sound Devices preamp (note: it's the same as the 788T and different from what's in the 702T; "better" or "worse" being subjective) and A/D PLUS the two additional channels of the R-44 for under $2000 new.  Personally that makes more sense to me, as the only compromise is your bit bucket (the R-44) is of lower quality than the 702. But for just writing bits off the USBPre2, the R-44 is quite reliable, and its preamps aren't so bad either.  For me, that tradeoff makes sense, especially since the USBPre2 is pretty light.

[gr8fulpete]

@acid jack: I actually have a Sony D50.  Do you think going with the Sound Devices USB Pre is a better option for me (combined with high quality mics)?  Also, which will be better -- the USB Pre or the Mix Pre-D?

Many thanks for the responses!

[DigiGal]

@acid jack: I actually have a Sony D50.  Do you think going with the Sound Devices USB Pre is a better option for me (combined with high quality mics)?  Also, which will be better -- the USB Pre or the Mix Pre-D?

Many thanks for the responses!

Pairing with a PMD661 the MixPre-D was definitely a better option than going with a USB Pre but it's horses for courses so it may be different for your recorder.  The two are similar but have different feature sets, depends what your needs are.

[page]

@acid jack: I actually have a Sony D50.  Do you think going with the Sound Devices USB Pre is a better option for me (combined with high quality mics)?  Also, which will be better -- the USB Pre or the Mix Pre-D?

Many thanks for the responses!

Pairing with a PMD661 the MixPre-D was definitely a better option than going with a USB Pre but it's horses for courses so it may be different for your recorder.  The two are similar but have different feature sets, depends what your needs are.

the D50's only digital inbound is optical, so the usbpre2 wins that one.

The gist of the two is the mixpre-d has transformers on the inputs, the usbpre2 doesn't (but has better noise specs at a technical level if I remember correctly). That's good and bad, just depends on what you're after. After that is basically a wash in terms of what you can accomplish with either.  The mixpre-d will do P12 though, that's handy if you have mics that support it.

(disclaimer: I run a usbpre2>D50 combo at the moment)

edit: forgot about the P12 bit.

[DigiGal]

Well not exactly a wash between the two units as they do offer different feature sets and were intended for different purposes though both are usable in the field now. The original USB Pre's could not operate without a computer and earlier versions of MixPre did not have a digital output. 

The MixPre-D will provide you with confidence record monitoring and playback monitoring from your recorder via it's return inputs. If willing to forgo this confidence/playback monitoring an on-the-fly matrix recording can be made using a MixPre-D with soundboard feeding 3/4 inputs and your mics feeding 1/2 inputs of the MixPre-D.  It can be powered by internal "AA" batteries, external battery or AC to DC power adapter. MixPre-D also provides a slate/tone generator, adjustable meter brightness, channel linking and can handle converting mid/side to stereo if desired.  However, if your recorder only has an optical digital input or is otherwise incompatible with an AES digital signal you'll probably want to skip these features offered in the MixPre-D and go with a USB Pre 2 instead which offers different features including a digital optical output, hence the horses for courses analogy.