Topic: Sound Devices 722 vs Korg MR 1000

[soundoc]

Am new to this site and to location recording but not completely inexperienced as a recordist.  Have had a home studio for a couple of years and record local bands/projects to computer via multichannel Firewire interface and process with Sonar.  Have Earthworks TC 20 mics and a homemade Jecklin disk which sound amazing  for 2 channel recording even in suboptimally designed room.  Would like to get into location recording partly as a hobby and partly because family members are in several local bands and other musical groups which play out.  Musical spectrum is wide--rock, jazz, vocal and even some classical.

Interested in a "one box" solution for music recording on site--no stealth required (trust me, most of the groups being recorded would be flattered!!).   Simplicity for me would be key as well as ability to have the device used by folks even not as sophisticated as me (read = older teenagers who would like to record band practices). 

Have $ to buy SD 722 or Korg MR 1000 which seem to both get very favorable reviews here and elsewhere on internet.   Am value minded as well but kind of a nut re. great sound.  Am familiar with DSD "sound" as have about 100 SACDs some of which (natively recorded into DSD)  I find amazing through a decent stereo system 

So, am interested in head to head comparisons of SD 722 and KORG MR 1000 from folks who may have seen/heard/used both and would have informed opinion.  Issues of comparative interest:

1) Simplicity of use
2) Build and expected durability
3) Sound as a one box solution--particularly in the realms of comparable recording such as 24/96 which I could actually do something with in terms of my current editing/sharing capacities. 
4) For MR1000, is the DSD sound really that different than 24/96 and above PCM?
5) For non professional but serious hobbyist is SD722 overkill? Is MR1000 too new and too gimmicky to have staying power as a product? 
6) What would you buy with your hard earned $ given price/performance ratio?

Thanks in advance for advice

[mmedley.]

1) Simplicity of use
2) Build and expected durability
3) Sound as a one box solution--particularly in the realms of comparable recording such as 24/96 which I could actually do something with in terms of my current editing/sharing capacities. 
4) For MR1000, is the DSD sound really that different than 24/96 and above PCM?
5) For non professional but serious hobbyist is SD722 overkill? Is MR1000 too new and too gimmicky to have staying power as a product? 
6) What would you buy with your hard earned $ given price/performance ratio?

Thanks in advance for advice

Welcome aboard. I am slightly biased on my opinion, however everything I have read (and seen) leads me to the following...

1. Either will win this one. They are both easy to use. The 722 might have a slight advantage when it comes to size.
2. 722. No doubt that this unit performs in extreme weather/harsh conditions and is built rock solid.
3. 722. Very nice pres and a really nice A>D. I think the Korg pre's are very sensitive and not the greatest out of the box, but good nonetheless.
4. DSD is a nice upgrade to PCM audio. However, there are not too many options with playback and mastering of DSD. You have to rely on Korg's software to do the DSD > PCM conversion. Not a deal breaker, but just something else to think about.
5. No way, IMO! The 722 is expensive, but you get piece of mind. It is a pro unit used on mission critical projects.
6. Only thing I would have done differently than buying a 722, would have been buying a 744t!

I would love a MR1000 myself, but I am going to wait until there are more flavors and playback/mastering options. I am perfectly happy with recording 24/96 for the time being.

[stirinthesauce]

I've played with both.  The mr-1000's pres are very nice, however, for louder sources you must either run pads on your mics or attenuate the signal before the recorder.  That is the only drawback, IMO.  The build is a little more solid on the 722, though both are built very well, and are a breeze to use.  If you've got an extra grand to spend, go for the 722.  If you would rather save it and put it towards something else, the korg is a solid recorder that, in my experience, sounds great out of the box.

[H₂O]

FWIW - You may want to look at a Sound Devices 702 as well if recording to a HDD is not too critical as it offers all the same features of the 722 w/o the HDD at $600 less (you cannot add an internal HDD to the 702).  Compact Flash Memory is getting pretty cheap and you can easily get 8GB high quailty cards for less than $100. 

Also with 7xx series V2 hardware and firmware you can record to an external Firewire HDD if necessary. 

I am probably going to go this route in the near future so I can afford to keep my V3.

[carlbeck]

I own the MR-1000, I have only recorded one show with it so far but the results were very impressive. I feel the pre-amps are excellent for a one box solution. It is not built as well as the SD but I feel it sounds on par if not a little better. Honestly it is a tough call b/c the SD is such a nice piece but they don't come cheap. I spent less on the Korg & have no regrets, I would do it again in a heartbeat.

[flintstone]

Here's a link to results of testing the self-noise of the preamps in many of today's recorders.  The 722 and the MR-1000 are included.  These tests are helpful because they measure how the recorders perform under identical test conditions.

http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

My reading of these results is that, under these test conditions, the 722 preamp has noticeably less self-noise and a wider dynamic range than the MR-1000.  In other words, you pay more for the 722, but you get more as well. 

The price/performance leader in these tests is the new Fostex FR-2LE.  Its performance in the tests is among the best.  Street price is less than $600.

Flintstone

[carlbeck]

I think the tests are valid to a certain extent but in our environments of recording music concerts I don't think the tests matter. All that matters is how the units sound. The testing to me does not indicate how the units will perform in the environment I will use the unit in. Maybe it matters more in a studio setting though so it is a valid concern.

[F.O.Bean]

i am a bit biased, but for proven reliability and ease of use and better self-noise and dynamics, its a clear winner IMO

once DSD unfolds over the next 5 years, it will hopefully be as easy to listen to/edit as PCM is now. but for now I think the 722 is your best bet.

[WiFiJeff]

I think the tests are valid to a certain extent but in our environments of recording music concerts I don't think the tests matter. All that matters is how the units sound. The testing to me does not indicate how the units will perform in the environment I will use the unit in. Maybe it matters more in a studio setting though so it is a valid concern.

I think this is absolutely the case.  The Korg mic-in will overload very easily, while I've never had that problem (with the same mics) with the 722, and there's no way to see this from the chart.  I did run both together Friday, but the results are not comparable since I was running two mic setups and the mic differences dominate any recorder differences.  The 722 is way sturdier than the MR1000, it is a brick.  My MR1000 had a hard drive glitch its first outing, which made me very nervous about using it without a backup recording going, and there have been warnings about moving it while recording.  I hope to do an A/B test 722/MR1000 using the same mics in about two weeks, if I can get a hold of a decent mixer to feed them.

Jeff

[ghellquist]

I hope to do an A/B test 722/MR1000 using the same mics in about two weeks, if I can get a hold of a decent mixer to feed them.

All you will need are two Y-cables. There is no problem in connecting the two preamps in parallell. Turn on phantom power on only one of them - there is a very small chance that two phantom feeds will interfer with each other.  I plan to do a similar test myself (own a 722, a friend has a MR1000).

Gunnar

[soundoc]

Identical mike feed recordings are exactly the type of observations that I am interested in.  Clearly one of the great debates that involves all pro and consumer audio is the importance of objective gear measurement vs. subjective opinion.  For instance, in the playback realm, much tube gear measures more poorly than solid state gear, but is often preferred for its intangible qualities.   In the end, it is subjective opinion about the quality of the recordings that matters more I think. 

