COMP: SD 722 / Oade ACM HD-P2

[Brian Skalinder]

ftp:  tapers.org
login:  ftp4all
pass:  ftp4all
dir:  /drive1/_gear_comparisons/722_ACM-HDP2

Took out these two units last night for kicks and ran them side-by-side, all-in-one v. all-in-one.  I've labelled the tracks so it's not blind, though I recommend people listen in an ABX environment to hide the source info.

Copy of info file:

*****************************************************************
*                                                               *
*  COMP:  Sound Devices 722 / Oade Bros ACM Tascam HD-P2        *
*                                                               *
*****************************************************************

Built To Spill
2007-07-17
Chicago, IL - Vic Theatre

Recordist    : Brian Skalinder / bskalinder@yahoo.com
Location     : Center, clamped to balcony, dropped down ~8', forward ~1.5'
Mic Config   : ORTF (17cm, 110º)
Source       : Schoeps MK5 (cardioid) / KC5 / CMC6 > XLR splitters >
                [1] KindKables interconnects > Oade Bros ACM Tascam HD-P2
                [2] KindKables interconnects > Sound Devices 722
Record Format: 24-bit, 48 kHz
Conversion   : Lexar CF card reader / 722 > firewire > PC
Edit         : MAGIX Samplitude SE v8.3
                     16b-44k :  normalize, resample, dither
                     24b/48k :  normalize, dither
                     Original:  none
Final Format : 16b/44k, 24b/48k, original 24b/48k


Thought I'd run a little comp to get a sense for how the Oade Bros ACM Tascam HD-P2 compares to the Sound Devices 722 as an all-in-one preamp/ADC/recorder.

I ran both boxes with phantom ON (in hindsight, I shouldn't have...as my 722 battery died prematurely and created a couple artifacts in the P2 recording).  Not ideal, but I didn't have an independent phantom power source.

Since it's quite hard to match levels precisely on two different recorders with two different metering scales, I normalized and then dithered both sources in the 16b/44k and 24b/48k samples to achieve very close average RMS levels.  (see below for stats)

I've also included the original recordings from each recorder in case someone wants to listen to the samples unedited.  However, I think this makes for a more difficult comp due to minor, but noticeable, volume levels.

Anyway...happy listening!


=================================================================
bts2007-07-17_722_16b-44k.flac
=================================================================
   Left   Right
Min Sample Value:   -27722   -27372
Max Sample Value:   29083   32741
Peak Amplitude:   -1.04 dB   -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped:   0   0
DC Offset:   .003    .003
Minimum RMS Power:   -57.57 dB   -58.77 dB
Maximum RMS Power:   -9.85 dB   -9.23 dB
Average RMS Power:   -17.9 dB   -18.22 dB
Total RMS Power:   -17.15 dB   -17.4 dB
Actual Bit Depth:   16 Bits   16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


=================================================================
bts2007-07-17_ACM-P2_16b-44k.flac
=================================================================
   Left   Right
Min Sample Value:   -27436   -27607
Max Sample Value:   28639   32766
Peak Amplitude:   -1.17 dB   0 dB
Possibly Clipped:   0   0
DC Offset:   .003    .003
Minimum RMS Power:   -57.71 dB   -58.81 dB
Maximum RMS Power:   -10 dB   -9.25 dB
Average RMS Power:   -18.04 dB   -18.24 dB
Total RMS Power:   -17.29 dB   -17.43 dB
Actual Bit Depth:   16 Bits   16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


=================================================================
bts2007-07-17_722_24b-48k.flac
=================================================================
   Left   Right
Min Sample Value:   -27796   -27377.94
Max Sample Value:   29082.44   32767.98
Peak Amplitude:   -1.04 dB   0 dB
Possibly Clipped:   0   1
DC Offset:   .003    .003
Minimum RMS Power:   -57.57 dB   -58.77 dB
Maximum RMS Power:   -9.85 dB   -9.23 dB
Average RMS Power:   -17.9 dB   -18.22 dB
Total RMS Power:   -17.15 dB   -17.4 dB
Actual Bit Depth:   24 Bits   24 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


=================================================================
bts2007-07-17_ACM-P2_24b-48k.flac
=================================================================
   Left   Right
Min Sample Value:   -27409.22   -27566
Max Sample Value:   28637.14   32767.87
Peak Amplitude:   -1.17 dB   0 dB
Possibly Clipped:   0   1
DC Offset:   .003    .003
Minimum RMS Power:   -57.71 dB   -58.8 dB
Maximum RMS Power:   -10 dB   -9.25 dB
Average RMS Power:   -18.04 dB   -18.24 dB
Total RMS Power:   -17.29 dB   -17.43 dB
Actual Bit Depth:   24 Bits   24 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms

[ehren]

why am I not seeing

_gear_comparisons

?

[Brian Skalinder]

why am I not seeing

Are you viewing drive1?  Have you refreshed your view?  It's there for me using the ftp4all login.

[ehren]

why am I not seeing

Are you viewing drive1?  Have you refreshed your view?  It's there for me using the ftp4all login.

yep I get into drive1 and then I see a bunch of folders, but not that one. Let me try a different client.

[ehren]

I've got the comp and have done some listening, is it too early to post thoughts?

[Brian Skalinder]

I've got the comp and have done some listening, is it too early to post thoughts?

Absolutely not too early...post away!

[ehren]

I listened to the 24bit files that were normalized. With 50sec left in the track I was able to tell the real differences between the two. The music takes a nice low and you can really hear the instrument separation. Since I don't know either of the boxes very well I listened knowing which source was which as I had no real bias as far as *knowing* either of the boxes really well.

First off I think they both sound really good and I didn't find that either of them stood out as outstandingly better than the other. There were three main differences for me:

1. Soundstage: I thought both boxes had an equal width, but the 722 was tighter in the midrange and more focused to the center of the soundstage. The hdp2 had a smoother soundstage at the expense of a tiny bit of high end detail and the insturments were spread a bit more evenly but with less focus.

2. Midrange: I thought that the midrange on the 722 was a bit more analytic, with more focus. The midrange on the hdp2 was more musical, or *warm* but with less detail. Both boxes excelled in this area and the guitars sounded fantastic. I liked the hdp2 a bit better for it's musicality in this area. With 41sec to go the guitarist lets a sweet lick go with some delay attached to the end of it. With the 722 it sort of hovers in the center and the delay is a bit understated, but on the hdp2 the notes seem to fly out in front of you in 3d. Really that one note is what pushed me over the edge as far as the midrange was concerned.

3. Bass: The 722 just kicks ass in this department, tons of thump and very tight with no slop to speak of. I loved it for this. The bass on the hdp2 was more rounded and less pronounced. The hdp2 sounded very good but if you love to hear that kick drum hit you in the chest then the 722 wins in this department.

Overall it's a toss up. I think the 722 has more detail at the expense of a tiny bit of musicality, i.e., smoothness or warmth but with killer slam. The hdp2 is a bit sweeter or warmer at the expense of some detial. Both boxes sound fantastic and I would think people would be all over the board as to which one they liked better in a blind test.

my listening was done on:

imac>audiophileUSB(spidf out)>Spitfire24bitDAC(w/supplier)>TmaxMITinterconnects>JolidaJD1501>AcousticEnergy3s