Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: so what does the 722 sound like?  (Read 50109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #135 on: March 03, 2005, 01:22:34 PM »
woops.  i can normalize and reupload if anyone cares
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 01:29:04 PM by scott brown »

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11952
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #136 on: March 03, 2005, 01:30:50 PM »
woops.  i can normalize and reupload if anyone cares

but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the comp? 

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #137 on: March 03, 2005, 01:38:22 PM »
at 24/96,will 2db of normalization after the fact really matter?

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11952
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #138 on: March 03, 2005, 01:39:20 PM »
at 24/96,will 2db of normalization after the fact really matter?

that's a good point, i don't know.  and this isn't really scientific anyways.  you're probably right.

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #139 on: March 03, 2005, 02:02:35 PM »
at 24/96,will 2db of normalization after the fact really matter?

maybe not, but I prefer comparison of raw tracks so that no other influence can be blamed for percieved differences.  If you do upload a normalized version, please label it as such and leave the raw files.  I already got them but others might want the raw files too.
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #140 on: March 03, 2005, 02:20:38 PM »
but if normalizing were to add 2db, then it'd be no different from what brian said...

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #141 on: March 03, 2005, 02:39:37 PM »
but if normalizing were to add 2db, then it'd be no different from what brian said...

I thought brian was talking about adding gain in the analog stage of playback, that is after the DAC during playback.



The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline Brian

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • Posts: 9392
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #142 on: March 03, 2005, 03:33:32 PM »
but if normalizing were to add 2db, then it'd be no different from what brian said...

I thought brian was talking about adding gain in the analog stage of playback, that is after the DAC during playback.


....which would be the more proper way to do add gain for this comp situation.  DSP is DSP.  better to not crunch those raw digits fro a comp IMO

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #143 on: March 03, 2005, 06:23:43 PM »
Re the ~2.5 dB, only reason I mentioned it is because I could easily hear the volume difference right off the bat.  And yes, adding gain during playback is the proper way to do it to avoid DSP.  'Course adding the gain during playback isn't perfect either, but it's prolly better than introducing DSO.

Since Foobar2000/ABX doesn't have a volume control (WTF?), I initially did the DSP to add the gain, but now have also listened with two different apps and adjusted volume accordingly at time of playback.  I didn't really hear any difference between the two, but still prolly best to add the gain during playback.

And Scott - don't sweat it, it's damn hard to get levels precise on two different sets of gear, this I know!  Let people deal with it on their own.
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) > Roland R-05

Offline John R

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • Posts: 10100
  • Gender: Male
    • www.tapers.org
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #144 on: March 03, 2005, 07:43:41 PM »
DSO? DSP?
we all live downstream.

Offline Tim

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 32913
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #145 on: March 03, 2005, 08:00:34 PM »
I’ve had a few weird experiences and a few close brushes with total weirdness of one sort or another, but nothing that’s really freaked me out or made me feel too awful about it. - Jerry Garcia

Offline MattD

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4634
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #146 on: March 03, 2005, 08:14:28 PM »
Some pics up in this thread.
Damon, the 722 makes a pretty good target for a custom white balance when you're shooting. I shot those as small, fine jpgs with the 722 as my custom WB. No editing except for a resize/crop in paint.


Edit: I noticed that SD updated their 7-series page today.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 08:26:01 PM by MattD »
Out of the game … for now?

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #147 on: March 04, 2005, 10:03:02 AM »
Alright, finished up my straight V3 v. 722 comp.  Here're my notes...

SOURCE A
Highs a bit sharper on attack, smoother & longer decay
Mids - don't hear much difference btn the two sources
Rounder, more accentuated mid-low & low end, extension...?...dunno, tough to say using headphones
Less defined soundstage, but seemingly more ambient detail in the crowd noise

SOURCE B
Highs not quite as smooth, a bit spittier and shorter then A, but not fatiguing
Mids - don't hear much difference btn the two sources
Tighter mid-low & low end, extension...?...dunno, tough to say using headphones
Tighter, smoother soundstage, but seemingly less ambient detail in the crowd noise

I had a tough time evaluating the mids on both as I often rely on electric guitar to really pinpoint how the mids sound and the samples didn't have much e guitar going on.  And, as noted, I didn't hear much difference in the mid range.

As for which source is which, I'm slightly puzzled since - based on previous 16-bit experience - I would have expected slightly better HF detail out of the V3, yet in this case, the slightly better HF detail appeared in the same source as the one with more accentuated mid-low / low end, a characteristic I've heard out of the 7xx boxes.  That rounder, more accentuated mid-low / low seems to permeate the recording for me and makes it very easy to distinguish the two recordings in an ABX environment. 

If I had to guess, I'd stick with my thoughts that the 7xx exhibits the rounder, more accentuated mid-low & low end, and I've consistenly found the V3 has a tighter soundstage than most other boxes, so:

A = 722
B = V3

Anyone else give the straight V3 / 722 comp a listen and formulate an opinion?  At any rate, fun stuff these comps.  :)  I'd be pretty darn happy taking home either source!
« Last Edit: March 04, 2005, 10:05:49 AM by Brian Skalinder »
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) > Roland R-05

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #148 on: March 04, 2005, 10:33:35 AM »
If you are hearing similarity in the highs in these at 24/96, then I'm thinking that the previous comp was hosed by the resampling to 44.1.

I want to hear a V2->722 comp now to find out how much the differences are due to the preamp in the 722 and not the ADC.
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Gender: Male
Re: so what does the 722 sound like?
« Reply #149 on: March 04, 2005, 10:41:44 AM »
If you are hearing similarity in the highs in these at 24/96, then I'm thinking that the previous comp was hosed by the resampling to 44.1.

Not sure I'd say hosed, just impacted by.  I don't recall if the previous comp I listened to was recorded at 24/96 and then dithered/resampled in post, or if it was recorded natively at 16/44.  Hmmmm...maybe I'll see if I can dig up the old thread.  And...here it is.  Looks like the previous comp I heard was recorded natively at 16/44, i.e. not dithered/resampled in post.

I want to hear a V2->722 comp now to find out how much the differences are due to the preamp in the 722 and not the ADC.

Agreed!
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) > Roland R-05

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 41 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF