Topic: Fr-2 Vs. SD 722

[Marc Nutter]

A) 722 with timecode option available.
B) Line-only six or eight channel recorder with timecode option.

Flarnet and All,

I dove into this discussion a bit at AES with the SD boys and they offered the following response.

"If you look at the DAT machines that offered a Time Code option, they were always above $4,000.00, at least $2,000.00 more than the standard non-TC model.."

I recall this being of the HHB PortaDat and the Fostex TC DAT machine.

"...But, with the 744t, you get two extra channels."

Take this as you will.  It is their sentiment.

If other manufacturers are upping the ante, things will get exciting for us all.

Marc

[Marc Nutter]

Check the feature set again...  The way it reads to me:
1)Inputs 3 and 4 on the 744t provide phantom power and,
2)Line level inputs are adjustable between -6 and +18 dbs. 

While +18 won't do everything you need, it would certainly put out enough gain for some functions...

Hi Bill and All,

I actually had an interesting experience with this last week at the Les and Bernie Brains show here in Denver.

I took a split off the backside of a Schoeps VMS 5U that the owner runs at +4 dBu to his V3.  I tried going in at line level to the 744t and found after about 8 minutes (slow to commit, but the show had a very quiet start) that I should switch to mic level input and adjust as quickly as possible.  Prior to switching to mic, I could only get peaks approaching -20dBfs even with the 744t line in at +18dBu.   After switching, I had all the level control I needed.

All told, this really makes sense as most of us run about +35dBu on our mic pre-amps to get the levels we need.  The +4dBu on the VMS along with the +18dBu of the 744t line input would only yield +22dBu and in turn deliver peaks no greater than about -12dBu even at the loudest parts of the show.

Nonetheless, as Bill points out, the +18dBu would be adequate for most applications as most professional line level outputs, like those of a soundboard, are capable of +24dbU or greater.

Marc

[Marc Nutter]

What should be clarified is any dealer placing an order for 7 Series now will not see anything until the spring.   This will also be true for any end-user placing an order as well.   

744ts will start to ship later this week.
thanks

- F

Thanks for that clarification.  Your post reiterates what SD told me directly a month ago when I called them.


Blood pressure now returning to normal levels.

Hey All,

We are all getting pretty psyched for the release of 722's and 744t's. 

As indicated, the 744t's are going to trickle out starting next week, according to forcasts from the folks at SD during AES.
Subsequently, 722's that were ordered in the first round, several months ago, are supposed to follow shortly thereafter.

A 722 was on display at AES. 

Marc

[scb]

was anything new added from vendor/user feedback during the tests?

[Sean Gallemore]

because a ps-2 would be that hard to run in front

[Marc Nutter]

was anything new added from vendor/user feedback during the tests?

Hey Scott and All,

My impression is that all suggestions are on the back burner, but certainly being considered, until production is in full swing.

As changes are possible in firmware/software, they can always be developed and downloaded, just like the 1.07 download I just loaded on the 744t here.

Marc

[wbrisette]

I got an answer from SD on why they didn't include 4 mic inputs:

Wayne,

Size, power draw, and applications are the chief reasons we kept the product to
two mic inputs. From our research, when an application requires more than two microphone
inputs, its complexity and routing needs benefit from a full-featured mixer--like
our 442--or from a product that has extensive mixing functionality--like the larger
workstation recorders. For many applications, including two booms and two wires,
the 744T is a great fit (two 744T's are smaller and less expensive than any of its
workstation competition).

For applications where you need more that two microphone sources, yes you will need
a mixer with the 744T.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Not sure I agree with the decision, but there you go...

Wayne

[Flarnet]

It's just amazing I tell you. They say it themselves: If you need more than 2 inputs you already have a mixer. So why on earth do they even bother with ANY microphone inputs? Why not swap the cost/size/power draw of the two microphone inputs for 4 line inputs giving you a total of 6 line inputs? This would make the perfect match for the 442 mixer as you could go 4 channels direct and put the camera mix on the remaining two. Add to that two versions of the 722 (one with timecode and one without) and you have a much more even product line-up.

I maintain my opinion that the 7xx product line-up is poorly chosen and that the 744 has a flawed feature-set.

[wbrisette]

This would make the perfect match for the 442 mixer as you could go 4 channels direct and put the camera mix on the remaining two. Add to that two versions of the 722 (one with timecode and one without) and you have a much more even product line-up.

I still don't see where you're going to get 4 separate tracks of audio. You bring in 4 mics > 442, then you have to mix those to 2 channels out (either balanced or unbalanced), but you end up with 2 channels. OK, now you bring in camera feeds? You don't have 4 outputs on the 442 with 4 separate channels (or at least I don't think you do -- I don't own the 442, but the Wendt X4 which is similar only has 2 outputs).

Maybe I'm wrong. Can you explain this a bit more?

Wayne

[Flarnet]

The microphone inputs on the 442 have "direct outs" which is basically a post-preamp pre-fader output. That's four outputs. Then there is of course the two channel mix (which is also fed to the camera). All in all 6 channels.

[BobW]

I got an answer from SD on why they didn't include 4 mic inputs:

Wayne,

Size, power draw, and applications are the chief reasons we kept the product to
two mic inputs. From our research, when an application requires more than two microphone
inputs, its complexity and routing needs benefit from a full-featured mixer--like
our 442--or from a product that has extensive mixing functionality--like the larger
workstation recorders. For many applications, including two booms and two wires,
the 744T is a great fit (two 744T's are smaller and less expensive than any of its
workstation competition).

For applications where you need more that two microphone sources, yes you will need
a mixer with the 744T.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Not sure I agree with the decision, but there you go...

Wayne

I agree, it's poop, IMHO   

A one-box Decca-Tree would have been awesome. The possibilities with 4 mic-ins and new processing technology would have meant
a very plausable surround sound with one box. The price difference from the 722 should have should brought a little bit more to the picnic.
I do not see the 744 as truly being DVD-A ready.

The tapes that I'm hearing from the 744 do sound great in stereo, tho'.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Looking at the 722 pictures on the SD website, the input panel shows mechanical switches for selecting mic/line/aes1&2 for port 1 and mic/line for port 2.

Does this box not accept an external 24/192 feed via an AES port pair?

Edit: answer is yes it accepts an external 24/192 feed.

[cascademedia]

Just to let everyone know, shipping has finally commenced on the 744t.   Our first 2 units will arrive on Monday.   Things should continue to move quickly from there....

- Frank

[scb]

722s in a few weeks?

thanks for the update

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Just to let everyone know, shipping has finally commenced on the 744t.   Our first 2 units will arrive on Monday.   Things should continue to move quickly from there....

- Frank

So did the 744s arrive?