Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: Daryan on May 17, 2005, 04:19:52 PM
-
Read into it what you want...
http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=2656&mesg_id=2843&page=
-
Can that guy "Doug" be trusted ?
He's only been a "Member since Sep 23rd 2003 " ;D
-
What do you mean "Read into it what you want..."? It's pretty clearly written.
-
The 722 also must be run with the HPF on or it sounds a tad muddy and slow as if some sort of LF issue obscures HF detail. Too bad most engineering types do not know how to do mic preamps ! The V2, V3, MiniME and M148 still have a place in the high end scene.
i think maybe this is what i'm hearing in the pre of the 722 as well. i haven't heard it run with the HPF so i don't know about that part of it, but i hear bits of what i didn't like when i was running the minime without a pre in front. it's hard to describe, but it's like there is something "covering up" the HF part of the recording. when i switched from the mme to the v3, it was like lifting a veil off the recording. well the mic-in 722 tapes that i have heard have a little of this characteristic. Not nearly as strong or as prevalent with the mme, but there's a little something there that i don't exactly like. i've heard it in every mic-in 722 tape that i've heard so far. the tape i like the best so far is the Built to Spill show from last night, but it still has a little bit of that slowness or (hesitiate to use this term) slight muddiness. i really think that this box will shine with a v2 in front of it. there's no doubt in my mind that the 722 performs incredibly well as an all-in-1 solution and at that price point and used in that way is an incredible value. but i think it has just a little to be desired in the front end department. all, imo, of course. not trying to be a hater, but i know the comments are coming....
-
I hear that too Damon, though I haven't listened to a lot of 722 sources...
-
i've heard like 7 or 8 at this point and i've heard it in all of them...i need to download carrington's v2>722 source from raleigh and see if it is there. and hopefully sideshowbob will make it to the birchmere tomorrow night for bob schneider so i can put the 722 behind the mk5>tubes>v3 chaos he's got working. :D
-
Damon, run at the Birchmere with the hpf engaged and see how it comes out. I've always heard some lower end bloom in that thing but I've been afraid of too much rolloff to try the filter. Maybe try the least of the settings and see how that works.
-
well, if jason shows up, i'd like to hear the tubes @ 24/96, so we'll see. bob schneider does not have a heavy low-end sound so i think the tape would be ruined worse by running the HPF in that environment (seated acoustic show at the birchmere). but i don't know, we'll see.
EDIT: btw, i ran the gain linked last night and i really liked it, you should try it out sometime. i ran it for the opener, planning to run unlinked for the main set, but liked it enough to keep it engaged. pretty cool way only having to adjust one knob.
-
fwiw I ran the box with the HPF engaged at the Crowes raleigh show at the first level...which they descriibe as the only analog filter (the other freq/slope combinations are done via DSP) at 40 Hz, 6dB. I have a hard time comparing that tape to any of the others I have done as that one was taped in the worst venue in Raleigh...it is basically a tin can with a stage, but what I do know is it made a tape that was absent of the muddy, undefined boom that would usually take over recordings from this room.
Bottom line, I need to run it in more diverse environments to reallly get a feel for its impact to the signal
-
Where'd you get that info about analog vs. DSP filters, Nick?
-
Where'd you get that info about analog vs. DSP filters, Nick?
page 15 of the manual.
The first pole of the high-pass circuit is an analog filter at 40 Hz, 6dB, per octave and is part of the microphone preamplifier circuit. Additional poles of high-pass filtering are done in DSP
-
Thanks. I need to download the new manaual anyway. This is a good excuse! I'll preset that HPF option so that when I turn it on, that's the only one that loads. No point in doing the others internally. Might as well just do those in post.
-
I spent the weekend debating selling off everything and picking up a 722. Came damn close to doing it, mainly out of the convenience of a one box solution. But I downloaded some straight mic in 722 sources and did some reading (and reading between the lines) about the 722. Finally decided to stick with my beloved V3 and hope for good things with the M-Audio Flash tracker. I also heard that low end coloration, which I didn't care for. That combined with Doug's comments, Lil Kim's comments, and Brian Skalinder's comments (who seems to own the same pair of ears as me) made me think that I might not be happy running the 722 as a one box solution, so I'd rather have V3>flash tracker than V2>722.
But another thing I didn't like was that it appeared to only have 12db, 18db, and 24db HPF rolloff slopes. That is what is listed on the SD website on the specs of the 722 and the manual seemed to indicate it as well, though it was very unclear from the writing. Good to hear that a 6db slope is available -- thanks for that info Nick. That was almost the deal breaker for me thinking that I wouldn't have the option of a good HPF available, but I think I'm skipping the 722 anyway at this point. If the Flash tracker doesn't live up to its promise, maybe I'll revisit the 722 decision again though.
