Topic: interesting comment by Doug

[Daryan]

Read into it what you want...


http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=2656&mesg_id=2843&page=

[BobW]

Can that guy "Doug" be trusted ?
He's only been a "Member since Sep 23rd 2003 "     

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

What do you mean "Read into it what you want..."?  It's pretty clearly written.

[dmonterisi]

The 722 also must be run with the HPF on or it sounds a tad muddy and slow as if some sort of LF issue obscures HF detail. Too bad most engineering types do not know how to do mic preamps ! The V2, V3, MiniME and M148 still have a place in the high end scene.

i think maybe this is what i'm hearing in the pre of the 722 as well.  i haven't heard it run with the HPF so i don't know about that part of it, but i hear bits of what i didn't like when i was running the minime without a pre in front.  it's hard to describe, but it's like there is something "covering up" the HF part of the recording.  when i switched from the mme to the v3, it was like lifting a veil off the recording.  well the mic-in 722 tapes that i have heard have a little of this characteristic.  Not nearly as strong or as prevalent with the mme, but there's a little something there that i don't exactly like.  i've heard it in every mic-in 722 tape that i've heard so far.  the tape i like the best so far is the Built to Spill show from last night, but it still has a little bit of that slowness or (hesitiate to use this term) slight muddiness.  i really think that this box will shine with a v2 in front of it.  there's no doubt in my mind that the 722 performs incredibly well as an all-in-1 solution and at that price point and used in that way is an incredible value.  but i think it has just a little to be desired in the front end department.  all, imo, of course.  not trying to be a hater, but i know the comments are coming....

[Tim]

I hear that too Damon, though I haven't listened to a lot of 722 sources...

[dmonterisi]

i've heard like 7 or 8 at this point and i've heard it in all of them...i need to download carrington's v2>722 source from raleigh and see if it is there.  and hopefully sideshowbob will make it to the birchmere tomorrow night for bob schneider so i can put the 722 behind the mk5>tubes>v3 chaos he's got working.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Damon, run at the Birchmere with the hpf engaged and see how it comes out.  I've always heard some lower end bloom in that thing but I've been afraid of too much rolloff to try the filter.  Maybe try the least of the settings and see how that works.

[dmonterisi]

well, if jason shows up, i'd like to hear the tubes @ 24/96, so we'll see.  bob schneider does not have a heavy low-end sound so i think the tape would be ruined worse by running the HPF in that environment (seated acoustic show at the birchmere).  but i don't know, we'll see.

EDIT: btw, i ran the gain linked last night and i really liked it, you should try it out sometime.  i ran it for the opener, planning to run unlinked for the main set, but liked it enough to keep it engaged.  pretty cool way only having to adjust one knob.

[nickgregory]

fwiw I ran the box with the HPF engaged at the Crowes raleigh show at the first level...which they descriibe as the only analog filter (the other freq/slope combinations are done via DSP) at 40 Hz, 6dB.  I have a hard time comparing that tape to any of the others I have done as that one was taped in the worst venue in Raleigh...it is basically a tin can with a stage, but what I do know is it made a tape that was absent of the muddy, undefined boom that would usually take over recordings from this room.

Bottom line, I need to run it in more diverse environments to reallly get a feel for its impact to the signal

[MattD]

Where'd you get that info about analog vs. DSP filters, Nick?

[nickgregory]

Where'd you get that info about analog vs. DSP filters, Nick?

page 15 of the manual.

The first pole of the high-pass circuit is an analog filter at 40 Hz, 6dB, per octave and is part of the microphone preamplifier circuit.  Additional poles of high-pass filtering are done in DSP

[MattD]

Thanks. I need to download the new manaual anyway. This is a good excuse! I'll preset that HPF option so that when I turn it on, that's the only one that loads. No point in doing the others internally. Might as well just do those in post.

[Todd R]

I spent the weekend debating selling off everything and picking up a 722.  Came damn close to doing it, mainly out of the convenience of a one box solution.  But I downloaded some straight mic in 722 sources and did some reading (and reading between the lines) about the 722.  Finally decided to stick with my beloved V3 and hope for good things with the M-Audio Flash tracker.  I also heard that low end coloration, which I didn't care for.  That combined with Doug's comments, Lil Kim's comments, and Brian Skalinder's comments (who seems to own the same pair of ears as me) made me think that I might not be happy running the 722 as a one box solution, so I'd rather have V3>flash tracker than V2>722.

But another thing I didn't like was that it appeared to only have 12db, 18db, and 24db HPF rolloff slopes.  That is what is listed on the SD website on the specs of the 722 and the manual seemed to indicate it as well, though it was very unclear from the writing.  Good to hear that a 6db slope is available -- thanks for that info Nick.  That was almost the deal breaker for me thinking that I wouldn't have the option of a good HPF available, but I think I'm skipping the 722 anyway at this point.  If the Flash tracker doesn't live up to its promise, maybe I'll revisit the 722 decision again though.

[Brian]

you would not be happy running the 722 all by itself but still wouldn't run V2>722

made me think that I might not be happy running the 722 as a one box solution, so I'd rather have V3>flash tracker than V2>722.

[Todd R]

you would not be happy running the 722 all by itself but still wouldn't run V2>722 your statement doesn't make sense to me.

I didn't say I wouldn't run the V2>722, I said I'd prefer V3>flash tracker.  The draw to me for the 722 was to have a very simple one-box solution.  After deciding the sound of the 722 as a one-box rig wasn't to my tastes, it meant running a preamp in front of the 722, and hence it was no longer a one-box solution.  I really have no problems whatsoever with the V3, in fact there is quite a bit about it that I love and would find hard to replace, from the sound to the features to the ergonomics.  If I'm going to have two boxes anyway, I prefer one be the V3, and the flash tracker looks promising as a companion to the it. 

I think the JB3 has served me very well for the past 2 1/2 years, but that is the one part of my rig I'd like to replace.  So it was the desire to get rid of the JB3 that got me going down the road of the 722, not the V3.  My decision/choice was between the 722 and the V3>flash tracker (this latter was a bit hard to quantify since the flash tracker is an unknown).  The thing that got me to choose the 722 over the V3>flash tracker was the one-box deal.  Once the choice became V2>722 or V3>flashtracker, I decided to hold tight at least for a few months and see if the flash tracker actually comes out and does what I want it too.