SD 702T & Tascam HD-P2

[redge]

Sound Devices has announced two new 2-track recorders, the 702 and 702T, that use flash card storage.

Apparently the electronic specs are the same as SD's other 7-series recorders.

This means that Sound Devices is producing an alternative to the FR-2 and the Tascam HD-P2. Unlike the Tascam, the 702T can be used to jam time code.

The price for the 702T is apparently about two and a half times the street price of the Tascam.

[redge]

Oleg,

Yes, that is one reason that I am considering it. I spoke with Sound Devices today and they think that I can use an Aaton camera to jam the 702T directly. That would mean that I don't need an Aaton GMT-s SMPTE generator, which would take some of the sting out of the price.

In my own case, it looks like it will come down to a choice between the Tascam and an Aaton generator, or the SD 702T. It looks like the cost of the SD would work out to about US$600 more than the Tascam/Aaton solution.

Earlier today, an SD dealer told me that he thinks that technical information should be on SD's web site tomorrow.

[ptalsky]

If their price point is really going to be at ~$2300 for the 702T, then there is another problem....for not that much more (roughly speaking) you can just go ahead and get a 744 (it would only be about $1,300 more.)  I just am not sure that you're going to get sound that is 3 times better than the Tascam with these recorders (yes, the sound will be amazing, but again, the sound from the Tascam is very good...so is going from very good to amazing really worth that much money.)

That being said, I will probably just go with the 744T anyway.  ;-)

(At least until I can afford/justify a Deva IV or V or that really cool looking Cantar.  ;-).

Phil

[Eric Toline]

The street prices for the 702 & 702t are $1850 & $2375 respectively.

Eric

[redge]

Phil,

The price that I was quoted is US$2375.

I agree that if one only needs a recorder that will accept time code, the 702T is a hard sell over a Tascam HD-P2 at US$900.

The Sound Devices starts to make more sense if one needs to acquire a time code generator to use the Tascam, although even then the generator may face obsolescence much later than the 702T, and can be used with other devices, and, in my case at least, a Tascam/generator option is still US$600-700 cheaper than a 702T.

There may be build quality, sound quality and feature advantages that make the 702T attractive for what would be, for me, a $600-700 premium. I'd love to hear observations on that question.

One thing is clear to me. When I phoned Sound Devices today, the phone was answered by an actual person, and I was quickly patched through to someone who was able to answer a technical question. I'm quite sure that I would not have the same experience with Tascam. I do know this. When I asked my partner a couple of hours ago whether he thinks that that kind of service (which used to be common, but is no longer) is worth US$600, his immediate and unqualified  answer was "Yes".

Besides, I like Wisconsin.

[Jeff Wexler]

There may be build quality, sound quality and feature advantages that make the 702T attractive for what would be, for me, a $600-700 premium. I'd love to hear observations on that question.

One thing is clear to me. When I phoned Sound Devices today, the phone was answered by an actual person, and I was quickly patched through to someone who was able to answer a technical question.

In my opinion there really is no comparison between the SD 7 series (or actually anything Sound Devices builds) and the offering from Tascam. The Tascam is an amazingly capable device at that price and has proven for many to be quite useful even in a professonal work setting. The Tascam is, however, a mass consumer item when compared to a specialized product like the SD 722 or 744T. It is this fact that sets the SD apart from most of the rest of the low cost options. The support issue is real when comparing the 2 companies and goes further than just having real people on the end of the phone line. As things change with the work that we do professionally, the devices need to change, often rapidly responding with firmware and software updates to accomodate new scenarios in our workflow. The smaller highly specialized and dedicated companies like Zaxcom and Sound Devices can much more easily respond to our immediate needs. There are few larger companies that can give this level of support, Lectrosonics I believe being  one of the more responsive "big" companies, but all of these are dwarfed by the really big companies like Sony, Tascam, Fostex, etc.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[ptalsky]

No question that I believe it is important to support the smaller guys (like SD and Zaxcom) that support us and listen to our feedback and actually use it.

But, I actually have been very surprised at the responsiveness of Tascam (especially with firmware updates and fixes).  They too appear to be listening...for now anyway.  Time will tell.

As far as needing to buy a TC generator to go with the Tascam...this is true, but then again, I needed a TC slate anyway, so I killed two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Anyway, at this point, I'll stick with the Tascam a little longer...still needs to pay for itself before I upgrade again...besides, it looks like the Lectro 401's are starting to ship, so, that'll be my next upgrade...

Phil

[Philip Perkins]

The only reason one would need to buy a TC generator for the P2 would be if you wanted to jam slates etc, since it lacks a TC output,  instead of jamming the P2 from the slate  I'm sure the 702 will be a cool box, and I'm very into the no-moving -parts thing now, but I agree that it's a little pricey for what it does re: the 744.  When I retire my last TCDAT machine (when commercial etc producers stop asking for a DAT backup to anything NL) I still think I'll go with the 744.  ( Or whatever comes next!)  As far as the 702T goes, it might be that 2 P2s would be a better fit for me (one on the cart and one to grab SFX and wild lines).    Is the 702 smaller than the 722?  Same limiters?  Same file system?  Same menu structure?