Of great interest as well to me would be what the two recorders sound like head to head in different recording modes:

a)   Native recordings of 16/44 and 24/96
b)   Highest capable resolution recordings head to head
c)   Highest capable resolution recordings converted down to current "usable" formats such as 16/44 and 24/96

Does anyone have this type of experience with the recorders?

Thanks to all for advice so far.  I shall endeavor to be careful with my pronouns to keep all of the readership happy!!

Soundoc

[it-goes-to-eleven]

All you will need are two Y-cables. There is no problem in connecting the two preamps in parallell.

I have had good experiences running splitters... and once it ruined a recording (both sources). The problem was in the bass.  So I no longer run a splitter for anything important.

Like with any new recorder, I was curious about the MR1000... but once it came out I felt they'd blown the requirements analysis. It doesn't even have a hold switch. I figured they'd simply add the function via firmware update... but they haven't bothered.  The inputs can't even handle most mics at rock SPLs. Who spec'd that thing?

[TNJazz]

1) Simplicity of use

Both are very simple to use.  The Korg is probably simpler though.  The SD has a shit-ton of menu options.

2) Build and expected durability

Both are built well - the SD are more robust for sure though.  The Korg seems very solid until you hold a SD.

3) Sound as a one box solution--particularly in the realms of comparable recording such as 24/96 which I could actually do something with in terms of my current editing/sharing capacities. 

Both sound excellent.  I like the Korg's sound.  It's very detailed and clean using the internal preamps.

4) For MR1000, is the DSD sound really that different than 24/96 and above PCM?

Good God yes.  There's absolutely no comparison.  Even the DSD dithered to PCM files smoke straight PCM files.

5) For non professional but serious hobbyist is SD722 overkill? Is MR1000 too new and too gimmicky to have staying power as a product? 

Not overkill, but you should ask yourself how much you really need all the additional features of the SD.  I doubt the Korg is going to end up considered gimmicky.  There are a number of professional engineers who are very impressed with Korg's offering thus far.

6) What would you buy with your hard earned $ given price/performance ratio?

I'd buy the Korg, personally.  I don't need a lot of bells and whistles when I record to 2 channel.  I want a rig that's mics -> recorder (or mics -> pre -> recorder) and I want to be able to capture in native DSD format.  I was never a believer in high sample rates making that much of a difference until I heard it from this recorder.

When I go out and record 2 channel, the Korg is the deck that gets used.  If it's 4 channel we'll use the 744, but I will always capture to DSD first if possible.

[carlbeck]

I realize for the community there needs to be a comp but for those of us who own the technology or have heard it there is absolutely no comparison. DSD just flat out sounds better even when it is downsampled. 

[TNJazz]

We need a comp!!

There will be one in the next few weeks, I'm sure.  I want to be able to use the same pair of mics, pre and cables for it though.

If I'd thought about it I would have done a comp on Friday night.   

[VA_TAPER]

I ran a tube pre-> Tascam DSD before I gave up hauling around a golf cart battery now I've switched to the MR-1000+Neve Portico

Here are some Neve+DSD samples, DSD really has a euphonic quality about it that even survives downsapling...even mp3 encoding.  Check em' out. Microphone source for all recordings is a Stephen Paul Audio modified AKG C33e.

peace, chris

Mp3s:
All- Glen Phillips on vox (Various and Sundry Tour)- Exit Music (From a Film)
http://www.comebackdownload.com/Various%20and%20Sundry%20-%20Exit%20Music%20For%20a%20Film.mp3

Sara, Sean Watkins and Luke Bulla (Various and Sundry Tour)- Somebody More Like You.
http://www.comebackdownload.com/Various%20and%20Sundry%20-%20%20Somebody%20More%20Like%20You.mp3

Here is a full show on the archive from the TASCAM recorder:
http://www.archive.org/details/glen2005-08-30.dsd.flac

[boyacrobat]

welcome to the truth
dsd is the future, severly smokes pcm in quality.
i would choose dsd clearly over 722 pcm . embrace the future now.

pcm is decimated , dsd much more fluid & wider stream more detail, clearly audible.
its maths , dsd better than pcm
the answer is dsd even if found on a korg unit over 722.
you would want the quality, the depth & extra realism found in dsd on your recordings, you would believe not me but you once you play between dsd & pcm .
722 wont give you that no matter what its got, korg dsd unit smokes it hard due to dsd alone.

never run 722 or 1000 but only mr1 , thats blown me away and mr1000 doubles the mr1.
i will never use pcm ever again for recording.
it goes where no other rec has.
much respect for dsd i have.

goodluck on your choice and happy captures

g

[ghellquist]

welcome to the truth
dsd is the future, severly smokes pcm in quality.
i would choose dsd clearly over 722 pcm . embrace the future now.

Take it easy man. You have not even compared according to your own statement and here you state something as a TRUTH.

Personally I will save my judgement until it is based on experience. Just to put it into perspective, yes some recorders does not sound bad. Most of the bad ones use PCM. This does not mean that all PCM recorders sound bad.

My experience so far is that:
- the 722 sounds very close to what is input to the unit. Not quite as close as the combination of Millenium HV3D + Lavry Blue converters that I have in the large rig.
- very close to what is input is what I strive for, sounding good then is more of an estetically pleasing distortion. Sort of like the distortion you get playing electrical guitar through a fuzz unit, very right sometimes, very wrong at other times. If that is what dsd is about, I say no thanks. (Not that I believe that).
- the AD unit is not the most important part of my recording chain. I generally sort them in the following order, remember all my stuff is, hmm, "a bit above average".
   1) the talent
   2) the room  (as I record almost exclusively acoustic stuff)
   3) mic placement, a few feet of movement may be the difference between useable and really good
   4) the mics (2, 3 and 4 goes together as mic placement is dependant on the mic which is dependant on the room)
   5) the preamp and ad-converter
 
Gunnar

[MattD]

I realize for the community there needs to be a comp but for those of us who own the technology or have heard it there is absolutely no comparison. DSD just flat out sounds better even when it is downsampled. 

Carl, if you're ever in Boston and we're at a good show for it, we can try 722 with an analog out to DSD.

[carlbeck]

I realize for the community there needs to be a comp but for those of us who own the technology or have heard it there is absolutely no comparison. DSD just flat out sounds better even when it is downsampled. 

Carl, if you're ever in Boston and we're at a good show for it, we can try 722 with an analog out to DSD.

Well let's plan it then, I am in NH so Boston is easy. Honestly though for myself my mind is made up but I think we should do it for everyone else. Let me know what's coming up that you plan on catching.

[ghellquist]

Carl, if you're ever in Boston and we're at a good show for it, we can try 722 with an analog out to DSD.

Just remember, the analog out on the 722 goes through AD and then DA inside the box. The comparison could be "interesting" when people start guessing what box is which, perhaps not quite fair though.

