Topic: Sound Devices 7xx series- why are they so expensive?

[TNJazz]

The minute I used my first Sound Devices 7xx machine I knew I'd been kidding myself that the other recorders I owned were on par or a better value for the money for what I was doing.  I do use my stuff in a "hobby" capacity, but it also gets a lot of business use as well and the reliability is the most important thing to me.  Not to mention that you can run the recording to 3 different mediums simultaneously for safety's sake.  We have always done a lot of audio for video and when I was just starting out I worked with folks who barely knew what tc was, so all the post work sync was done by hand.  Now that I am finding myself working with more professional crews, the ability to send tc to a slate and sync the entire production is a feature I can never do without again...!

Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

[scb]

Why did the DA-P1 cost 2x as much as a d8?  Why was the Sony D10 so much more than a DA-P1?

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

^ I remember plunking down $4500 for a DAP1, V2 and 460's back in 1996.   

[page]

Not to mention that you can run the recording to 3 different mediums simultaneously for safety's sake.

I think I'm a little more sensitive to the power and media features then some others because I've lost power during shows twice (once was even a "would you tape this" by a promoter, the other was one of my wife's favorite bands) and I've had a hdd crash during a show (thankfully nothing critical). Others may not be as worried (read: paranoid) and that's understandable. I don't stake down my stand at every outdoor show, but I know folks who do and they do it because they've had a bad experience before and remember that.

[OOK]

If I took a BMW to work and a bicycle the next, would anyone even know the difference if I didn't tell them?  I understand the professional use/reliability aspect of it, but if the pre is so good in an SD 7XX, why do most run a V2, V3, or other pre with it?

I'm just skeptical.  Would like to hear comps of the same mics, same pre, different solid state deck and see if there is a difference and if that difference is worth $2,000+ to the taping hobbyist.

I think Page summarized this best... the answer to your question would basically be, running digi-in, there is no difference.  There is no difference between my USBpre2>digi-in>R-44 than a 722, sound-wise.   But if I had unlimited money, I'd run the 722 for the higher reliability and the other factors Page mentioned.  But I'm a hobbyist, my R-44 has never died on me (nothing has ever died on me other than for user error except the DR-680 and an old 660 running off batteries), and money is finite.  I can also switch out different pres to use with the -44 if I want different sound.  Of course, if I use an analog pre, the A>D on the -44 is undoubtedly worse than on the SD boxes.

The guys running SD boxes have an elite-level product that is easy to use and rugged and US-made and great at what it does; I don't begrudge anyone buying one.  Would I spend that $$$ on an SD box before I had, say, top-end mics?  no.

mixpre-D= 749$ + R44=995$  = 1744$  for an extra 131$ your into a SD702....the bulit quality is much better than a R44...but minus the 4 track....

[page]

If I took a BMW to work and a bicycle the next, would anyone even know the difference if I didn't tell them?  I understand the professional use/reliability aspect of it, but if the pre is so good in an SD 7XX, why do most run a V2, V3, or other pre with it?

I'm just skeptical.  Would like to hear comps of the same mics, same pre, different solid state deck and see if there is a difference and if that difference is worth $2,000+ to the taping hobbyist.

I think Page summarized this best... the answer to your question would basically be, running digi-in, there is no difference.  There is no difference between my USBpre2>digi-in>R-44 than a 722, sound-wise.   But if I had unlimited money, I'd run the 722 for the higher reliability and the other factors Page mentioned.  But I'm a hobbyist, my R-44 has never died on me (nothing has ever died on me other than for user error except the DR-680 and an old 660 running off batteries), and money is finite.  I can also switch out different pres to use with the -44 if I want different sound.  Of course, if I use an analog pre, the A>D on the -44 is undoubtedly worse than on the SD boxes.

The guys running SD boxes have an elite-level product that is easy to use and rugged and US-made and great at what it does; I don't begrudge anyone buying one.  Would I spend that $$$ on an SD box before I had, say, top-end mics?  no.

mixpre-D= 749$ + R44=995$  = 1744$  for an extra 131$ your into a SD702....the bulit quality is much better than a R44...but minus the 4 track....

A much better comp is usbpre2 > d50 (2ch, transformerless, same AD) vs a 702 at a price difference of almost $800. Now, you could sort of compare a mixpreD/R44 vs a 744, but even that's not quite as accurate. 2x pre2>d50 rigs and run the spare SPDIF out from one to the other while using both opticals for the d50s and get a 744 with twice the size, but 4 preamps, and half the cost.

[John Willett]

The SD range get the right balance for what they were designed to do - as a reliable film and TV location recorder.

Nagra have the better quality analogue audio, but the size is larger.

AETA also have superb mic. pres., and are extremely rugged (looking forward to trying this one).

The SD are probably next in analogue quality.

All these three are superb and you choose the one that has the best balance for you.

Zaxcom, I would not buy myself.  Although their ergonomics and digital engineering is excellent, the analogue side is really not up to it I have heard.  If Zaxcom start employing top notch analogue engineers to sort that side out, then, I would say they would be a serious contender.