I undertand Jeff W's reluctance to get involved with products from a "large" audio company vs. a more boutique operation like SD.  However I would have to say that my experience with both sorts of companies over the last 30 years has been about equal.  There is better service or more attention at least from an SD-type company only sometimes, but there is often better engineering, manufacturing and QC from a company with greater resources and more experience making complex devices.  I've had MANY Tascam recorders over the years, and they have generally "just worked"--a beautiful thing.  Perhaps the biggest electronic companies whose products I deal with are Sony and Panasonic, and their cameras have actually been very reliable for something so complex.  Cooper, SD, Kudelski have always been great to deal with, but I've also had lots of other gear and software from small companies that started off being supportive and became uncommunicative as their workload increased and they tried to deal with problems in their products. 

Philip Perkins

[redge]

Philip,

A quibble that is applicable to my situation, although I would be the first to admit that it is not your everyday issue:  if one wants to use an Aaton camera to jam a SMPTE recorder like the Tascam, a generator/translator is essential.

However, It looks like it may be possible to use an Aaton camera, at least the Aaton camera that I'm using, to directly jam a Sound Devices recorder due to the capabilities of Ambient time code circuitry.

[Jeff Wexler]

I undertand Jeff W's reluctance to get involved with products from a "large" audio company vs. a more boutique operation like SD.  However I would have to say that my experience with both sorts of companies over the last 30 years has been about equal.Philip Perkins

I agree with you Phillip, and my experiences with small vs. large companies is also similar to yours. I think I probably didn't make my point so clearly so I will try and focus it a bit. What I was really trying to comment on is the fact that with large, mass market companies, even with products that are appropriate for our use, we are pretty much left with having to take the devices as they are, with the feature set, user interface and so forth totally in the hands of a huge and mostly faceless and unknown engineering team. Generally we have had no input to these companies because the devices are often designed primarily for the consumer market (where most consumers are already resigned to their input consisting of either buying it or not buying it). If Sony comes out with the latest and greatest recording device and we find that it has some really annoying design flaws or quirks, there isn't much we can do about it. We have to hope that these companies get it "right" right out of the box.

My last comment, and this is a very general but primary issue, is that we are fully into an entirely different mode of relating to the technology we use in our jobs when compared to 15 years ago or so. In the old days, most all of the equiupment we used was highly specialized, developed by rather small companies selling to a very small market, and it was equipment which had no counterpart in the general consumer world. There was never going to be a mass market for the Nagra 4.2, full track 1/4" Neopilot sync recorder. I don't have the figures in front of me but if you look at the numbers for worldwide sales of Nagra recorders over its 40 year life, you would be astounded how small the number is.

Cut to today when there are literally hundreds of options to record sound in some manner (and most of the time this sound can be made to work "to picture" in some fashion) and most of these things, even from very small companies, have their basis in mass market (or mass marketable) items. Would any of these machines use Compact Flash if compact flash were not already a total mass market item installed in millions of other items all over the world, items from huge multi-national corporations who sell millions of mass market items?

This is the point I was trying to make but more importantly, as the previous posts address, is the need to understand these tihngs when making decisions what companies to go with, what tools to use and what we can expect to see in the future. It just isn't simple anymore. Thirty years ago if you lined up 10 sound carts and inventoried the equipmenmt being used, there would be little or no variation to be found: Nagra 4.2, Sennheiser 8xx shotgun, 4xx short mic, Sony ECM-50 lavaliers, maybe 2 "radio mics" most probably Vega in the U.S., etc.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

I kind of agree w/ Oleg--I was sort of hoping that the next SD box would be maybe 6 tracks, or have all the input connectors be XLR, have a bigger LCD, things like that.  I had also wondered what their next trick in the mixer market might be, what w/ PSC coming out w/ a cheap (though not as feature-full as the 442) 6 in mixer. 

I think a few of us were pleasantly surprised that Tascam would go to the trouble of making a machine to compete in this market, and then listen to users about what was needed.  And we are still in early days w/ the P2 I will admit, we will see what sort of production abuse it will take.

Philip Perkins

[Fernando]

Hi all from Barcelona,

>I kind of agree w/ Oleg--I was sort of hoping that the next SD box would be maybe 6 tracks,

>or have all the input connectors be XLR, have a bigger LCD, things like that.

I had the opposite thought.

I imagined the 702T being a smaller device and half the price; a sort of super-MicroTrack or R-09 with no mic pres but with electrets in it (and windjammer)... so one can take it in the pocket and record anywhere (eg. in a zoco in Morocco) or use a 302 or similar if real mics and duties were needed.

