Thanks for this, oryoki,
For perspective, I've been using a MixPre (tape out) > Zoom H2 (line
in) for a while now as a second recording rig. This combination is
fantastic. The only negatives I find are: 1) I wish the H2 was a bit
slimmer; 2) by its very nature, this setup is not as neat and tidy as
a single unit would be. Notice how nit-picky these complaints are?
Great sound quality, and the whole shebang gives decent recording
times from four AA batteries. Exactly how long depends on a host of
variables, of course, and battery usage of the two units eventually
gets out of synch. (Okay, so there's one more nit-picky complaint.)
Curt Olson
oryoki wrote:
> Sound Devices recorders (702, 722, 744t, and so on) are excellent
> field recorders by any criterion. They're also expensive. Hoping
> to find a less costly alternative, I compared the preamp of the 702
> recorder ($1875 USD) to the Sound Devices MixPre preamp ($665 USD)
> using Sound Devices' published specifications.
>
> My conclusion: Compared to the MixPre, the 702 provides small
> improvements in most categories. I have attached the comparison
> below.
>
> Whether the 702's performance improvements will be audible in a
> recording made in the field is another matter. If you have used the
> MixPre (or its predecessor, the MP-2) and a 7xx recorder, please
> tell me about your experiences! Thanks.
|