Topic: Fr-2 Vs. SD 722

[WiFiJeff]

ah i see now, but that still is a hassle that a $1600 box should not exhibit imo.  i think they sound great though, has the build quality given you any trouble yet?

I have only run it in the office, it's too big to stealth.  It feels a bit plastic-y, and lots of air space, but no glaring weaknesses I can see.  The parts that need to hold seem like they will.

Jeff

[janka]

ah i see now, but that still is a hassle that a $1600 box should not exhibit imo.  i think they sound great though, has the build quality given you any trouble yet?

I have only run it in the office, it's too big to stealth.  It feels a bit plastic-y, and lots of air space, but no glaring weaknesses I can see.  The parts that need to hold seem like they will.

Jeff

Agree fully.  After a year all the knobs and switches are still tight. On the plus side of  lots of air space, it provides Doug lots of room to work with.

[janka]

yea...for $1600 I think you can get the Oade mod of your choice.
and I still think it smokes anything else out there.

i think its 1500 for the t or w, then its another 125 or 150 for a mod simiiar to the PLUS mods done to the ua5. so for 1650 tops, you have a kickass box.  the only bummers are the 12v power, build quality & not true digital 24/192.  the 722 is a lot more expensive though.  maybe if the m-audio works out it will be a moot point & i'll keep my ua5's, but damn the fr-2 is a nice sounding all in one even with its shortcomings mentioned above.

The 12volt power isn't bad since it doesn't draw that much current.  A small 12 works fine, no need for a 7.2amp SLA.

[Nick's Picks]

yea, you can get 12v LiON packs.
viola!

[janka]

pretty much every single thing we run, or will ever run, will have shortcomings imho.  as has been mentioned before, no one really makes products with tapers in mind(except maybe core sounds?).  almost every device needs to be modded in some way, or is lacking some feature we'd love, or isn't all in one, etc.  i really hope the microtrack is sweet, but i highly doubt it'll be the holy grail.  the sound devices box is actually not that much more expensive then the fr2 if you factor in 2 4gig CF cards; the reason it appeals to me is that i personally like most oade modded gear i've heard and i haven't really liked any 722 shows i've downloaded yet, just not for me. 

and i really don't think the 192khz issue is a big one, for me at least.  i see/hear absolutely no reason to desire it for what i tape, and it makes the files bigger.  besides, from what i read, it most certainly does do 192khz recording, it's the marantz that only goes up to 96khz. 

I can't see running 192 either. A gig per 1/2 hour is to much. I tend to record most stuff at 24/48. I like that I can then fit a full show on 1 DVD. I've just ordered 4gb CF for Carl's FR-2 and hopefully have put an end to at show lock-ups. With that I might find myself running 24/96 more often.

[Nick's Picks]

24/96 = great crowd conversations

[wbrisette]

24/96 = great crowd conversations

I've heard you say this before too, but my experience has been that there is virtually no difference between 48K and 96K when it comes to crowd noise (and almost none when it comes to recordings at venues). There isn't any scientific reason I can think of either that would endorse your theory. I would understand a 16 to 24-bit argument, since you get around 126 dB in dynamic range at 24-bits. However, increasing the sampling rate doesn't equate to better crowd noise/conversations.

I haven't yet experienced this with my testing, so I'm wondering why you continue to state this as a fact?

Wayne

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

24/96 = great crowd conversations

I would expect that if higher resolution recording allows you to better pick out a back-ground conversation, it should also allow you to hear greater details in the music.  But maybe this only applies to close mic'd accoustic music.  If a PA isn't capable of presenting detail below a certain level, then the ambient sounds will have more detail than the music.  That is what led to the quoted statement? 

[wbrisette]

wayne, may i ask how you feel about 96 vs 192? 

I don't use 192, so I can't comment on that. Since I would be chewing through a ton of hard drive space, I would be hard pressed to use 192 even with an 80 GB drive in the Deva.

Wayne

[detroit lightning]

with all this talk of 16 v. 24 - if there is added crowd noise, would it be worthwhile to record at 24 w/ omni mics?  

i like my 4061's, but at any decent sized venue - i hardly ever get good tapes unless i'm close to the stack

[WiFiJeff]

i guess i just wonder why you are so concerned with 192 raoulduke, help me understand

I think I will be happy running the Microtrack at 96 kH, and for that matter I can't hear the top frequencies you get at 44.1 kH.  But I want to try some 192 kH to see if it in fact allows for better stereo separation with acoustic music recorded with a Jecklin disc.  Your ears can usually differentiate the priority of a sound to within one cycle of a 192 kH rate, so if you're using a stereo pair rather than spot-micing everything, this higher rate might be a Good Thing.

Jeff

[wbrisette]

with all this talk of 16 v. 24 - if there is added crowd noise, would it be worthwhile to record at 24 w/ omni mics?  

i like my 4061's, but at any decent sized venue - i hardly ever get good tapes unless i'm close to the stack

I always record in 24-bit regardless of venue. However, I'm at an advantage since I can mantain everything as a multitrack file. Then I can tinker with the balance of multiple mics and/or the board feed later in post.  Omni's in general tend to be great, but lose their effectiveness as you get further and further away from the source. I love using omnis with acoustical and classical music, but tend to turn them way down for amplified music since they don't nearly add a lot to the picture from the rear of a concert hall.

Wayne

[Tim]

24/96 = great crowd conversations

So are you of the opinion that 24/48 is fine for our purposes?

[sygdwm]

24/96 = great crowd conversations

So are you of the opinion that 24/48 is fine for our purposes?

i am. i resample all 24/96 sources to 24/48 for my own personal use to fit on one disk and i cant tell the difference.

[Tim]

thanks

+T

I'm interested in hearing where this debate is at now that more people are rolling at 24bit... the space required is just HUGE with 96 and 192 sample rates. I'm blowing through HDD space right now with 16/44.1 flac's... I can't imagine how much I'll use when I go to 24 bit