Topic: SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702

[dogmusic]

SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702. Which set-up would give better sound quality? Or are they about equal?

I would go digital out from the USBPre 2 into the D50.

I don't do many concert recordings -- having the extra Pre plus a battery for it is no big deal -- so I'm just looking for the best quality.

Anybody have experience with both? Is the Pre as good a front end as what is in the 702?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks.

[page]

SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702. Which set-up would give better sound quality? Or are they about equal?

I would go digital out from the USBPre 2 into the D50.

I don't do many concert recordings -- having the extra Pre plus a battery for it is no big deal -- so I'm just looking for the best quality.

Anybody have experience with both? Is the Pre as good a front end as what is in the 702?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks.

The usbpre2 uses the same A/D chipset as the 702, and the preamps, while in the digital domain, are comparable. The one difference in the preamps is that the usbpre2's preamps are the same as what is used in the 788 units while the 702 is the same as the 702/722/744. The difference is how they are controlled and a few other nuances, but they sound very close/the same as each other.

What the big differences come in is in powering. The 702 has a failover power system where you can go from external power to 7.2v power while recording, while the ubspre2 is a single usb power only. If you already have the usbpre2, it's a no brainer IMHO, get the D50. Otherwise you're looking at a difference of maybe $300 (in favor of the usbpre2/d50) if purchasing everything on the used market. If brand-new the difference is even more so in favor of the pre2/d50 setup.

[rastasean]

I don't do many concert recordings

What would you be recording?

[dogmusic]

I don't do many concert recordings

What would you be recording?

I record mostly solo piano at home but also do a lot of field recording of local sounds (I live in a rural area).

[dogmusic]

SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702. Which set-up would give better sound quality? Or are they about equal?

I would go digital out from the USBPre 2 into the D50.

I don't do many concert recordings -- having the extra Pre plus a battery for it is no big deal -- so I'm just looking for the best quality.

Anybody have experience with both? Is the Pre as good a front end as what is in the 702?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks.

The usbpre2 uses the same A/D chipset as the 702, and the preamps, while in the digital domain, are comparable. The one difference in the preamps is that the usbpre2's preamps are the same as what is used in the 788 units while the 702 is the same as the 702/722/744. The difference is how they are controlled and a few other nuances, but they sound very close/the same as each other.

What the big differences come in is in powering. The 702 has a failover power system where you can go from external power to 7.2v power while recording, while the ubspre2 is a single usb power only. If you already have the usbpre2, it's a no brainer IMHO, get the D50. Otherwise you're looking at a difference of maybe $300 (in favor of the usbpre2/d50) if purchasing everything on the used market. If brand-new the difference is even more so in favor of the pre2/d50 setup.

Actually, I already own the D50. I was going to buy the USBPre2 when a used 702 came up, and I wondered if it would be a big leap in quality to buy that instead. From what you say, there would be no difference. But I can see that the 702 is definitely more convenient.

Thanks for your help.

[page]

SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702. Which set-up would give better sound quality? Or are they about equal?

I would go digital out from the USBPre 2 into the D50.

I don't do many concert recordings -- having the extra Pre plus a battery for it is no big deal -- so I'm just looking for the best quality.

Anybody have experience with both? Is the Pre as good a front end as what is in the 702?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks.

The usbpre2 uses the same A/D chipset as the 702, and the preamps, while in the digital domain, are comparable. The one difference in the preamps is that the usbpre2's preamps are the same as what is used in the 788 units while the 702 is the same as the 702/722/744. The difference is how they are controlled and a few other nuances, but they sound very close/the same as each other.

What the big differences come in is in powering. The 702 has a failover power system where you can go from external power to 7.2v power while recording, while the ubspre2 is a single usb power only. If you already have the usbpre2, it's a no brainer IMHO, get the D50. Otherwise you're looking at a difference of maybe $300 (in favor of the usbpre2/d50) if purchasing everything on the used market. If brand-new the difference is even more so in favor of the pre2/d50 setup.

