V3 Vs. 722? What are opinions so far? Thanks.

[lyle]

SSIA

[Brian Skalinder]

A quick search (ahem!) on keywords "v3" and "722" yields this thread:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=36202.0

[Kevin Straker]

Looks like 13 pages with 5 posts on what the thing sounds like. However, I'm usually wrong.

[Brian Skalinder]

Looks like 13 pages with 5 posts on what the thing sounds like. However, I'm usually wrong.

Nope, you're correct - sounds about right.  Not surprising, given these boxes are new and that only very small numbers of people are willing or able to provide public feedback.

[dmonterisi]

well, take this with a grain of salt cause i haven't heard any direct comparisons of the two and have only heard a few 722 sources.  but my initial impression is that the v3 is more detailed and crisper, especially in the mids and upper frequencies, while the 722 is more musical and laid-back.  the 722 has a bit more punch to the lower-end, a very nice rounded bass sound.  if i owned a 722, I would probably opt to run a v2 in front of it.  while i haven't heard any tests of the a>d in the 722, I could definitely hear the missing presence of the grace pre in the 722 recordings and I like that part of the grace sound.

[Kevin Straker]

well, take this with a grain of salt cause i haven't heard any direct comparisons of the two and have only heard a few 722 sources.  but my initial impression is that the v3 is more detailed and crisper, especially in the mids and upper frequencies, while the 722 is more musical and laid-back.  the 722 has a bit more punch to the lower-end, a very nice rounded bass sound.  if i owned a 722, I would probably opt to run a v2 in front of it.  while i haven't heard any tests of the a>d in the 722, I could definitely hear the missing presence of the grace pre in the 722 recordings and I like that part of the grace sound.

Thank you sir!

[F.O.Bean]

well, take this with a grain of salt cause i haven't heard any direct comparisons of the two and have only heard a few 722 sources.  but my initial impression is that the v3 is more detailed and crisper, especially in the mids and upper frequencies, while the 722 is more musical and laid-back.  the 722 has a bit more punch to the lower-end, a very nice rounded bass sound.  if i owned a 722, I would probably opt to run a v2 in front of it.  while i haven't heard any tests of the a>d in the 722, I could definitely hear the missing presence of the grace pre in the 722 recordings and I like that part of the grace sound.

Thank you sir!

agreed

[Brian Skalinder]

Looks like 13 pages with 5 posts on what the thing sounds like. However, I'm usually wrong.

Thank you sir!

What, no thanks for the people who posted in the original thread? 

[dmonterisi]

no problem...fwiw, the 722 sources i've heard have been 140's>722 @24/96, including the wilco show where i ran the 722.  and i used to run 140's>v3 so i know how that sounds, that's the basis of my comments.

[lyle]

Thanks. I read all the past posts before I posted this but all i read was page after page without anyone really taking a stand and giving some opinion with description.  I'll have to try a 722  but love hearing as many opinions as possible. Anyone else?

[scb]

i think the v3 sounds a bit tighter than the 722.  the bass is a little less rounded on the v3 and i think i hear a little more detail.i think the mytek sounds a bit better than the v3.

that being said, i think the 722 sounds pretty damn good.  we're probably the only ones who can hear these differences because we're listening for them.   it's like comparing a benz to a bmw to a jag. they're all pretty damn nice!

[Brian Skalinder]

I read all the past posts before I posted this but all i read was page after page without anyone really taking a stand and giving some opinion with description.

Well, since you apparently missed it:

Alright, finished up my straight V3 v. 722 comp. Here're my notes...

SOURCE A
Highs a bit sharper on attack, smoother & longer decay
Mids - don't hear much difference btn the two sources
Rounder, more accentuated mid-low & low end, extension...?...dunno, tough to say using headphones
Less defined soundstage, but seemingly more ambient detail in the crowd noise

SOURCE B
Highs not quite as smooth, a bit spittier and shorter then A, but not fatiguing
Mids - don't hear much difference btn the two sources
Tighter mid-low & low end, extension...?...dunno, tough to say using headphones
Tighter, smoother soundstage, but seemingly less ambient detail in the crowd noise

I had a tough time evaluating the mids on both as I often rely on electric guitar to really pinpoint how the mids sound and the samples didn't have much e guitar going on. And, as noted, I didn't hear much difference in the mid range.

As for which source is which, I'm slightly puzzled since - based on previous 16-bit experience - I would have expected slightly better HF detail out of the V3, yet in this case, the slightly better HF detail appeared in the same source as the one with more accentuated mid-low / low end, a characteristic I've heard out of the 7xx boxes. That rounder, more accentuated mid-low / low seems to permeate the recording for me and makes it very easy to distinguish the two recordings in an ABX environment.

If I had to guess, I'd stick with my thoughts that the 7xx exhibits the rounder, more accentuated mid-low & low end, and I've consistenly found the V3 has a tighter soundstage than most other boxes, so:

A = 722
B = V3

Anyone else give the straight V3 / 722 comp a listen and formulate an opinion? At any rate, fun stuff these comps. I'd be pretty darn happy taking home either source!

And another:

I did this second comparison last night, once again using foobar's ABX plugin to determine that I could clearly distinguish between the two. I encourage others to do this as well (I think winamp also has such a plugin) so that you can prove to yourself that you can distinguish one track from the other.

In that comp, I found that I liked source A better. A sounded more musical and "alive" than B, which was almost sterile in this comparison. I think that was because B sounded more neutral. The details were there in B throughout the audible range, while I noticed that A was not dead on with every attack. I wouldn't go as far as to call A sloppy by any means, just not as crisp and defined as B.