Gunnar

[MattD]

Carl, if you're ever in Boston and we're at a good show for it, we can try 722 with an analog out to DSD.

Just remember, the analog out on the 722 goes through AD and then DA inside the box. The comparison could be "interesting" when people start guessing what box is which, perhaps not quite fair though.

Gunnar

I didn't know that. Not that I doubt you, but I don't see that explicitly in the manual. What's your source?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I didn't know that. Not that I doubt you, but I don't see that explicitly in the manual. What's your source?

Justin @ SD.

[MattD]

Damn, I was looking for it and found Matt from SD's response as well.

Carl, you going to any of the Lowell Summer Music shows? I'll be at Nickel Creek, MMW (probably), and the Flecktones.

[carlbeck]

I would probably do MMW, we can see how he analog outs are from the MR-1000 to see if that will work for the comp?

[MattD]

Sure thing. That also prevents me from buying a set of cables.

[Nick's Picks]

I'll make a set of splitters for this comp...if there is interest.

[Nick's Picks]

and..i've been jonsin' for some MMW.  I haven't seen them since 2002.
Lowell show?  is that it?
August sometiime?

keep me in das-loopin

[carlbeck]

Actualy spliters are the way to go. Should we do just AD stages using external pre amps or all in one solution comps?

[Nick's Picks]

we'll do it ALL !!!

[Sanjay]

I ran a tube pre-> Tascam DSD before I gave up hauling around a golf cart battery now I've switched to the MR-1000+Neve Portico

Here are some Neve+DSD samples, DSD really has a euphonic quality about it that even survives downsapling...even mp3 encoding.  Check em' out. Microphone source for all recordings is a Stephen Paul Audio modified AKG C33e.

peace, chris

Mp3s:
All- Glen Phillips on vox (Various and Sundry Tour)- Exit Music (From a Film)
http://www.comebackdownload.com/Various%20and%20Sundry%20-%20Exit%20Music%20For%20a%20Film.mp3

Sara, Sean Watkins and Luke Bulla (Various and Sundry Tour)- Somebody More Like You.
http://www.comebackdownload.com/Various%20and%20Sundry%20-%20%20Somebody%20More%20Like%20You.mp3

Here is a full show on the archive from the TASCAM recorder:
http://www.archive.org/details/glen2005-08-30.dsd.flac

That's fantastic sounding.

Thanks.

[TNJazz]

Actualy spliters are the way to go. Should we do just AD stages using external pre amps or all in one solution comps?

You should use a single pre and split the lines coming out of it going to the decks.  This is what I was going to do the next opportunity I have.

[JasonSobel]

Actualy spliters are the way to go. Should we do just AD stages using external pre amps or all in one solution comps?

You should use a single pre and split the lines coming out of it going to the decks.  This is what I was going to do the next opportunity I have.

or use a pre with two sets of outputs.  like a V2.
that'd be a great comp.  V2 > 722 and same V2 > MR1000.

[JasonSobel]

or use a pre with two sets of outputs.  like a V2.
that'd be a great comp.  V2 > 722 and same V2 > MR1000.

But which recorder gets stuck with the unbalanced outputs?

you could switch it up at setbreak.
are there any portable pre-amps that are fairly common with two sets of balanced outputs?  offhand, I can't think of any.
also, I am of the opinion that the differences due to unbalanced vs. balanced outputs would be minor, but it is something that should be considered.

[gmm6797]

IMHO, find a pre that has the same outputs to 2 separate decks... so that the only difference in the specs of a comparison are the decks... nothing else

I have access to 2 different MK4>KCY>VMS02ib setups... and a 722, but no MR1000 for an exact comparison

Anyone in the Western NY area with a MR1000?

[Nick's Picks]

between my preamp, Carls preamp and all the various analog input decks we have on hand, a nice splitter cable will be fine.

[BC]

or use a pre with two sets of outputs.  like a V2.
that'd be a great comp.  V2 > 722 and same V2 > MR1000.

But which recorder gets stuck with the unbalanced outputs?

you could switch it up at setbreak.
are there any portable pre-amps that are fairly common with two sets of balanced outputs?  offhand, I can't think of any.
also, I am of the opinion that the differences due to unbalanced vs. balanced outputs would be minor, but it is something that should be considered.

I am pretty sure that the balanced outs run hotter than the unbalanced.

[carlbeck]

The MR will need the unbalanced outs so the inputs won't overload.

[JasonSobel]

or use a pre with two sets of outputs.  like a V2.
that'd be a great comp.  V2 > 722 and same V2 > MR1000.

But which recorder gets stuck with the unbalanced outputs?

you could switch it up at setbreak.
are there any portable pre-amps that are fairly common with two sets of balanced outputs?  offhand, I can't think of any.
also, I am of the opinion that the differences due to unbalanced vs. balanced outputs would be minor, but it is something that should be considered.

I am pretty sure that the balanced outs run hotter than the unbalanced.

yes.  the unbalanced outs on the V2 are 6dB lower than the balanced.  but as Carl is alluding to, the MR1000 likely has a lower overload point compared to the 722.  I don't know what the specific specs are of the MR1000 (i.e. where is overloads, or at what analog level it hits 0dBfs, etc), but all those details should definitely be nailed down before the comp happens.

[carlbeck]

I think without all of us getting into our lab coats if we just use a V2 & I take the unbalanced outs into my MR-1000 it will be close enough for a fair comp. So the balanced outs into the 722, the unbalanced into the MR-1000 (must be a 1/4 TRS jack) the comp will be close enough for most ears. The real trick will be to get the levels exact & that will require post processing which I bet will skew the comp more than balanced vs. unbalanced. Regardless, I am confident the DSD will shine, even dithered down to 24 or 16 or MP3.

[boyacrobat]

this test is insulting to dsd comparing it to a pcm machine, even if its a 722.
do the test and get over it.

by the way to balance insult , mr1 rec in dsd will smoke 722 also.


g.

[carlbeck]

this test is insulting to dsd comparing it to a pcm machine, even if its a 722.
do the test and get over it.

by the way to balance insult , mr1 rec in dsd will smoke 722 also.


g.

Well without sounding so smug I do agree to a certain extent. Honestly the difference in what you hear with DSD vs. PCM on a  high rez system is as noticeable as MP3 to 24 bit IMO. The only problem is no solution to playback the files in DSD at this time, the dithered 24 bits sound sweet though so until there is a reasonable solution I will enjoy dithered 24 bit recordings.

[WiFiJeff]

I'd like to believe these are killer boxes, but there hasn't been much in the way of direct head-to-head tests.  I listened to Simon's comp (MR-1 fed by the preamp of the V3, digital feed from the V3 to a MT2496), and ended up like most preferring the V3 A/D version over DSD.  I've liked the few MR-1 and MR-1000 recordings I've made, but I haven't seen the evidence yet to rate them quite so high.  I've gone line-in to both machines (except for a botched MR-1000 run, where my Josephsons overloaded the mic input of the MR-1000), but hope (if I get the splitter cables I ordered by tomorrow) to a/b the 722 internal preamp/A/D and the MR-1000 preamp/DSD on Friday, then test both fed with an external preamp next week.  The lack of a general means of distributing and listening to DSD recordings is also an issue; if it doesn't sound better on CD or DVD-A (and even DVD-A is only interesting to a few of my friends) I'm not sure when DSD will be useful.