Actually, I already own the D50. I was going to buy the USBPre2 when a used 702 came up, and I wondered if it would be a big leap in quality to buy that instead. From what you say, there would be no difference. But I can see that the 702 is definitely more convenient.

Thanks for your help.

yeah, the difference is one of convenience and durability. Both machines are durable, but you've got an optical cable going between the d50/pre2 that isn't an issue with the 702. Unless you have a specific reason/environment to by a 7 series, I generally don't think it's worth the expense anymore. Best of luck!

[hi and lo]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

[dogmusic]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

[page]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

I support your choice (I use the 930s and 950s with mine). 

[dogmusic]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

I support your choice (I use the 930s and 950s with mine). 

I've been very happy with them. Smooth, warm, natural sounding -- everything I read about them before buying.

What are you using for a pre?

[mterry]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

I support your choice (I use the 930s and 950s with mine). 

I've been very happy with them. Smooth, warm, natural sounding -- everything I read about them before buying.

What are you using for a pre?

I'm not sure if Page uses anything else, but he was running a SX-M2 the other day.

[page]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

I support your choice (I use the 930s and 950s with mine). 

I've been very happy with them. Smooth, warm, natural sounding -- everything I read about them before buying.

What are you using for a pre?

I'm not sure if Page uses anything else, but he was running a SX-M2 the other day.

yeah, that came into my possession via unique circumstances so I bring it out to play like I would a borrowed stepchild; I feel bad if I don't include it in the fun, but I drag it around like a 3rd wheel sometimes... 

Every now and then I get burned by the sound signature of the sx-m2, but it can really add a nice touch to some recordings, where as for a long time I ran everything straight into the 722 and got more consistant results. The 7 series preamps are clean enough (and have a deep enough gain range) that I'm content to use it for nature recording whenever I'm visiting rural areas with time to burn. On that note, I'm rather preturbed that beyerdynamic wouldn't issue a set of ck910s, I'd have snatched a set for both nature and concert recording.

As noted above, in a perfect world, I'd grab a set of DPA omnis for nature recording and short of the new nagra preamp, I'd run them straight into the 722, but I've been happy with my beyers the few times I've gone out and setup and I suspect you'll be happy with the results.

I'm biased since I have that setup (and as such, sunk the cash to get it), but I like it. ymmv. 

[dogmusic]

Imo, the pre and a/d in the d50 are plenty good, especially for the cost of a usbpre2 or 7xx recorder. That money can almost assuredly be better spent on a mic upgrade.

Good point, but I need some way of going XLR with phantom into the D50. My mics are okay -- Beyer 930 -- but of course could be better. Perhaps DPA's someday, which I read here in these forums and elsewhere are particularly good on piano.

I support your choice (I use the 930s and 950s with mine). 

I've been very happy with them. Smooth, warm, natural sounding -- everything I read about them before buying.

What are you using for a pre?

I'm not sure if Page uses anything else, but he was running a SX-M2 the other day.

yeah, that came into my possession via unique circumstances so I bring it out to play like I would a borrowed stepchild; I feel bad if I don't include it in the fun, but I drag it around like a 3rd wheel sometimes... 

Every now and then I get burned by the sound signature of the sx-m2, but it can really add a nice touch to some recordings, where as for a long time I ran everything straight into the 722 and got more consistant results. The 7 series preamps are clean enough (and have a deep enough gain range) that I'm content to use it for nature recording whenever I'm visiting rural areas with time to burn. On that note, I'm rather preturbed that beyerdynamic wouldn't issue a set of ck910s, I'd have snatched a set for both nature and concert recording.

As noted above, in a perfect world, I'd grab a set of DPA omnis for nature recording and short of the new nagra preamp, I'd run them straight into the 722, but I've been happy with my beyers the few times I've gone out and setup and I suspect you'll be happy with the results.

