Topic: Sound Devices 702 does anyone know this peice????

[allenc3]

I do.

[meatling]

I got an SD702 last month

Mazel Tov ! I have just ordered mine, it is on its way as I write.

I decided to get the 702 because it would run longer on battery without a built-in HDD,

Exactly. I must admit, I had reservations (as instinctively as stupid) to "make do" with the runt of the litter, but in this case it was the logical choice: It would be silly to pay for features I don't use or appreciate, and the differences between the 702 and the other machines (702T, 722, 744T) are only in the features, not in the quality. The 702 represents a very minimalist approach, and I feel there's a certain elegance to that.

And this 702 totally kills any Nagra ever made

.. at least if you disregard the Nagra V, the Nagra VI, and possibly the Nagra LB.

what does that Nagra digital unit cost, $7000?

Yes, and the Aaton Cantar X2 goes for $16000 or somesuch. These machines are in a whole different ballpark, I believe.

Finally, I read many SD forum posts where professionals and amateurs alike said it was the best piece of audio equipment they ever owned in 20 years and no one had the slightest regret in buying one. A couple guys said don't spend too much time looking at other units, just get an SD 7xx and you'll never look back.

In all fairness, we'd have to consider that most of these statements were made before the new machines from Nagra (LB) and Sonosax (SX-R4) appeared on the horizon. I sat on the fence a very long time, and in the end it was the reputation for service (or lack thereof) that swayed my decision against the Sonosax.

[Petrus]

Cantars etc. are in totally different ballpark, but not what comes to quality, only what they are built for. All those recorders mentioned have quite similar specs what comes to audio quality (24/96 capability or "better", dynamic range 114-117 dB, about one bit less than The Best rack AD converters available anywhere). The difference just is the number of tracks and built in rountings/mixers (like Cantar) which reflects in the price.

I have SD722 not 702 and the reason is redundancy of recording on both HDD and CF. Also the fact that I can have about 40 GBs worth of past recordings with me all the time is sometimes nice.

I would say that in quality SD7xx is as good as it gets, others might be similar, but also the way these machines are built
and serviced made my choice easy. I do mostly minimalist miked classical recording & video work.

[meatling]

Cantars etc. are in totally different ballpark, but not what comes to quality,

I would think this depends on how you define "quality."

If you only look at the .WAVs that come out, then you may have a point: It may very well be that only few people could tell the difference between simple ORTF recordings made with either machine, therefore interested parties might assert with a certain degree of plausibility that the quality is the same.

Personally however, I would also consider the perceived build quality, and, after having ogled and fondled a Cantar in the flesh, I'm inclined to insist the Cantar's quality is in a different ballpark: Everything there is die-cast or milled from solid blocks of aluminium, the faders are absolutely watertight because they are operated magnetically through the walls of the casing, and so on and so on. This thing is simply stunningly beautiful, and it shows that it's built with absolutely no regard for cost.

I think this even shows on the product shots, just look here and click on the picture for full resolution.

In comparison, I find the SD 7xx machines decidedly plebeian in appearance. The stamped sheet-metal chassis, the ugly phillips screws, it just screams "cost cutting" all over the place. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's just not the same.

[John Willett]

....this 702 totally kills any Nagra ever made

Analogue maybe, but I bet the TA would give it a run for it's money.  But the Nagra D-II, Nagra V, Nagra VI and Nagra LB are certainly as good (probably better) than the 702.

And what does that Nagra digital unit cost, $7000?

The Nagra VI, maybe (I'm in the UK and don't know US prices), but the Nagra LB is of a similar price to the 702 - I think actually *cheaper* than the 702 (in the UK, anyway).

Personally I went for the Nagra VI - just too good a machine to get anything less.

[boojum]

In comparison, I find the SD 7xx machines decidedly plebeian in appearance. The stamped sheet-metal chassis, the ugly phillips screws, it just screams "cost cutting" all over the place. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's just not the same.

I think that those top and bottom plates are actually milled/machined metal stock, stainless, and not stamped metal.  SD is well constructed and pretty rugged.  I do not think they were built to be abused, but they sure seem rugged enough to take some.

I accidentally dropped a synched pair of 722's about three or four feet and they did not miss a beat.  There was no interruption in the recording.  It was an accident and I would not try it again.  Nevertheless, I was pleased and impressed.     

[meatling]

I think that those top and bottom plates are actually milled/machined metal stock, stainless, and not stamped metal. 

I was referring to the panels. I may be wrong, but they sure look like made of one piece of stamped sheet metal to me. Stamped and bent.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just fugly in some places, in particular the firewire port. But it's functional, and robust. Like a Russian tank. And a Russian tank probably isn't watertight either 

[allenc3]

I got an SD702 last month and have been having a ball with it. The trick is to leave milk and cookies by the fireplace. I got an AT897 shotgun mic and an AT825 stereo mic for recording sounds and bands at bars and I just ordered two AT2035's for recording small groups in more controlled locations.

After reading every post on Sound Devices' forum, it looks to me like they sell many more 722's with CF and built-in HDD than the 702 with CF only. I decided to get the 702 because it would run longer on battery without a built-in HDD and why get an inherently no-moving-parts digital recorder with a rotating spindle HDD in it? And I knew it could use an external HDD if needed.

The 702 can record to an external HDD via FireWire and can record to the CF and HDD simultaneously for redundancy. HOWEVER, the external HDD cannot run via FW from the 702 unless you have an external 12V battery plugged in the 702. So I got a G-Drive mini combo HDD with FW and USB ports so the drive allows me to hook into any SD7xx Series unit, Mac or PC. The 702 acts as a CF card reader via FW when connected to a Mac or PC. I got made a 702 battery pack from an old video camcorder battery pack, new gell cell battery and SD power cord plug from B&H.

The 722 costs $600 more than my 702 but that difference paid for the two mics and a larger battery and a 160 GB FW HDD.

Ever since I was a kid I wanted a Stellavox or Nagra tape recorder. Dad got a Revox A77 so that calmed me down for many years. This SD702 is a phenomenal piece of professional gear that although not cheap, it is not that expensive either. The 702 performance totally blows away any Nagra ever made and the Revox too (I have 3 of them). I hate to say that because I have great reverence for the Revox. And what does that Nagra digital unit cost, $7000?

Finally, I read many Sound Devices forum posts where professionals and amateurs alike said it is the best piece of audio equipment they ever owned in 20 years and no one had the slightest regret in buying one. A couple guys said don't spend too much time looking at other units, just get an SD 7xx and you'll never look back.

[boojum]

^^^^^  I am having a feeling of deja vu here.