Jeff

[Nick's Picks]

my not very objective thoughts:
its hard not to be biased when its your deck, first off.  That, and I'm a fan of the technology..., to the point where I'm unconcerned w/tests and comps.

In my own little world...where my opinion is the only one w/any weight...
I do hear a difference.
I hear it right away when I'm listening to the DSD masters especially.  I know my gear, I know how things have sounded....and what they now sound like since moving to the Korg MR1.  I really do think there is "something there" that isn't there w/PCM. 

In any case....., Its real nice to not have to worry about an all in one box ,(now that i'm over that lust), and just "have trust" in my little deck meeting all of my needs from open taping w/bomber ass preamps and whatever..., to very low profile recording w/just mics and a battbox.  I know the MR1 will yield results that will be pleasing to me.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

this test is insulting to dsd comparing it to a pcm machine, even if its a 722.
do the test and get over it.

by the way to balance insult , mr1 rec in dsd will smoke 722 also.

Hype aside, the v3 a/d was preferred over the mr1 in a comp here. The r09 a/d was very much preferred over the v3 a/d in the comps I've put up here (2 or 3).  So there is some question whether the more costly mr1 can beat out the r09 in a comp with a good pre in front.

[Brian Skalinder]

Hype aside, the v3 a/d was preferred over the mr1 in a comp here. The r09 a/d was very much preferred over the v3 a/d in the comps I've put up here (2 or 3).  So there is some question whether the more costly mr1 can beat out the r09 in a comp with a good pre in front.

As with any comp done here at TS, I wonder if those tests say more about the reading/listening/voting population, their playback gear and environments, ears/brains, and recording and listening experiences, than they do about the quality of the gear itself.   

[Nick's Picks]

ya think?

[TNJazz]

All I know is that for the first time EVER, when I listen to a DSD recording and close my eyes it actually makes me feel like I'm right back in the room hearing it live.

NEVER got that with any PCM recording.  Close, but not quite.

[TNJazz]

All I know is that for the first time EVER, when I listen to a DSD recording and close my eyes it actually makes me feel like I'm right back in the room hearing it live.

What's your opinion on how well that sound carries over to PCM conversion for playback?

It loses a little, but it seems like some of the clarity and "openness" of the sound is retained, even at 16/44.1.  I've been very pleased so far with the few shows we're run the box for.  Look forward to using it a lot more in the future!

[F.O.Bean]

IU would like to get maybe just the MR-1, and see what the hype is all about

My playback can barely take advantage of 24-Bit stuff at the moment tho, so I would go AWHILE til I could sit back and enjoy the DSD stuff. BUT, thats really all I'm doing right now with my 24/48 and 24/96 stuff. Just keeping it nice and fresh for when I can actually take davnatage of it

I wish SD would release a 7xx series DSD machine, with the same pre's and dimensions and same box, but with DSD converters or however that shit works I'm WAY TOO in love with my 722 to part with it anytime soon. Especially if/when I sell the v2 to run just 48x>722 cause its FINALLY the sound I've been looking for all these years Never know tho, I might fall in love with the MR-1k or soemthing. I personally will prolly wait a few years and wait for more companies come out with them, so we have some diff flavors of them to keep us happy I wish we could run a true passthru with the 722. I'd buy an MR-1 just to run 48x>722>Analog>MR-1

So is an ADC even eneded. or is the ADC the Analog>DSD conversion? so its really not and ADFC persay, but an Analog>DSD conversion, right?

[JasonSobel]

So is an ADC even needed. or is the ADC the Analog>DSD conversion? so its really not and ADFC persay, but an Analog>DSD conversion, right?

well, an ADC is just an "analog to digital" converter.  DSD is a digital format, just a different kind of digital format (not PCM).  so yes, the signal goes through an ADC.  but at this point, there are very few external A/D boxes for DSD, and I don't think any portable ones.  so you're using the ADC in whatever DSD deck you have (the Korg boxes, or the Tascam DSD recorder).

[Nick's Picks]

and the advantages of DSD are heard (at least by me) FAR more readily than the sonics bennefits of 24bit vs. 16.

I dont bother w/24bit anything anymore.  I go DSD>Redbook...and i'm freaki'n A happy.

[TNJazz]

and the advantages of DSD are heard (at least by me) FAR more readily than the sonics bennefits of 24bit vs. 16.

I dont bother w/24bit anything anymore.  I go DSD>Redbook...and i'm freaki'n A happy.

Amazing, isn't it?  I feel the same way.

I wish we could run a true passthru with the 722. I'd buy an MR-1 just to run 48x>722>Analog>MR-1

Why does everyone want to do passthrough?  All you need is a pair of XLR splitters.

[stirinthesauce]

Why does everyone want to do passthrough?  All you need is a pair of XLR splitters.

come on, Dirk, don't over simplify things for them.  

[F.O.Bean]

and the advantages of DSD are heard (at least by me) FAR more readily than the sonics bennefits of 24bit vs. 16.

I dont bother w/24bit anything anymore.  I go DSD>Redbook...and i'm freaki'n A happy.

how do you listen to DSD then? could I do it with the PC>receiver?

[Nick's Picks]

DSD recording deck > receiver.

its the digital protocol that is different Bean.  It wont work w/a standard sound card that only handles PCM.
You'd have to have :
1. software that can read the files and play them.  which it will do and send the data over whatever sound card you have.  It is not true DSD though, the software probably converts to PCM so you can hear it.  like the audiogate software.

2. DSD HARDWARE...ie, dsd soundcard.  will require 1bit  DSD chips..etc.

when you play the files w/your deck then you are getting the latter.

[MattH]

and the advantages of DSD are heard (at least by me) FAR more readily than the sonics bennefits of 24bit vs. 16.

I dont bother w/24bit anything anymore.  I go DSD>Redbook...and i'm freaki'n A happy.

I agree. To me the quality jump from 24 bit to DSD is similar to the jump between MP3 and 24 bit.

[F.O.Bean]

so......I can still burn TRUE DSD to DVD-R as data tho as a backup......So I could essentially have a whole EXHDD dedicated to DSD as a backup then retransfer to listen to on the deck if needed?

[carlbeck]

Or maybe the process of having to listen to the recording on the giant ipod that is the dsd recording deck is subconsiously biasing you to think it is better.

Nope not even close, just proves that you haven't heard it yet. Sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption. I dither mine down to 24 bit & listen to it on my playback system which consists of:

MacIntosh MA 6450 Amp
DH Labs Air Matrix Silver IC
Denon 2900 Universal player
ZU Cable Wax Shotguns
B&W CDM1-SE speakers

I am pretty confident I am hearing everything with this system & it has nothing to do with a giant i-pod. I also would invite anyone over to my house to do a true blind test of source material & challenge them to not hear the obvious DSD difference.