I'm biased since I have that setup (and as such, sunk the cash to get it), but I like it. ymmv. 

Yes, I'd get DPA omnis which apparently are also good for sticking inside a piano.

But your description of your easy setup makes the idea of running straight into a one-piece 702 seem interesting again....

Hmm.

[rastasean]

The DPA in the sd702 would be simple but the sd722 has dual recording mediums. :-D

[page]

The DPA in the sd702 would be simple but the sd722 has dual recording mediums. :-D

correct, in a lot of ways they have setup a nice price/feature point systems. The pre2/d50 setup is the cheapest, with some convenience for the 702, redundancy in recording with the 722, and an extra 2 line-in channels for the 744, each more $ than the prior.

[johnw]

Having owned a 702 (and 722) and a D50, but admittedly not a USBPre 2, I would go with a 702. The only reason to keep the D50 is if you like (and use) the built in mics. Its a good unit, well built and with good pre/AD, but I used mine with an optical digital cable out of a V3 and was always worried about the connection. Optical digital is just not a very robust connection. In the end, I stopped using the V3 and just ran line in to the D50. It sounded great that way, but if you need phantom P48 over XLR, go with a 702.

[dogmusic]

Having owned a 702 (and 722) and a D50, but admittedly not a USBPre 2, I would go with a 702. The only reason to keep the D50 is if you like (and use) the built in mics. Its a good unit, well built and with good pre/AD, but I used mine with an optical digital cable out of a V3 and was always worried about the connection. Optical digital is just not a very robust connection. In the end, I stopped using the V3 and just ran line in to the D50. It sounded great that way, but if you need phantom P48 over XLR, go with a 702.

Thanks for that info. When you stopped using the V3, what device did you run line in to the D50?

I also see that you shed the 702. Are you satisfied with the quality you're getting now? Is it much different from the 702?

[Todd R]

I've never owned or run an USBPre, but I currently own a D50 and a V3, and have previously owned and used the SD 722 and 702.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that running a single 702 isn't the more rugged solution than a USBPre + D50 coupled together with an optical cable.  That said, I've run V3>optical>D50 for years and never have had any problems.  With an adequate gear bag (I use several different LowePro bags) and a good optical cable -- very much recommend right-angle on both ends cable to reduce stress -- you shouldn't have a problem.

If you have a D50, adding a USBPre costs another $600.  Assuming you can sell the D50 for $350 and buy a 702 for $1550, going the 702 route is $1200 out of pocket, or twice the cost of the USBPre+D50 route.  From everything I've heard, I'd say the sound would be close to exactly the same. Clearly you don't want to lose important recordings due to gear failure, but my experience has been that being moderately careful (I drink bourbon and beer while recording, can't say I've been anything more than moderately careful), you'd be fine.

Another option:  I ran a V3 for 6-7 years, several with a D50, and then decided to change things up and get rid of the V3 and use a different preamp for awhile.  With the USBPre coming out, I thought long and hard about getting one.  Then I realized for another $250 or so more than a new USBPRE, I could get a used V3 with the optical out.

I decided on that route -- used V3 + your current D50 is less $ than a used 702.  I ran V3>722 and V3>702 for a few years.  I've run both V3(analog)>7xx and V3(digital)>7xx, and have run the 7xx as a standalone -- all lots of times.  I finally decided I liked V3(analog)>7xx best, but I liked V3(digital)>7xx or D50 much better than a 7xx standalone.  My ears and ymmv, but I think a V3(optical)>D50 rig sounds noticeably better than standalone 7xx, and in your case, noticeably cleaner and more transparent (for the nature recordings).

[dogmusic]

I've never owned or run an USBPre, but I currently own a D50 and a V3, and have previously owned and used the SD 722 and 702.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that running a single 702 isn't the more rugged solution than a USBPre + D50 coupled together with an optical cable.  That said, I've run V3>optical>D50 for years and never have had any problems.  With an adequate gear bag (I use several different LowePro bags) and a good optical cable -- very much recommend right-angle on both ends cable to reduce stress -- you shouldn't have a problem.

