722 First Impressions

[Zee]

What did you set the roll off at?

Another question for you guys is the gain control. Do you all like to run it linked and use the balance or do yall use them where gain 1 = mic 1 and gain 2 = mic 2? I was running it linked the other night and I don't think I like that as much. I had a hard time keeping the levels even.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I run the gain controls as independent controls.  I've never had a piece of gear that used a linked gain control like that so it seems unnatural to me.  It's probably a really nice option if you are calibrating the gain against a test tone, but for a dynamic signal I prefer independent controls.

[MattD]

I only use linked for stealthing, that way I can just boost whichever channel is off in post and not have to worry about the image shifting to one side or the other.

[Mic D]

I run the gain controls as independent controls.

Where is this setting?

[MattD]

Menu - gain linking ... says something about 1/2 or M/S in there, too.

[Zee]

It's probably a really nice option if you are calibrating the gain against a test tone, but for a dynamic signal I prefer independent controls.

I agree with you I had a hard time with the balance control. At first I was thinking man this is neat but I dont know if I like it.

Im going to get that firmware upgraded tonight. It sure would help If I would have built up my new pc before this thing came in.

[Zee]

the 722 sounds freaking fantastic....shitty ass venue tonight and the tape smokes...

Yep.. MMW smokes from the other night... Im loving the way it sounds.

[marc0789]

No more SLAs :-)

isnt that a beatiful thing?

EDIT:
I wish we had better metering.

I thought the same thing when I started using, it, but have found it isnt that big of a deal....with 24 bit I am running more conservatively and can normalize a bit later if necessary, but hasnt been thus far

+T on the new toy!

if you can't run hot levels at the show, isn't 24 bit kind of a waste of time? I really like Waldron's Fox WSP tapes, but noticed that the levels are kinda weak....figured it must be a metering issue. running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

[Zee]

running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

I'm confused with this comment can you please elaborate on why you think this. I was under the impression that at 24bit you don't need to run as hot.

[nickgregory]

What did you set the roll off at?

40 Hz

[Brian]

even at 24 bit i still try to peak at like -3 or -2dB and then I add the gain post by either normalizing or doing a slight compression.

the human ear perceives average loudness over the peaks.  these 24 bit recordings aren't TRUE 24 bits.  just look at the dynamic range spec and do the math.  it's really only like 18 or 19 bits.  there is 6dB of dynamic range per bit.

so even at "24 bit"  I would still run the levels hot.  I've added some minor compression to my copies of Waldron's 24 bits from the fox for my own listening and have enjoyed the results. YMMV

Brian

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

[Zee]

even at 24 bit i still try to peak at like -3 or -2dB and then I add the gain post by either normalizing or doing a slight compression.

the human ear perceives average loudness over the peaks.  these 24 bit recordings aren't TRUE 24 bits.  just look at the dynamic range spec and do the math.      it's really only like 18 or 19 bits.  there is 6dB of dynamic range per bit.

so even at "24 bit"  I would still run the levels hot.  I've added some minor compression to my copies of Waldron's 24 bits from the fox for my own listening and have enjoyed the results. YMMV

Brian

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

You learn something new everyday....  Thanks for the response.

[Brian Skalinder]

I was under the impression that at 24bit you don't need to run as hot.

I've heard this batted around a lot, too, and I never understand why.

running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

Agreed.  Seems to me, one would want to run the levels hot (i.e. peaking as high as possible without clipping) at 24-bit.  Running the levels hot allows one to capture maximum resolution (a Good Thing), and I don't understand why anyone would not want to do so.  I can understand running 48k, or 96k, instead of 192k sample rate since it saves gobs of space and has much less of a dramatic impact on sound quality, but I don't understand running relatively low levels at 24-bit.

with 24 bit I am running more conservatively and can normalize a bit later if necessary

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

[Brian]

damn marketing departments are evil i tell ya!  i hear the same thing goes for digital cameras in terms of pixels.  I've heard that the true pixel spec of the camera is  really only like half to 2/3rd's of what is advertised.

"they lie. they lie right to your face" -e. cartman

[dmonterisi]

damn marketing departments are evil i tell ya!  i hear the same thing goes for digital cameras in terms of pixels.  I've heard that the true pixel spec of the camera is  really only like half to 2/3rd's of what is advertised.

"they lie. they lie right to your face" -e. cartman

it depends on the type of sensor, you do need to investigate exactly what they are selling.  in some cameras, you can have multiple sensors per pixel site and not all are used in each image, but i'm not sure exactly the mechanism.  this is not true of all camera designs.  my 20d (single-plate CMOS sensor) gets the full 8.2 megapixel resolution (3520 x 2344 pixels).