[MattH]

so......I can still burn TRUE DSD to DVD-R as data tho as a backup......So I could essentially have a whole EXHDD dedicated to DSD as a backup then retransfer to listen to on the deck if needed?

This is more or less what I am doing with my DSD recordings. Archiving them on massive hard drives and transfering them to the recorder for true DSD playback when I get the urge. I guess I should also be backing up to dvd optical discs or redundant hard drives. AudioGate is nice for a quick listen on the PC, PCM copies for friends/uploading or PCM for car listening.

[Nick's Picks]

same here.
I dump them to DVDs and then straight into the case.
also, on the hard drive in DSD, 24/96 and redbook.
I have since stopped w/the 24bit action.  not necessary.

[timP]

just checking,

what do you use to covert from DSD>rebook?

is it a bear or yr PC as far as time and processing?

[F.O.Bean]

so......I can still burn TRUE DSD to DVD-R as data tho as a backup......So I could essentially have a whole EXHDD dedicated to DSD as a backup then retransfer to listen to on the deck if needed?

This is more or less what I am doing with my DSD recordings. Archiving them on massive hard drives and transfering them to the recorder for true DSD playback when I get the urge. I guess I should also be backing up to dvd optical discs or redundant hard drives. AudioGate is nice for a quick listen on the PC, PCM copies for friends/uploading or PCM for car listening.

Damnit. As soon as I FINALLY get settled onto the sound Ive been looking for, some new fuckin technology has to tempt me once again

I have to resist the urge for at least 3-4 more years. By then I'm sure it will be a little more widely available and there are more than one company selling portable models I'm sure its killer, but I have to stay away from it for awhile

Besides, for once I am happy with the sound I am getting consistently, which has really never happened before so consistently, so I am gonna stick with 48x>722 for quite sometime, If it sounded this good in 16-bit(which im sure it does) and that was my only option, was running 48x>722(16-bit) I would run it at 16-bit, just saying......I dont care what resolution mine is in(24-bit obviously) but it sounds good combo-wise and i'll stick with 24-bit for awhile i guess. or til i hear a 722 equivalent in the DSD market that is....

TimP - I know that with the Korg MR-1 and MR-1000 there is a program called AudioGate that converts DSD>PCM

[Nick's Picks]

yup, the audiogate software does the format conversion.  Its quick.  on my laptop a 1 hour set might take 15min to process to redbook.

[Gizby]

yup, the audiogate software does the format conversion.  Its quick.  on my laptop a 1 hour set might take 15min to process to redbook.

Are you happy with the DSD>Redbook conversion on Audiogate? I've been cautious and converting it to 24/96 or 48 and then dithering down to Redbook in Audition [w/Ozone]. But I'll be damned if that doesn't take a lot of extra time and space to do. I just remember a few people complaining that converting straight to Redbook gave them weird/bad results. Have there been any new versions of Audiogate which have improved performance?

[Nick's Picks]

there was one audiogate update, recently.
it was bundled w/the firmware.

no issues what so ever going DSD>Redbook.
works like butta

[boyacrobat]

dont overlook the fact dsd is a more deeper sound arena which allows more info in a split second to be rec than pcm.
that means more bits available to capture the sound each second. much more.
result is audible. piss on decimated anything even if pcm.
why rec now with decimated formula when dsd is smoking with more bits available for capture.

in battle pcm is a pistol 6 rounds, dsd is machine gun, in battle performance is everything.
want results, take the dsd to battle.

g

[Nick's Picks]

there are not more "bits" in DSD.  Its 1 bit. 
its the sample rate that is outrageous.
Everything is done in that single bit.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

dont overlook the fact dsd is a more deeper sound arena which allows more info in a split second to be rec than pcm.

Incorrect.

[Nick's Picks]

is it?
I think he's trying to talk about the sample rate being 64 times that of redbook CD standards, and that is A LOT more data being recorded per second, in terms of samples.

even recording at 192kHz, its what, 16 times more info per second? in normal DSD mode.  Let alone the 5.6gHz sample rate of the MR1k.

[Nick's Picks]

but..
is the DSD magic in the sample rate being so high?  or is it in the 1bit "zen" approach to how its written?
beats me.
I just like it.

[Nick's Picks]

http://www.answers.com/topic/direct-stream-digital
http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm7-3/dvd-en.html

some good reading in here. 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

even recording at 192kHz, its what, 16 times more info per second? in normal DSD mode.  Let alone the 5.6gHz sample rate of the MR1k.

The hype and fanboyism is getting deep and thick! The hype about guns, bullets and battle is just sad.

Megahertz, not gigahertz.

24 bits x 96000 samples/second = 2304000 bits/second

Sheesh.

[carlbeck]

even recording at 192kHz, its what, 16 times more info per second? in normal DSD mode.  Let alone the 5.6gHz sample rate of the MR1k.

The hype and fanboyism is getting deep and thick! The hype about guns, bullets and battle is just sad.

Megahertz, not gigahertz.

24 bits x 96000 samples/second = 2304000 bits/second

Sheesh.

Yep I agree it sounds like hype but have you HEARD it yet for yourself? We do own the products & we have recorded before in PCM & WE all hear the difference, so I ask again HAVE YOU heard either of these recorders yet?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Yep I agree it sounds like hype but have you HEARD it yet for yourself? We do own the products & we have recorded before in PCM & WE all hear the difference, so I ask again HAVE YOU heard either of these recorders yet?

I'd like to hear it... but that's a big part of the problem - I can't.

I'm all for better sound but I have no plans to record in a format where I must use the recorder as a playback device.  I have 2+ terabytes of 24/96 pcm masters... And in the korg dsd approach I'm supposed to copy those onto the recorder for playback?  Right..  Unfortunately, momentum for dsd authoring and playback doesn't really seem to be building.

The current korg products seem short-lived. They may or may not be replaced by new models in the future.  So far I haven't been impressed by the customer support coming from Korg (compared to SD).

If there was actually a viable path to using DSD (market demand, playback and authoring), sound devices would likely release a DSD a/d board for the 7xx series.

[ghellquist]

Yep I agree it sounds like hype but have you HEARD it yet for yourself? We do own the products & we have recorded before in PCM & WE all hear the difference, so I ask again HAVE YOU heard either of these recorders yet?

I have heard a little but not enough to make any judgement yet. It will come in good time after a true AB test.

But what PCM are you comparing to? I mean, an Edirol R1 is supposedly 24 bit PCM, but does not sound very good.

From what I have seen so far, the MR1000 seems to give quite a lot for a decent price. It does not have top-of-the-class mic amps though. The converter is a rather low-priced chip, not necessarily a bad thing as such, but still. My bet is that top-quality equipment will beat rounds around it. I hold my judgement though til I have heard a true AB test.

Gunnar

[Nick's Picks]

The hype and fanboyism is getting deep and thick! The hype about guns, bullets and battle is just sad.

Megahertz, not gigahertz.

