Topic: Anyone running M-148 > 722 ?

[Kindguy]

Just curious if anyone has a sample I can hear? Also interested in any comments anyone may have. Other than "that would be bad ass" 

Thanks
Jeff

[nickgregory]

i ran it...4022->m148->722...some crowes shows...also ran it for a tishamingo show on the archive:

http://www.archive.org/details/tishamingo2006-04-01.flac16

Definitely like it, but I would not run it in a sloppy bass environment...

[thegreatgumbino]

Doesn't Mitch Hibbs run this?

[mmedley.]

I am loaning my 722 to Hatfield tomorrow night and he will be running 481(3?) > 148 > 722 for the Crowes/Truckers/RRFB.

Edit:

I will be more than happy to send you a sample when I get the 722 back. Mitch runs MK4's > 148 > 722. Frank S. runs CCM4's > 148 > 722. I have some of their stuff I can send as well if interested.

[bkirby]

I think Frank, Mitch, and I are the only ones that I know of. I have some samples I could send, but it would have to be by mail as unable tom upload from work. I know Frank has some WSP shows out on Digi-Panic (look for 12-30-05). I hope this helps...

[jeromejello]

you can add grayp to the list...

480 > 148 > 722  sweetness in tampa bay area

[RebelRebel]

yes, my bonnie" prince" billy show last year had this combo.

also, wilco 9/7 and 9/8 of last year....

[RebelRebel]

I will send you some , Jeff. Check your PM.

Teddy

[Kindguy]

Thanks for the info & offers everyone. T+!!!!

I'm going to move forward with this.

I agree 414>148>722 may be a bit heavy on the low end in certian environment's. I'll just leave the brick out of the mix. It will be fun testing it out.

[bkirby]

Thanks for the info & offers everyone. T+!!!!

I'm going to move forward with this.

I agree 414>148>722 may be a bit heavy on the low end in certian environment's. I'll just leave the brick out of the mix. It will be fun testing it out.

I would prefer to leave the M148 in the equation especially in a sloppy bass environment! I prefer it much more to the built-in pre on the 722 which tends to sound bloated to my ears. If running in a terribly sloppy bass environment, try running a different pattern or configuration. Just my $0.02 and how it pertains to my ears...

[nickgregory]

alot of it depends on the mics as well I am guessing.  For me the M148 added a nice defined thump to the recordings.  Definitely a nice asset at the crowes in nice venues, but for mule at the ritz...not a good thing...

[bkirby]

Good to hear from ya' Nick. I guess to each their own. I love what the M148 adds in almost any environment, but I also like the MK21 (NOS) > M148 > SD722 FOB WSP tapes as well. See what you like Jeff. There is no right or wrong!

Nick, come on up to Portsmouth for the WSP shows. Should be a blast!

[Charlies]

You can add me to the mix as well, although the JK box (which of course always needs to be run because I got rid of the AKG bodies) adds +3 at its lowest setting. I think the JK box->M148->722 is overkill, regardless of environemnt. I really really like the JK->722 on its own. Have fun trying it out!

[thegreatgumbino]

I think the JK box->M148->722 is overkill, regardless of environemnt.

But if you have it, why not run it!

[mmedley.]

http://digitalpanic.org/bittorrent/showthread.php?t=14441

 

[nickgregory]

Nick, come on up to Portsmouth for the WSP shows. Should be a blast!

would love to see the arena, but panic really isnt my thing...have a good time though!

[RebelRebel]

I never got the impression that the m148 "enhanced the bass" ie boosted the bass. It is a fairly transparent box, with just enough "sparkle" to cover up PA ugliness. I even used it on classical gigs and got no bass enhancement whatsoeer..

[grayp]

you can add grayp to the list...

480 > 148 > 722  sweetness in tampa bay area

for the moe show at the hob in orlando on 6/16 i ran one set without the m148 and one set with it.   i've just been too busy to track it out.   if some one wants an untracked copy (or maybe i'll get to tracking it this weekend) i'll be gald to shoot it off.    i can let you know which set is which or you can listen and decide for yourself.

it was 483/722.

gray

[nickgregory]

I never got the impression that the m148 "enhanced the bass" ie boosted the bass. It is a fairly transparent box, with just enough "sparkle" to cover up PA ugliness. I even used it on classical gigs and got no bass enhancement whatsoeer..

it doesnt boost the bass, but in a sloppy bass, PA driven, environment, it doesnt help it imo...that was my point.

