At 10:42 AM -0700 3/25/07, Lou Judson wrote:
>Sorry for piping in late with the same suggestion - but, Rob, why use=A0
>the analog instead of digital connection between the two decks? It=A0
>would keep one analog circuit out of it, even if they are extremely
>clean analog circuits!
Its a logical suggestion when a mixer costs that
much. AES/SPDIF _should_ work too, and with one,
short BNC -> BNC cable on same ends.
Its seems like both patches involve one analog
pre stage and one A-D stage. My gut says to pass
the balance line level signal over and let the
744 convert both analog signals to digital at
the same time. There may be no issue or
difference at all; I don't have a lot of field
experience with separate digital front ends to
know, for sure. I suppose one could link the
two decks, but I wouldn't do that just to use the
722's pre for Tracks 3/4 of the 744. Rob D.
>
><L>
>On Mar 25, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>> Two very short, mini-xlr cables made with thin lavaliere
>> cabling between the 722 to the 744 is hardly noticeable. I've used
>> the school's 722 for this purpose; the balanced line to balance line
>> connections/circuits are very clean. Rob D.
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|