If you have a D50, adding a USBPre costs another $600.  Assuming you can sell the D50 for $350 and buy a 702 for $1550, going the 702 route is $1200 out of pocket, or twice the cost of the USBPre+D50 route.  From everything I've heard, I'd say the sound would be close to exactly the same. Clearly you don't want to lose important recordings due to gear failure, but my experience has been that being moderately careful (I drink bourbon and beer while recording, can't say I've been anything more than moderately careful), you'd be fine.

Another option:  I ran a V3 for 6-7 years, several with a D50, and then decided to change things up and get rid of the V3 and use a different preamp for awhile.  With the USBPre coming out, I thought long and hard about getting one.  Then I realized for another $250 or so more than a new USBPRE, I could get a used V3 with the optical out.

I decided on that route -- used V3 + your current D50 is less $ than a used 702.  I ran V3>722 and V3>702 for a few years.  I've run both V3(analog)>7xx and V3(digital)>7xx, and have run the 7xx as a standalone -- all lots of times.  I finally decided I liked V3(analog)>7xx best, but I liked V3(digital)>7xx or D50 much better than a 7xx standalone.  My ears and ymmv, but I think a V3(optical)>D50 rig sounds noticeably better than standalone 7xx, and in your case, noticeably cleaner and more transparent (for the nature recordings).

Thanks for that valuable info as well. I take it you feel the V3 is a cleaner preamp than the USBPre 2 would be if both are going optical in to the D50.

[Todd R]

Thanks for that valuable info as well. I take it you feel the V3 is a cleaner preamp than the USBPre 2 would be if both are going optical in to the D50.

Well, more specifically, I think the V3 is a cleaner preamp than the internal preamps on the 702/722.  Supposedly those preamps are very similar to the USBPre, so I'm assuming that the V3 is a better pre than the USBPre based on my experiences with the 702/722, but i've never run a USBPre.

Also, to be fair, the preamp in the 702/722 is very nice.  Pretty top notch, but I still think the V3 is better.

[F.O.Bean]

See, I'm opposite than Todd. I ran v3[optical]>jb3 and v3>analog>722 and 722 standalone. Well, I sold the v3 after running 722 standalone. I think its up there as top notch as any other pre, at least IMO. YMMV

[johnw]

Having owned a 702 (and 722) and a D50, but admittedly not a USBPre 2, I would go with a 702. The only reason to keep the D50 is if you like (and use) the built in mics. Its a good unit, well built and with good pre/AD, but I used mine with an optical digital cable out of a V3 and was always worried about the connection. Optical digital is just not a very robust connection. In the end, I stopped using the V3 and just ran line in to the D50. It sounded great that way, but if you need phantom P48 over XLR, go with a 702.

Thanks for that info. When you stopped using the V3, what device did you run line in to the D50?

I also see that you shed the 702. Are you satisfied with the quality you're getting now? Is it much different from the 702?

I ran nbox>v3>d50, then nbox>d50, then nbox>v3 analog>722, then nbox>722 and now nbox>m10. I liked nbox>722 the best and will eventually move back to a 7xx

[page]

See, I'm opposite than Todd. I ran v3[optical]>jb3 and v3>analog>722 and 722 standalone. Well, I sold the v3 after running 722 standalone. I think its up there as top notch as any other pre, at least IMO. YMMV

I concur. I think the SD preamps are cleaner, but whether that's a good thing for music recording is personal preference. For example, I think the older sonosax products introduce a small amount of noise/smear/excitement to the soundstage, but that can work out as a benefit when recording music or voice. I've used the V3's analog stage before and I was happy with it, just a different flavor. Never tried it for nature/sfx recording though. In many respects, whether it's a "cleaner/neutral" preamp is probably up for debate as well unless we did noise floor tests and stuff like that, either the V3 or the usbpre2 will accomplish the goal.