[thegreatgumbino]

for the moe show at the hob in orlando on 6/16 i ran one set without the m148 and one set with it.   i've just been too busy to track it out.   if some one wants an untracked copy (or maybe i'll get to tracking it this weekend) i'll be gald to shoot it off.    i can let you know which set is which or you can listen and decide for yourself.

it was 483/722.

gray

Did you ever track out this show Gray?

It's a long shot, but anyone run JW Mod 460's > M148 > 722?

[sygdwm]

for the moe show at the hob in orlando on 6/16 i ran one set without the m148 and one set with it.   i've just been too busy to track it out.   if some one wants an untracked copy (or maybe i'll get to tracking it this weekend) i'll be gald to shoot it off.    i can let you know which set is which or you can listen and decide for yourself.

it was 483/722.

gray

Did you ever track out this show Gray?

It's a long shot, but anyone run JW Mod 460's > M148 > 722?

gray sent this show to me for tracking. after alot of listening, i cant honestly say which one i prefer. they both sound amazing. i wouldnt get rid of the brick anytime soon, but the 722 pre's are VERY good. anyone interested in me posting the 24/96 flacs?

[thegreatgumbino]

gray sent this show to me for tracking. after alot of listening, i cant honestly say which one i prefer. they both sound amazing. i wouldnt get rid of the brick anytime soon, but the 722 pre's are VERY good. anyone interested in me posting the 24/96 flacs?

Definitely.  I've love to hear it.

[cshepherd]

for the moe show at the hob in orlando on 6/16 i ran one set without the m148 and one set with it.   i've just been too busy to track it out.   if some one wants an untracked copy (or maybe i'll get to tracking it this weekend) i'll be gald to shoot it off.    i can let you know which set is which or you can listen and decide for yourself.

it was 483/722.

gray

Did you ever track out this show Gray?

It's a long shot, but anyone run JW Mod 460's > M148 > 722?

gray sent this show to me for tracking. after alot of listening, i cant honestly say which one i prefer. they both sound amazing. i wouldnt get rid of the brick anytime soon, but the 722 pre's are VERY good. anyone interested in me posting the 24/96 flacs?

I would be interested in hearing those tapes.  I'll have 7/14 & 7/15 Panic tapes from Jeff Betts made with 481's>V3 (aes-ebu)>722 using our VdH Orchid cables coming in soon.  He ran two sets without the V3 for comparison.  I'd be happy to share those with anybody interested in the comparison as well.  And I agree, the 722 pre's are very VERY good.  Our 7/12 Panic tape (184's>Orchid xlr's>722) exceeded my expectations.

Chris

[sygdwm]

gray sent this show to me for tracking. after alot of listening, i cant honestly say which one i prefer. they both sound amazing. i wouldnt get rid of the brick anytime soon, but the 722 pre's are VERY good. anyone interested in me posting the 24/96 flacs?

Definitely.  I've love to hear it.

here you go. i hid the details of the source in the bottom of the text file if you want to try and guess.

http://digitalpanic.org/bittorrent/showthread.php?p=100475#post100475

[thegreatgumbino]

Thanks Dre!  +T

[mhibbs]

Yeah, everybody is correct...I've been running it w/ the 4s, although lately I've been running the 248 more often.  The 248 seems to be more forgiving if the room isn't great.  I ran some comps in my living room 4s>722 and 4s>148>722 (wish I hadn't deleted them).  I found the 148 to have more mid-range growl compared to the 722 by itself.  I'm planning on doing some playing around tonight w/ an interesting idea from another thread.  I can run a couple of quick direct comps for you...I'm going to have it setup anyway.

stay tuned.

mitch

[mhibbs]

Alright, so I did the comp w/ the 248, 148, and 722.  Recorded Brute's Puppy Sleeps and left the stereo constant.  I normalized everything to -1db to make it even.  Source gain was a little different b/c I'm using these for another comp in another thread for something else (see 722 hot as hell in recorder section if interested).  I'll keep the "which is which" under wraps for a little while.  Not exactly perfect, but it will work.