24 bits x 96000 samples/second = 2304000 bits/second

Sheesh.

yup, my typo.
still, its a shitload more samples.  And even if i'm dupped by DSD, the worst is that i've got a recorder that I like, I think it sounds good and I enjoy using it, well, that ain't so bad.
I can live w/it.

[cshepherd]

dont overlook the fact dsd is a more deeper sound arena which allows more info in a split second to be rec than pcm.
that means more bits available to capture the sound each second. much more.
result is audible. piss on decimated anything even if pcm.
why rec now with decimated formula when dsd is smoking with more bits available for capture.

in battle pcm is a pistol 6 rounds, dsd is machine gun, in battle performance is everything.
want results, take the dsd to battle.

g

Dude, enough of your John Wayne BS about DSD.  Don't bring a stick to a gunfight.  I'll tie your dsd machine to a freakin' whippin' post and torture it with a 30 year old Nagra reel to reel.  It's still digital.  Let me know when you make your way back to the analog world and then we'll see.

Chris

[it-goes-to-eleven]

yup, my typo.
still, its a shitload more samples.

Explain please.

[Nick's Picks]

2.8 million samples per second is a lot more than 96000 per second.
16x the number of measurements per second is a much "higher resolution" picture, imo.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

2.8 million samples per second is a lot more than 96000 per second.

The bandwidth is the same.

[carlbeck]

2.8 million samples per second is a lot more than 96000 per second.
16x the number of measurements per second is a much "higher resolution" picture, imo.

Now. Give a mathematical proof on how this affects sound!

You know, in the real world, things are not quite as simple.

Gunnar

I keep saying this, until you hear it do not pass judgement. Those of us who own it like it but yet those of you have never heard it are just fighting it without any real reason too. None of your assumptions are based on anything other than your own unwillingness to believe that Korg could somehow produce a good product. You guys all sound like it's impossible to believe the world is in fact round.

[Nick's Picks]

I'm just looking at it simplistic terms.

if 96,000 kHz / second is better than 44,100. 
then why wouldnt 2.8million be any less?

is a 35mm camera better than 110?
If sample rate is irrelevant...they why record higher than redbook in the fist place?


I dont need to understand it to embrace it.  I just like the way it sounds.  I think its better than my PCM masters of the past.

I dont think its the "2nd coming" or anything. but I like it ... a lot.
I think the meat of my recordings lie in the ApogeeMMP ...personally.
I'm of the opinion that the analog stage is the most important...., thats why I am also such a fan of the Oade mod 660.  I dont care what resolution it is, it just sounds great.
same deal here for me. 

it boils down to does DSD mastering sound better than PCM mastering.
to me...yes.
Cheskey seems to agree as well.

[TNJazz]

Or maybe the process of having to listen to the recording on the giant ipod that is the dsd recording deck is subconsiously biasing you to think it is better.

Nope not even close, just proves that you haven't heard it yet. Sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption. I dither mine down to 24 bit & listen to it on my playback system which consists of:

MacIntosh MA 6450 Amp
DH Labs Air Matrix Silver IC
Denon 2900 Universal player
ZU Cable Wax Shotguns
B&W CDM1-SE speakers

I am pretty confident I am hearing everything with this system & it has nothing to do with a giant i-pod. I also would invite anyone over to my house to do a true blind test of source material & challenge them to not hear the obvious DSD difference.

agreed.  I do the same most of the time - dithering down to 24/96 through the D/A of my Metric Halo to the studio monitors and say what you want but the differences are IMMEDIATELY obvious, even with that method.  Maybe they sprinkled some pixie dust on the Audiogate software, but whatever it is - it sounds much better than straight PCM.

[boyacrobat]

diss me all you like
dsd dsd dsd dsd dsd
get it       im not the Duke im the alarm clock.

ill turn off now,sleep in, wake up when ready.

g

[Nick's Picks]

if 96,000 kHz / second is better than 44,100. 
then why wouldnt 2.8million be any less?

You're trying to say a dozen is more than 12.

your loosing me.
I'm saying ... 2.8million is a greater number than 96thousand.
thats all.
and if you put it in the context of measurement...does the ruler w/the most "notches" make the most accurate measurement?
yes.

[carlbeck]

it sounds much better than straight PCM.

What are you comparing? Please elaborate! / G

My reference point has been my Oade Modified Fostex FR2 as well as the numerous 722, 671, 660 recordings I have heard over the years. I have personally been recording 24 bit on my Fostex since it was first introduced.

[carlbeck]

My reference point has been my Oade Modified Fostex FR2 as well as the numerous 722, 671, 660 recordings I have heard over the years. I have personally been recording 24 bit on my Fostex since it was first introduced.

Well. I have never said anything but that my Lavry Blue sounds better then my 722. Never used an FR2, modded or not. See, a true AB comparison is not quite as easy. And the pixie dust in the DSD may not be only due to DSD.

Once more, anything less than a true AB comparison will be, well, less.

It is a good thing that you like your MR1000, no less, but this does not mean that the only solution to all the problems in the world is DSD.

G.

Quite frankly no one has mentioned that there is a problem with PCM let alone the solution being DSD. There are users like myself who have the technology & enjoy it. We seem to have to defend ourselves against against remarks such as yours above. We are happy using the technology, we all feel it was money well spent. I am not trying to force my views on you as you are to me. No offense but I have recorded in PCM for a long time & I was pleased with it until I heard my recordings with DSD. I know the tapes I produce, I have been doing this over 10 years & while it may not be a justified comp in YOUR eyes it is in mine, nothing has changed in my rig except for the recorder. I am quite confident in what I hear, until you try the technology yourself you have no right to force your views down my throat of how valid my opinions are. I am sorry I don't mean to sound like a dick but some of you have been jerk offs during this whole thread & it has become one big pissing match. I have been around a while & many people here have heard my tapes, I am not suggesting the world  should now go buy DSD but if you want an idea of the difference go download any of my shows & then let me send you samples from the shows we just did. Until someone steps up to the plate with their pcm recorder & we run a comp that pleases all of you geeks then that is all you can do. At this point I am done with this thread, I will not waste any more energy explaining myself & what I hear on my system until some of you decide to come to my house & hear my recordings on my system or try it out for yourselves. Enjoy your PCM, as I will my DSD.

[Nick's Picks]

and if you put it in the context of measurement...does the ruler w/the most "notches" make the most accurate measurement?
yes.

Well, in my place we run 230V in the wall. It has to be better then 110V? What we are trying to say that some comparisons are not giving any useful information.  G.
[/quote]

but that has no relative merit.
I thought the ruler metaphor was pretty spot on.

[carlbeck]

I am not trying to force my views on you as you are to me.ystem or try it out for yourselves. Enjoy your PCM, as I will my DSD.

Well, in that case that makes two of us. I have never tried to force any view on you. But go back and read your own posts, and then say who is truly one-sided.

G.

