Topic: SD USBPre 2 + Sony D50 vs SD 702

[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.