mk4>kc5>cmc6>m248>722  -->  -5peak, m248 1/2 full gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>m148>722  -->  -2peak, m148 fixed gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>722            -->  -7peak, 722 30db gain

Grab the files via bittorrent here...

http://digitalpanic.org/bittorrent/showthread.php?t=14689

Edit:

So what are my thoughts?  I mixed it up enough that I couldn't remember which was which in the comps, so I wasn't biased either.  I immediately picked up on which was the 148 recording.  If you've spent any time listening to the 148, you'll pick it out too.  It's characteristic robustness is very obvious.  The 248 vs 722 was a toss up.  I've since looked up which was which, and wasn't surprised...it's consistent w/ my guess of how they would be different.  Personally, I like the 148 sound the best out of the three, BUT, as has been mentioned before, if the show is very heavy in the low end, the robust nature of the 148 can be more than you want at times...which is basically the reason I've been running the 248 lately.  My Memphis tapes have a very robust low end (we were way up front) and I think the 148 would have been too much w/out EQ'in some of the low end out.  The 722 pre is impressive in this comparison...I'm leaning towards calling it second best in this outing.  I'll give you guys some time to pull down the files and listen before I give you the source legend.

[monochromic]

Grab the files via bittorrent here...

http://digitalpanic.org/bittorrent/showthread.php?t=14689

thanks for putting this together mitch, grabbing the files now. am looking forward to comparing these.


brett.

[twoodruff]

Alright, so I did the comp w/ the 248, 148, and 722.  Recorded Brute's Puppy Sleeps and left the stereo constant.  I normalized everything to -1db to make it even.  Source gain was a little different b/c I'm using these for another comp in another thread for something else (see 722 hot as hell in recorder section if interested).  I'll keep the "which is which" under wraps for a little while.  Not exactly perfect, but it will work.

mk4>kc5>cmc6>m248>722  -->  -5peak, m248 1/2 full gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>m148>722  -->  -2peak, m148 fixed gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>722            -->  -7peak, 722 30db gain

Grab the files via bittorrent here...

http://digitalpanic.org/bittorrent/showthread.php?t=14689

Edit:

So what are my thoughts?  I mixed it up enough that I couldn't remember which was which in the comps, so I wasn't biased either.  I immediately picked up on which was the 148 recording.  If you've spent any time listening to the 148, you'll pick it out too.  It's characteristic robustness is very obvious.  The 248 vs 722 was a toss up.  I've since looked up which was which, and wasn't surprised...it's consistent w/ my guess of how they would be different.  Personally, I like the 148 sound the best out of the three, BUT, as has been mentioned before, if the show is very heavy in the low end, the robust nature of the 148 can be more than you want at times...which is basically the reason I've been running the 248 lately.  My Memphis tapes have a very robust low end (we were way up front) and I think the 148 would have been too much w/out EQ'in some of the low end out.  The 722 pre is impressive in this comparison...I'm leaning towards calling it second best in this outing.  I'll give you guys some time to pull down the files and listen before I give you the source legend.

this type input is what has gotten you some many -t's 

[mhibbs]

this type input is what has gotten you some many -t's 

   exactly

[monochromic]

mk4>kc5>cmc6>m248>722  -->  -5peak, m248 1/2 full gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>m148>722  -->  -2peak, m148 fixed gain
mk4>kc5>cmc6>722            -->  -7peak, 722 30db gain

ok, just ran this through a couple of times and my favourite was 'c', i also think this was the m148 source, real smooth and a great low end. from what i've heard about the m248 i'd have to say that was 'b' as it was the brightest of the bunch and that leaves the 722 as 'a'. that being said, i could be completely wrong.


brett.

[mhibbs]

PM sent with the legend.  I'll keep it open for a while longer before posting it here.

[thegreatgumbino]

Thanks for the comp, Mitch.  I look forward to grabbing this tonight and giving it a listen.  +T

[mhibbs]

Realized I got sidetracked and forgot to post the answers.  Does anyone care?  If so, I'll dig it up and post the source identity.