Topic: Why using a preamp with a SD722?

[Napo]

I have read that many tapers use expensive pre-amps with the SD 702/722?

Why so? is there something wrong with the SD? Someone told me that tapers like more leds to show off.

Seriously,  if you use a V3 as preamp you could then use my Sony M-10 as storage.

I am sure that I am wrong (just starting getting around the business of taping and enjoying every step of the learning curve  ) but I do not know exactly why .

[dennisrtyler]

couple of different reasons. many folks prefer the "flavor" of their external pre-amp over the "flavor" of the pres in the 7xx. secondly, many folks like the a>d stage of the 7xx over other recorders so they opt for the 7xx when they could, as you say, use a m-10 or any other handheld.

[StuStu]

It's really just a matter of preference. I like the sound of Schoeps with the 7xx internal pre. That said, I usually run a pre in front of my 744t. Although I'd never second guess the people who always use the internal pre. I've had excellent results using the recorder as an all-in-one.

[H₂O]

I found the SD7xx pre amp a little thin for my ears -> I prefer the sound of the Grace products or my PSP-2 versus the preamp in the 7xx.


I can't comment on the 788 as the pre amps are different then the other 7xx series

[piperedworm]

I run the 702 as a stand alone and I am very happy with it.  My friend and I have even done the "Pepsi Challenge"  with his V2 and V3.  I am not going to say that either one was "better" but they were different. 

It boils down to a matter of taste.  I used to laptop tape, then had a micro track, then got the SD . . . so long story short, I am very happy with the way my SD sounds.  It is also nice to only have one thing to power in your bag.

Jeff

[Napo]

  many folks like the a>d stage of the 7xx over other recorders 

many thanks for all the explanations. Yes, a matter of taste. That's what makes our 'business' so interesting, alas a tad expensive

[H₂O]

A/D stages are a little less dependent in the 24bit realm as long as it's decent you probably won't notice the difference.


I run a Korg MR-1 and thought the A/D stage was a good as the SD7xx series (if not slightly better when running DSD).  I would think the DR-680 would probably be ok too.


Also the Sony M50 and M10 are said to have pretty good AD stages as well.


Some exceptions - Microtrack - pretty bad from what I have read.


Some will swear by Mytek, Benchmark, etc and I am sure they is subtile differences using these higher end seperate AD's, but the SD7xx is an average A/D IMO.


If you are looking for an all in one I would think the SD7xx is worth a look - the features are pretty nice and the interface is pretty simple and very straight forward.  But it would be hard to differentiate the SD7xx versus lets say a Tascam DR-680 over time and in different conditions.

I am hoping SD looks to refresh it's lower end recorder line as the SD7xx series is 5 years old now and alot has changed in those 5 years.

[Napo]

Thanks, H20;

all clear now.

[ts]

I've been using a 722 since '05 and I will run my V2 in front depending on what mics I'm using. I also have no problem using the 722 by itself. Best all-in-one I've come across. Now the guys that do this: mics>pre>a/d>722 always kinda confused me. One hell of an expensive bit bucket.

[stevetoney]

It hasn't been explicitly stated, but there are lots of people that run a V2 or V3 (or any other preamp, for that matter) directly into the line-in jack on a handheld digital recorder.  That's a perfectly fine rig to use and, in the end, would sound every bit as good as the recordings made with the 7xx as the recorder. 

Of course, the V3 can also output a digital signal, so a D50 for example could be used as a bitbucket.  (I would add that, I would question anyone that claims they can choose in a blind test the sound of the ADC of the 7xx over the ADC of a handheld.)

That said, I do understand people that use the 7xx behind preamps because the 7xx is just a damn fine piece of gear and if I had the money, I'd use the 7xx in a heartbeat because it's just a joy to use high quality equipment that has a GREAT set of features (both hardware and software).  A 7xx is ALOT more than just the pretty lights, but it's true that the lights are nice too!   

[Napo]

TONEDEF,

or a littelbox instead of a V3 (sorry expanding the original topic  ). I have heared people ready to questioning others saying they hear a difference between the two!