[H₂O]

I still think the older 7xx series is in need of a refresh - with the following additions/changes:
 - better preamps
 - AES42
 - Color display
 - flash only versions of 4+ channel
 - USB 2.0 A/B
 - 788 style iPad/iPod integration
 - additional mix down/digital only channels
 - better menus/interface (sub menus, etc)

Most newer recorders the 7xx series are competing against have many of the above features

[acidjack]

mixpre-D= 749$ + R44=995$  = 1744$  for an extra 131$ your into a SD702....the bulit quality is much better than a R44...but minus the 4 track....

Agree. And that last part is why I still run the -44.

[F.O.Bean]

Not to mention that you can run the recording to 3 different mediums simultaneously for safety's sake.

I think I'm a little more sensitive to the power and media features then some others because I've lost power during shows twice (once was even a "would you tape this" by a promoter, the other was one of my wife's favorite bands) and I've had a hdd crash during a show (thankfully nothing critical). Others may not be as worried (read: paranoid) and that's understandable. I don't stake down my stand at every outdoor show, but I know folks who do and they do it because they've had a bad experience before and remember that.

You'd better get into the habit of "tent staking" your stand down at outdoor shows

And I was contemplating selling my 722 because I loved how my LB>M10 setup sounded, but then I realized I wouldnt get as much as I would want for it,. and it sounds PHUCKING AWESOME, so I'm going to hold onto it for when the AKG Actives start rolling

[H₂O]

Why did the DA-P1 cost 2x as much as a d8?  Why was the Sony D10 so much more than a DA-P1?

One thing to note IMO the DA-P1 was JUNK.  Mine was in the shop more than it was in the field - I am just glad I dumped it before the market really took a dive.  My D8 was much more dependable than my P1.

If I could turn the clock back I would have spent the extra $1K and gotten the portadat.

But just because a deck is expensive doesn't mean it is better.  And as I have said the 7xx are tanks.

[Todd R]

I had a SD702 and thought it was a nice recorder but the preamps where not as good as the Grace pre amps nor my PSP-2 (although that is an entirely different design).

I sold mine because IMO it was not the All in one I was looking for and I would always want to run a Pre infront.

Zaxcom is supposedly going to support up to 96Khz and possibly 192 - it's just not shown so in the current specs.

x2

I owned and ran both the 722 and later the 702.  While I thought they sounded very good as all-in-one boxes, I still preferred my V3 in front.  Later I sold the V3 and got a PSP2 and also preferred it to the 7xx preamps.  I had always been feeling that the 7xx had a bit more bloated or loose bass/low-end (just a tiny, tiny bit, but enough that I preferred the V3), but that may be because I was comparing it to the V3 that I had been running for years before getting a 722.

As Itgoes11 has been saying lately, it may be that the V3 rolls the bass off a bit. That may well be the case, and it might be that the 722 is actually more accurate than the V3.  But I almost exclusively record PA-driven concerts with overblown subwoofers cranking, so the V3, rolloff or not, sounded better to me than the 722.

That said, to me the 722/702 along with the V3 were the favorite pieces of gear I've ever owned (well, excluding mics).  Just fantastic pieces of art, design, engineering, implementation, etc.  I totally see the price SD gets for the 7xx boxes, I just don't see as much the need for that as a hobbyist concert taper.  I'm disappointed if I screw up a recording, but nobody is ever relying on me and there are almost always other tapers out recording anyway.

For me, I bought a Sony D50 -- also one of my favorite pieces of gear -- totally rock solid and reliable after years of taping.  The optical digital connection is a bit of a concern (though I haven't had a problem), but the D50 has been 100% reliable, and also well-engineered and good sounding.  Anyway, I sold the 702 for about $1700 iirc, bought the D50 used for $350, and with the difference was able to buy a used set of Gefell m210 hypers.

I loved the 702/722, but I don't ever see going back.  Rather have more mics and preamps at my disposal.

[noam]

, my gut tells me it would be entirely possible to shrink the footprint of the internal electronics to support a different layout and possibly an internal powering solution.

Otherwise, they're still great recorders. The prices could stand to come down, but I don't think the feature sets are outdated in the slightest.

Exactly. Once I used the 702 I can't go back, but I desparately need a box that delivers the same quality, same features (including P48) at half the size (or even less).

Is there a way to phantom power the sony pcm-m10?

Noam

[rjp]

Exactly. Once I used the 702 I can't go back, but I desparately need a box that delivers the same quality, same features (including P48) at half the size (or even less).

Is there a way to phantom power the sony pcm-m10?

Noam

Well, the M10 would probably fry to a crisp if you put 48 volts through it.

You could certainly put a preamp with phantom in front of the M10, though. I've heard a few Littlebox/M10 pulls and it's a winning combination - for that matter, I've had lovely results with my Littlebox/LS-10 combo.

[jbell]

You might want to look at the used Marantz pmd 661 in the Yard Sale.  That sounds like the device you are looking for.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=146969.0

, my gut tells me it would be entirely possible to shrink the footprint of the internal electronics to support a different layout and possibly an internal powering solution.

Otherwise, they're still great recorders. The prices could stand to come down, but I don't think the feature sets are outdated in the slightest.

Exactly. Once I used the 702 I can't go back, but I desparately need a box that delivers the same quality, same features (including P48) at half the size (or even less).

Is there a way to phantom power the sony pcm-m10?

Noam