Nope, you are correct, I was a little hard on you but that being said I am not one sided in the fact that I have owned & used both technologies. The first time I heard Nick's DSD recording I was blown away, then everything else he has recorded. Then I purchased the MR-1000 that doubles the sample rate & I am convinced. I am pleased where I am, if I want to record 24 or 16 bit I can, either way if DSD goes like Beta Max I am covered with this deck.

[trajhip2000]

your loosing me.
I'm saying ... 2.8million is a greater number than 96thousand.
thats all.
and if you put it in the context of measurement...does the ruler w/the most "notches" make the most accurate measurement?
yes.

I'm not disputing what anyone says they hear (and I have not heard dsd yet), but we should know by now that this kind of analogy isn't valid, since we're not talking about an analog ruler are we? AFAIK no one has come up with a solid, widely accepted explanation for why Nyquist is no longer valid and higher sampling rates are better - mostly it seems to be conjecture about the negative sonic impact of anti-aliasing filters percolating down into the audible range or some such. Now, given the number of people that claim to hear a difference I am more than willing to believe that there is something going on (and I do record at 96K "just in case"), but I don't believe a "ruler with more notches" explanation is supported by current digital signal theory. Having said that, you are certainly under no obligation to do more than say "this is what I hear" - in fact, since I don't think many of us have any real fundamental expertise in this area (incl. me) it's probably safer to avoid trying to come up with explanations anyways.

Steve

[Nick's Picks]

What Carl or I hear on our systems is only definitive to us alone.  we are firmly entrenched in our camps.., as we tag team technology.

I'm not going to say one box sounds better than another.  Like I said, the preamp is key.  if the mr1k had the exact same preamps as the 7xx boxes, you bet your ass you'd hear the difference.
but...it doesn't...so you can't really do a good comparison.

so, we need an outboard preamp (covered), splitter cables (covered) and then a DSD recorder and take your pick of the PCM recorders...which are not all equal either.  these Korg DSD decks can't be the end-all be-all of DSD converters...so putting up the ADC of a $4k PCM recorder (like a SD box) against a sub $1000 DSD recorder (as in the MR1)...its not really apples and apples either.  But if it holds its own..or surpasses..., well..I believe that speaks volumes.  no pun intended.

double blind tests..
I hate them.  they always prove me wrong.  so in the long run, I'm happy just being happy w/what I hear.  Take the r9 vs v3 comp for example.  that was painful!  How can a 24bit converter...tested to be around 15bits of usable information...best something like a V3?
hog wash!

yet, I picked that as my favorite too.

[Nick's Picks]

well said.

I use the ruler metaphor because that was the argument used in favor of 24bit recording and high sample rates over DAT.  Lots of feet draggin there too...but they are all born again High-Rez PCM guys these days aren't they?

[Colin Liston]

Sometimes I drink the whole bottle of Robitussin. 

[Nick's Picks]

LOL

[TNJazz]

it sounds much better than straight PCM.

What are you comparing? Please elaborate! / G

I have been recording the same band mixed by the same engineer in the same room for over 4 years now (a dozen or so shows a year) and I recently substituted the DSD recorder in the chain.  The difference to me is like night and day.

Is it a valid comp in a technical sense?  No, but like carlbeck says I know what my ears are telling me based on my past body of work.  I've been recording live music since the late 80's and have made the progression from analog to digital to 24 bit digital and now to DSD.  I feel like my past work had been pretty consistent, and now it's taken a huge jump upwards (that's what MY ears are telling me.)

I have a 744 sitting on my desk that could easily go out on all of these gigs but I've become enchanted with what I'm hearing from the Korg, so the SD is getting a bit dusty for any 2 channel work we do.  I will be taking it out for the next show to do a true comp (mics -> Sonosax -> split -> 744t/MR1000) but I haven't had the chance yet.

Will that convince the naysayers that DSD is better than PCM?

Don't know.

Don't care.

I'm curious for myself though, and I will gladly share the comp so everyone else can make up their own mind.  Who knows?  Maybe my mind will change in a true head to head battle.

Until then, I'm in the DSD camp with Nick and Carl.

[F.O.Bean]

it sounds much better than straight PCM.

What are you comparing? Please elaborate! / G

I have been recording the same band mixed by the same engineer in the same room for over 4 years now (a dozen or so shows a year) and I recently substituted the DSD recorder in the chain.  The difference to me is like night and day.

Is it a valid comp in a technical sense?  No, but like carlbeck says I know what my ears are telling me based on my past body of work.  I've been recording live music since the late 80's and have made the progression from analog to digital to 24 bit digital and now to DSD.  I feel like my past work had been pretty consistent, and now it's taken a huge jump upwards (that's what MY ears are telling me.)

I have a 744 sitting on my desk that could easily go out on all of these gigs but I've become enchanted with what I'm hearing from the Korg, so the SD is getting a bit dusty for any 2 channel work we do.  I will be taking it out for the next show to do a true comp (mics -> Sonosax -> split -> 744t/MR1000) but I haven't had the chance yet.

Will that convince the naysayers that DSD is better than PCM?

Don't know.

Don't care.

I'm curious for myself though, and I will gladly share the comp so everyone else can make up their own mind.  Who knows?  Maybe my mind will change in a true head to head battle.

Until then, I'm in the DSD camp with Nick and Carl.

+T Dirk, thanks for the informative post brotha! What you said about your recordings getting better/more consistently is something I can def relate too. after getting the v3 my tapes got consistently better. once i ditched the v3 and got a 722, I was simply amazed at how consistently I was pulling not only decent/good tapes but I'm talking Amazingly crisp/clear recordings for many shows in a row. It's kind of hard to blieve that IN MY EARS, that my recordings can even get any better, well, until DSD. If you said they get even more consistently amazing, well then, I HAVE TO try out one of these Korgs...

so the consensus is to run a preamp in front of both teh MR-1 and the MR-1000 has anyone been impressed with just mics>MR1k

[TNJazz]

so the consensus is to run a preamp in front of both teh MR-1 and the MR-1000 has anyone been impressed with just mics>MR1k

Jury's still out on that.  The two shows that we test ran with the Korg preamp turned out quite nicely I think.  The last show I tested with the Sonosax in line didn't sound quite as crisp and defined to me, but I can attribute much of that to the band.  I'm waiting for a show with a band I'm more familiar with before I decide, but certainly a dedicated outboard pre is never a bad idea.

The internal pre is not bad at all though.  Maybe a bit thin but still very usable as an all in one box (this is what I was looking for).  It's very hot and overloads easily, so you have to run pads and/or inline attenuators for safety.  Going line in from an outboard pre is not an issue at all though, only the mic in is scorching hot.

Here's a show with the Korg preamp:  http://www.archive.org/details/oteil2007-06-02

I also have a couple others I could post samples of at some point.

[Nick's Picks]

I wasn't at all disappointed with what I heard out of the mr1k straight up.  Its a little thin maybe...or just super, super clean.  no "meat" at all, but not in a bad way.  didn't sound like a zefiro inbox or anything.