[stevetoney]

Yes, there have been more than one person comment that the littlebox compares very well with the V3 at only a portion of the cost.  The littlebox of course has only analog outputs, where the V3 can be run as analog or digital. 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

It hasn't been explicitly stated, but there are lots of people that run a V2 or V3 (or any other preamp, for that matter) directly into the line-in jack on a handheld digital recorder.  That's a perfectly fine rig to use and, in the end, would sound every bit as good as the recordings made with the 7xx as the recorder. 

Every bit as good?  You must be kidding.  That's a huge generalization not supported by facts.

I sold my 722, but I miss the a/d quite a bit.  Especially on acoustic material, or on stage.  I'm still waiting for a handheld that sounds as good, or better.

(I would add that, I would question anyone that claims they can choose in a blind test the sound of the ADC of the 7xx over the ADC of a handheld.)

That's a poor generalization because you aren't citing a specific piece of gear.  But, yeah, after hundreds of recordings in many different settings, I feel comfortable identifying the sound.

Though mid-floor or section recordings of a PA don't really do it for me..

[stevetoney]

True.  I shouldn't have said 'every bit as good' and I'm confident that you're correct that my statement isn't supported by the facts.  I was over-generalizing and I'm sure that the facts support your rebuttal Freelunch.

Perhaps I can qualify my earlier response further by saying that I don't have a high-end listening system and I do all of my recording on location in live settings of loud music.  I'm betting that ADC performance becomes more important in more refined settings, in the studio, and/or when using higher end equipment than my own situation provides. 

Given that set of parameters, I can't say that I've personally experienced significant differences in my sound whether either of two decent quality handhelds that I've owned (Sony D50, R-09HR) were behind my preamp or whether the Mytek Stereo192 ADC that I owned for awhile was behind my preamp.  If I had a high end stereo or if I were recording in the studio, or recording soft chamber music, perhaps I'd have a reached a different conclusion?!?

[page]

Yes, there have been more than one person comment that the littlebox compares very well with the V3 at only a portion of the cost.

When it uses the same chipset... Most models of the littlebox don't though, as that chipset (the INA111 I think) was used in the prototypes only. Whether better or worse is to be determined, but if I were a betting man, I'd wager that folks could tell a difference now.

[Todd R]

Yeah, Page pretty much has it right here.  Except that it is even worse in that the Burr-Brown INA111 versions weren't even the prototype chips used, they were an option available with the prototype.  I may be the only person with an INA111 littlebox, plus Chuck has an INA111 littlekit amp kit from Naiant which he used to build his own preamp. 

I think the few comps that were done with the littlebox were done by Chuck and I, so they aren't the same as what was generally made by Naiant or available now.  It'd be great to see some more littlebox comps done.  I just got my INA111 littlebox fitted with user selectable output transformers, so I'll be doing some more comps with it vs the EAA PSP2 soon.  Though again these comps won't get at what the current littlebox sounds like in comparison to other preamp choices.

As (more of) an aside, the original littlebox used the Analog Devices AD620, and now uses the AD8821.  The prototypes had the option for the TI/Burr-Brown INA111.  The Lunatec V2 and V3 used the Burr-Brown INA603 and INA163 respectively.  All of these chips listed are various versions of precision intrumentation amps.  The INA603 was developed by TI/BB as an upgrade (and drop in replacement I think) to the Analog Devices AD625, which itself was somewhat of a precursor to the AD620.  So all the littlebox and Lunatec preamps are built on similar instrumentation amp architectures.

So all this isn't a complete hijack:  when I had my 722, I used the Lunatec V3 as a front end to it, at first just feeding the 722 a digital feed from the V3, and then after I did more testing, using the V3 as an analog frontend to the 722.  I did use the 722 by itself sometimes, but liked the sound of it better with the V3 in front.

[Chuck]

My littlebox kit pre-amp has an INA111 in it.

[willndmb]

i don't know what my lb has in it but my ears like it better then a 722 and my wallet does too