-
you would not be happy running the 722 all by itself but still wouldn't run V2>722 ???
made me think that I might not be happy running the 722 as a one box solution, so I'd rather have V3>flash tracker than V2>722.
-
you would not be happy running the 722 all by itself but still wouldn't run V2>722 ??? your statement doesn't make sense to me.
I didn't say I wouldn't run the V2>722, I said I'd prefer V3>flash tracker. The draw to me for the 722 was to have a very simple one-box solution. After deciding the sound of the 722 as a one-box rig wasn't to my tastes, it meant running a preamp in front of the 722, and hence it was no longer a one-box solution. I really have no problems whatsoever with the V3, in fact there is quite a bit about it that I love and would find hard to replace, from the sound to the features to the ergonomics. If I'm going to have two boxes anyway, I prefer one be the V3, and the flash tracker looks promising as a companion to the it.
I think the JB3 has served me very well for the past 2 1/2 years, but that is the one part of my rig I'd like to replace. So it was the desire to get rid of the JB3 that got me going down the road of the 722, not the V3. My decision/choice was between the 722 and the V3>flash tracker (this latter was a bit hard to quantify since the flash tracker is an unknown). The thing that got me to choose the 722 over the V3>flash tracker was the one-box deal. Once the choice became V2>722 or V3>flashtracker, I decided to hold tight at least for a few months and see if the flash tracker actually comes out and does what I want it too.
-
v3>flash tracker is an all-in-one solution? seems like two boxes to me. allbeit, the maudio is smaller than the v2, but it's still two boxes
-
v3>flash tracker is an all-in-one solution? seems like two boxes to me. allbeit, the maudio is smaller than the v2, but it's still two boxes
I think your misunderstanding him as he said the 722 was not a 1-box-solution for HIM as it required a pre in front of it(according to his ears)
-
yeah i think it's too early for me to post at TS.com ::)
i just re-read your posts Todd......sorry for the misunderstanding
-
When I was at Cochella I ran CCM4's in front of the 722 and the bass was overpowering.. mainly the fault of the sound guys IMO.
I am back home now and running my ADK's again. Prior to the 722 I ran a V3 and nearly always ran a bass roll of at 75htz at 12db/octave... never had boom or muddy low end.
After Cochella I decided to do the bass roll off with the 722... changed it to 40htz and 18db/octave on the 722 and had a fantastic result.
FWIW I am not a fan of overpowering sub bass that has been digitally created at the booth... give me solid, tight low end that makes the music whole, not thump thump like a cheesy honda with a 15 in sub in it you can here for 3 blocks!
CQBert
-
changed it to 40htz and 18db/octave on the 722 and had a fantastic result.
whoa! that's a serious roll-off...18db an octave?? not my speed...
-
Has anyone tried 24/192 into the 722/744 either line/mic-in or V3>722 via. coax or aes/ebu?
-
Has anyone tried 24/192 into the 722/744 either line/mic-in or V3>722 via. coax or aes/ebu?
i don't think you can do 24/192 over coax?? the v3 only does it via dual output AES right?
-
24/192 requires dual aes I believe
-
Has anyone tried 24/192 into the 722/744 either line/mic-in or V3>722 via. coax or aes/ebu?
i don't think you can do 24/192 over coax?? the v3 only does it via dual output AES right?
24/192 requires dual aes I believe
you guys have me second guessing myself now(must research) but I believe you can do 192 over an AES line. Even the latest toslink optical inputs can handle 192. hmmmmmm. i'll have to do some reading up
-
I don't have anything that will record 24/192, so I'm not sure. It may be only through dual aes/ebu. What about mic/line-in to the 722/744 at 24/192?
-
I don't have anything that will record 24/192, so I'm not sure. It may be only through dual aes/ebu. What about mic/line-in to the 722/744 at 24/192?
scott brown did an ABB show 4022->722 I believe (though he may have had the mytek in that lineage) during the beacon run
-
Has anyone tried 24/192 into the 722/744 either line/mic-in or V3>722 via. coax or aes/ebu?
i don't think you can do 24/192 over coax?? the v3 only does it via dual output AES right?
24/192 requires dual aes I believe
you guys have me second guessing myself now(must research) but I believe you can do 192 over an AES line. Even the latest toslink optical inputs can handle 192. hmmmmmm. i'll have to do some reading up
I could very well be wrong, I'd like to know the answer but that is what I always thought. Maybe that was the case when the V3 came out 2.5 years ago?