My call: A is 722, B is V3.

And one more:

My guess is it is going to sound like whatever your mics are that you toss up in front of the unit.

It has a very distinct sound to my ears. I can't really discribe it right now, though. It's not transparent at all, imo. If anything, it's colored. So far i've heard the box with 140's and mk41's, and I can hear the 722/44 in both sources.

how is the low-end? that's my biggest concern, that the low-end might get a little sloppy.

Slightly bloated/colored, imo, but not too loose.

I can hear the 722's characteristics best when a drumer is playing fills and of course, when a bass player is playing.


edit: and when I say "bloated/colored", I dont neccessarily mean that in a bad way.

Oh, look, another:

to be honest, i think people are being pretty cautious about making statements about this box just yet. there aren't a whole lot of sources out, and yours is the only comparison disc that i know of being done. but i don't care about comparison downloads. also, 24bit is still not all that common, and those of us who do listen to 24bit recordings, I imagine, are a bit more circumspect in making broad statements about the box until we've heard it a bit more. from the two sources I have heard, I was only at 1 of the shows, so it's impossible to get a real frame of reference. both sources were km140s>sd722 (mule 2-20-05 and wilco 2-23-05) so marc you can stop reading now. i found the 722 to be very laid back and musical, with a big, rounded bottom end. i have always found that the real benefit of 24bit recordings is in tightening up the lower frequencies. this seems to accomplish that well. the 140s can get loose in the low end and mule is certainly a bass-heavy tape, but there is no sign of bloated bass. it sounds very accurate (though i wasn't at the show) and round. not very warm though. from my memory of the wilco show, the 722 sounds very accurate. It sounds very much like what i remember at the show. sound was good that night, but not great, and you can hear the limitations of the mix in the "tape". the dynamic range advantage from working in 24 bit is more evident in the wilco tape, but that's not too surprising given the types of bands and the venues (wilco was at the 930 which is a very good sounding room). I don't know if any of my rambling makes any sense at all.

overall, i think it sounds pretty neutral, a little bit less detailed than a v3, and with less presence, but just as, if not more musical. but this is just an impression off of two different bands in different rooms. the only constant here is the microphone.

EDIT: I ran the 722 for wilco while michael ran it for mule. I have a few issues with the design, but overall it's a very easy box to use. I don't particularly like the metering. however, i may have been in the wrong metering mode (not sure if it was peak or the basic one). but i found myself running the levels too conservatively because I was concerned about overs. there are 10 LEDs between -40 and -20 but only 3 between -12 and over. that doesn't make *any* sense to me. midway through the first wilco song when i was well into the red, i backed the levels off and peaked at around -10 to -8 the rest of the show. well, the first half of the first track sounds markedly better than the next few songs till i got it dialed in more. but i still wish i had pushed the box more to take advantage of more of the dyanmic range. it's too bad the meters seem to be more pretty than they are useful.

EDIT again: i'm sure the metering issue becomes easier to deal with once you've run the box a few times and get a feel for how it runs.

Hey, surprise surprise, yet another:

track A has slightly tighter bass which seems more even in the mix
track B the bass is more accentuated and marginally not as tight

something in track B is fatiguing but can't pin point it
in track A, the vocals seemed a bit more forward

I'm not really sensing a midband dip in sample B, the HF seems pretty even between the two but B seems to have more presence when the sound is mostly crowd.  Maybe that coupled with the LF accentuation could be considered a "smiley" curve?

Overall, track A sounds a bit better to me.  Disclaimer, I have maybe 15 hours on these new speakers and I do not have them dialed in wrt placement.  I may have to switch back to the thiels and compare notes again since I have 1000s of hours listening to those.

Scott, is it possible for you to put out more tracks of the comparison?  There are some things that I listen for when comparing recordings and that one track didn't have all of what I was after. 

I would really be interested in hearing the straight V3 vs 722 carbonleaf comp if that is available because I am very familiar with the v3 and have only one other sample of the mytech

Sarcastic aside: I'm sure all these subtle differences can be attributed to the axial vs radial egress of the mic cable.

Go figure, add one more to the list:

I used Foobar's ABX plugin to compare the two files (BHTM - Bittersweet) to see if I could distinguish a difference. I did 25 trials to at least give myself a big enough sample to base a judgment upon and was able to distinguish about 90% of the time. I was listening on PC > coax out > ULN-2 > Sennheiser HD-600.

Since I could tell a difference, I will say A has the "bigger" low end and sounds more musical. B sounds more detailed and flatter across the range and I'm guessing it sounds more like it did in the venue.

Based on those observations and what I've heard from 3rd parties, I will guess A is the 722 and B is the V3>Mytek. On this particular recording, I like A better.

And I'll finish with two questions:

[1]  So, are you lazy, or do you just not pay attention?     I imagine I'll kick myself tomorrow AM for supporting your laziness / inattention by posting the direct quotes.

[2]  Have you listened to the comp yourself to develop your own opinions?  Care to share them?

[Gordon]

jimbo ran one at garaj last month.  I used part of his first track to splice my first track.  we were on the same stand onstage xy.  me 481 > v3 > jb3 @ 44.  him mk4s > 722 @ 96.  now I know it's not the same mics but I can hear very little difference between mine and his.  where the splice is is hardly noticable to me if at all.  I'm tired so no details.  I should have a torrent up in a day or two if y'all want to hear the splice for yourself.

[leegeddy]

messed around with Kwon's 744 tonight.

verdict:  VERY STEALTHABLE!!! 

marc

[sygdwm]

twoodruff and i will run v3 vs 722 w/ his mics as soon as the box gets here.