[soundoc]

I am the fool who started this thread.  Interesting reading all the way through--some light and some heat that's for sure!  I know that when listening to professionally recorded native DSD on a higher end stereo that there is a phenomenal difference compared to dithered redbook--that my ears and brain are confident of.  Just sounds a lot more like music and a lot less "fatiguing" after listening for a while.  Whether that makes Korg or a more state of the art PCM machine like 722 the recording medium of choice now or for the future clearly subject to the controversy here...

Listened to a few samples of the above--sounds good to me overall!  As am very interested in "one box" solution as outlined at start of the post, issue of mic pre amp overload is of importance to me on Korg MR 1000.  Would potentially be using this with pair of Earthworks TC 20 omni condensors in a Jecklin ("baffle") configuration where channel matching is critical.  Mikes are "hot" unto themselves, but never had to attenuate with my current home studio oriented gear.   I dont have a portable mike preamp at present. 

Technical questions then:

1) What do you use for attenuation for louder shows? 
2) Being largely unfamiliar with mic attenuators/pads, can someone tell me how closely these tend to be "matched".  Slight channel variances in signal from mikes in baffle recordings really throw the whole technique into the dumper.  Seems like the circuitry in these is pretty simple and I suspect not something to create a lot of signal variance or degradation, but I am interested in practical experience.

Thanks

Soundoc

[flintstone]

I have been recording the same band mixed by the same engineer in the same room for over 4 years now (a dozen or so shows a year) and I recently substituted the DSD recorder in the chain.  The difference to me is like night and day.

This statement is much more compelling than "I've got one and I like it."  Thanks for sharing, and +T!

I think I understand the advantages of DSD, but I'm concerned about the Korg preamps for the type of recording I do (quiet, low SPL, where it's easy to hear the pre's self-noise).   Using an external pre makes sense, even if it complicates the setup.

Flintstone

[Nick's Picks]

yea, that is certainly the best evidence in support of the product that I've heard as well.  the consistency of the same band/room/eng is key in this. 
But, honestly...you know what your recordings/stereo sound like, you know when things get "better", even marginally.  In your case, its even more instantly apparent.
good post.
+T

[MattD]

and if you put it in the context of measurement...does the ruler w/the most "notches" make the most accurate measurement?
yes.

NO! A ruler with more "notches" will make the more precise measurement. </engineer>

[ts]

Can an MR1 and a 722 be run out of a V3 at the same time, still using the AD in the 722 Or run analog out of 722 to MR1? Just trying to decide if it might be worth running an MR1 not only for backup but for future playback, whenever that happens.

[WiFiJeff]

Data:

I ran an A/B test yesterday with the MR-1000 and the SD722, though not the one I planned, as my splitter cables have not yet arrived (backlog at SP, still waiting).  Instead, I ran an MP-2 (also SD) into both boxes line-in.  The setup was an AKG C426B (Blumlein) about 4-5 feet in front of a string quartet, into the MP-2, the balanced outs to the 722 and the tape-out to the MR-1000.  I did some level checks ahead of time, but the MP-2 knobs are not ganged and I ended up having to boost the right track on both tapes 2.5-3 dB.  Levels on the 722 ended up just right (the line-in settings were +2 dB), the MR-1000 tape had to be boosted aa additional 3.3 dB overall to get roughly the same levels.  I taped at 24/192 on the 722, and 5.6 Mb/S on the Korg, converted to 24/192 in AudioGate using the sharp filter (still had visible but inaudible hf gunk, but no longer an editing problem, as much reduced).  I then did all editing (level changes, fades, joins and dithering) in WaveLab 5.0.  I then burned CDs of both and also DVD-As at 24/192.

I am sending the DVDs to a friend with high end stereo, all I can comment on is the CD downsampling and dithering to 16 bits.

I didn't expect a big difference (I guess the 722 preamp would trump the MR-1000 using just splitter cables from the mic, but I expected the A/D to be only very marginally different, maybe not even audibly so).  But I have to say I am a reluctant convert to DSD at this point.  "Reluctant" because the 722 is a more reliable brick, a totally secure system that has never let me down.  I am still worried about the MR-1000 since the hard drive error I had on my first run, the mic-in overloads with DPAs or Josephsons even on the quiet classical stuff I tape (and I'll A/B the 722 v. MR-1000 preamps next week with a brass quintet, if my splitter arrive).  The violin sound on the Korg tape is just smoother and more natural, less edgy.  Now I've known my first impressions to change over time, so I'm not jumping 100% on board yet, but so far the DSD wins and the difference is not marginal. 

Of course, if my high-end hifi friend tells me its all in my head, that's yet another story.

Jeff

[mandoman]

Great thread. Wish I had a 722 to help make a comparison. I've been really happy
with my mr1k.

Just you wait, within a year there will be preamp and hdd->ssd mods available
to these Korg units. Than we'll have a 1 box solution that will hands down
blow away anything else out there, even the mighty 722. Jury's still out on
mr1k stock vs. 722, looking forward to hearing more comparisons...

[Nick's Picks]

and if you put it in the context of measurement...does the ruler w/the most "notches" make the most accurate measurement?
yes.

NO! A ruler with more "notches" will make the more precise measurement. </engineer>

accurate and precise ...sort of close.  semantics.

[trustynick]

I've been reading this thread with interest as I have been trying to decide between these two recorders myself.  I use the 722 for work on a regular basis and just love it but was excited about DSD and figured it would be nice to save a little money on the Korg.  So, I ordered the MR1k before traveling to do some important personal recordings. 

Here are my impressions:
Construction is nice: case and controls are certainly not as solid as the Sound Devices but not your typical cheap plastic "pro" recorder.  Included carrying bag is very handy and functional.  But, when I plugged in some mics (ME67 & neumann kms105), I was pretty disappointed.  To my ears the internal pres have too much hiss, sound pretty thin and, as mentioned by others, were really hot and prone to spiking.  I panicked a bit and wound up borrowing a Sound Devices 302 to use as a front-end for my recordings.  Results were great with this set-up but, not having an external preamp of my own, I've pretty much decided to return the Korg.  I really need a 1 box solution and just don't see the point of making higher resolution recordings with compromised sound quality coming in.  I tend to record pretty quiet sources (not rock concerts) so noisey preamps are quite distracting and make editing a nightmare.  I may wait on buying a Sound Devices (probably opt for a 702) as I'd still be really curious to hear the MR1k with preamp mods. 

I really wanted this recorder to measure up to (or surpass!) the 722 but I just don't feel like it’s in the same league sound wise.  If I'm going to spend this much money on a recorder, I feel that I should be able to make a good clean recording with it out of the box.  Sound Devices, as a company, seems to share this philosophy.  With Korg, I get the sense that they're hedging their bets a little: knowing that many users will just want the MR1k for mastering or will have their own high-end external preamps and decided to cut costs in this area.

Hope this is helpful for others juggling these options.
-Nick

[Gizby]

For those who haven't seen it, Busman announced in the Korg Team thread that he now has an MR-1000 and should have a mod available after a month or so. I'm interested to see what he has to offer. He's also asking for suggestions on what people would like fixed, so let him know.