-
i've never seen 192 carried over a single aes cable. every 192 transfer i've ever done has been via wide wire (dual). i'll have to checck the AES specs...
-
i've never seen 192 carried over a single aes cable. every 192 transfer i've ever done has been via wide wire (dual). i'll have to checck the AES specs...
yeah but really what do you know about audio? :P
;)
-
there is an emerging standard for single wire 192. I guess I was mistaken (or just haven't kept up with the latest news) ;D
-
i've never seen 192 carried over a single aes cable. every 192 transfer i've ever done has been via wide wire (dual). i'll have to checck the AES specs...
this is correct. i just checked a bunch of specs on different pieces of gear with AD converters. all of the AES inputs say up to 96kHz.
but there is a new standard coming out for..........nevermind heath got it ;D
-
I've played around with 24/192 on the 722 (line input), but not in the field yet. To my ear it's a pretty significant step in the right direction over 24/96, but nowhere near the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I'd record at 24/192 except that my only playback of 24-bit is DVD-Video which won't support more than 24/96. I guess I've gotta upgrade to a DVD player that can do DVD-Audio.
- Jason
-
FYI: The 722 and 744t have an "AES3id" input described as "unbalanced digital input accepts two channel AES3 (or S/PDIF) on BNC connectors. Supports sample rates of up 200 kHz."
-
i think i've sent 192 via aes frm a mytek to a 722. i can try tonight if you guys want
-
I'm interested Scott. I wonder why more people are not recording at 192kHz for archive purposes when it is an option! I know many DVD-A player can olny support 24/96 playback, but some do! It soulds like the old DAT debate of 16/48 vs 16/44.1, but everyone seems to be going to the lower resolution. Is there a problem with tranfers or firmware with 24/192? I'm just confused why more of these haven't shown up...
Just my .02...
-
I'm interested Scott. I wonder why more people are not recording at 192kHz for archive purposes when it is an option! I know many DVD-A player can olny support 24/96 playback, but some do! It soulds like the old DAT debate of 16/48 vs 16/44.1, but everyone seems to be going to the lower resolution. Is there a problem with tranfers or firmware with 24/192? I'm just confused why more of these haven't shown up...
Just my .02...
i bet it's a file size v. increased perceived resolution issue. are you getting that much more out of a 24/192 recording of a PA in a hockey arena to warrant doubling the file size? 12 gigs for a 3 hour show is a lot of space.
-
i bet it's a file size v. increased perceived resolution issue. are you getting that much more out of a 24/192 recording of a PA in a hockey arena to warrant doubling the file size? 12 gigs for a 3 hour show is a lot of space.
my thoughts as well. I do a lot of 192 work, and the storage space is a major consideration when clients are deciding on whether to go 96 or 192...
h
-
Agreed about the file size. Still seems like the old 16/48 vs. 16/44.1 debate. For festivals, completely understandable. For one show, why not? You can always dump the 24/192 to a smaller rate for listening and uploading, but keep the 24/192 as archive, but maybe that's just me and I'm a dork!
Again, just my .02...
-
I believe that the single wire spec for 192 is AES3.
For me storage space is not a consideration. The main reason I record at 24/96 instead of 24/192 is that I am way behind on moving masters to DVD and CDDA so I want to eliminate the extra step of resampling the 192 to 96, which I must do since I'm burning LPCM audio DVDs and not true DVDA discs.
For two reasons, I'm not really that worried about giving up the resolution right now. First is the comparison circulated months ago of the 24/96 to 24/48. That comp revealed that the two were almost indistingushable. Although I could hear a small difference betwen the two sources, I could not pick out which was 24/96 and which was 24/48. Second reason is the test that Nick did with the upsampling DAC. He reported that the audible difference between CDDA and native 24/96 was very very small. So I feel that when I get something like the Bel Canto 2.0 that upsamples all inputs to 192, my 96 stuff is going to sound just fine.
So I think 192 is more important for those who are doing some DSP operations on the signal in post than for guys like me who are just wanting to burn straight to a playable media and rock out.
-
I ran the steep roll off for the acoustic portion of the show. Drums were provided by a cardboard box and I nearly always run omni. Sounds great - there is no real base below 40htz in an acoustic show anyway.
Also keep in mind that nearly every high end mic pretty much has its own roll of from 40Htz anyway. You are not really taking much out of it, rather managing the low end to eliminate boom - at least I hope I am.
CQBert