One could use it as an "within-action" recorder also...

For that money I would go for a 744T for special jobs and as a back-up (I've got a DevaV)... just 200 grams heavier, same size...

Fernando

P.S. This is a very happy finding, thanks Mr Wexler. I wish you a fresh, peaceful forum!

[Jeff Wexler]

Hi all from Barcelona,

>I kind of agree w/ Oleg--I was sort of hoping that the next SD box would be maybe 6 tracks,

>or have all the input connectors be XLR, have a bigger LCD, things like that.

I had the opposite thought.

I imagined the 702T being a smaller device and half the price; a sort of super-MicroTrack or R-09 with no mic pres but with electrets in it (and windjammer)... so one can take it in the pocket and record anywhere (eg. in a zoco in Morocco) or use a 302 or similar if real mics and duties were needed.

Fernando

All of these postings certainly show a wide diversity of what has been hoped for in new products or models. You can be sure that the good people at Sound Devices have many, many things they need to consider when deciding to build a new product. After the 442 came out, I thought a good product for SD would be an 8-channel mixer, direct competition to Cooper. Then when the 7 series came out, I thought a good product  would have been a 442 with recorder built in (mayne only 2 or 4 tracks). Then you have Zaxcom showing a wireless mic with RECORDING function --- one actor, one mic, one track and on and on as far as you want to go. So, we are all looking for new and exciting things and hoping that the tools that are aleady out there continue to evolve to meet our needs. I would not want to be the person making the decisions in many of these companies because there are so many possibilities to miss the mark when releasing something new.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

In light of our discussion of small companies vs. big, I think that SD has made a good conservative choice, building on the popularity of the 744.  They really can't try to build all the things we've asked for and stay in biz.

Philip Perkins

[redge]

The manual for the 702 recorders says that they incorporate high pass filters:

"The high-pass filters on the microphone inputs use both analog and digital filters to reduce sensitivity to low frequency signals. When the high-pass is engaged on an input, its blue front-panel LED illuminates to indicate it is engaged. The first pole of the high-pass is an analog filter at 40 Hz, 6 dB per octave. This filter is part of the microphone preamplifier circuit. Additional poles of high-pass filtering are done in DSP.

"Several frequency and slope combinations are available, including corner frequencies of 40, 80, 160, or 240 Hz, and filter slopes of 12 dB, 18 dB, or 24 dB per octave. The high-pass is selected for each input independently."

It appears that the Digital Signal Processing filters are controlled from the menu.

Does anyone have an opinion, if one is using a Schoeps microphone, on whether these filters could be used instead of a Cut 1?

On an issue that may be of interest to those using Aaton Code, the manual says that the time code in/out is a Lemo 5 that includes a pin for SMPTE in, a pin for SMPTE out and a pin for ASCII in/out. Presumably it is the latter pin that makes it possible to jam the recorder with Aaton ASCII.

[Fernando]

>and a pin for ASCII in/out. Presumably it is the latter pin that makes it possible to jam the recorder with Aaton ASCII.

Yes, it should

[redge]

The 702 manual also says at one point that compact flash is the "principal" recording medium.

In a section describing the information on the LCD display, there is a section entitled "Compact Flash Status (space remaining/record ready)".

There is also a section entitled "External Media Space Status (space remaining/record ready)", about which the manual says:

"Not available on version 1.xx firmware. Bar graph indicates amount of record time remaining on external FireWire media. Numbers show time in hours and minutes based on the presently selected number of record tracks, sample frequency, bit rate, and file type."

Am I misreading this, or does it suggest that future firmware may make it possible to record to an external portable FireWire hard drive, or maybe to a computer drive?

[Jeff Wexler]

Am I misreading this, or does it suggest that future firmware may make it possible to record to an external portable FireWire hard drive, or maybe to a computer drive?

I believe it was always the intention of Sound Devices to provide greater implementation of the Firewire port to allow, for example, directo recording to a an external media (drive) either as a mirror operation or simultaneous recording. This has not been implemented yet in any of the SD 7 series recorders (but it has been talked about a lot). What you have found seems to be a little look into the future capabilities.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[redge]

Jeff,

Well they seem to have reserved space on the 702 LCD display for that possibility.

If I understand correctly, you have used filters on your Cooper mixer to do the job of a Cut 1. Given the high-pass filters on the 702, as mentioned in my previous post, do you have an opinion on whether it could be used the same way?  Or is this apples and oranges?

[Jeff Wexler]

If I understand correctly, you have used filters on your Cooper mixer to do the job of a Cut 1. Given the high-pass filters on the 702, as mentioned in my previous post, do you have an opinion on whether it could be used the same way?  Or is this apples and oranges?

No, it's not apple and oranges at all. The way SD is doing the high pass is very smart. The Cooper board (all analog) has a 2-stage high pass filter arrangement (but done entirely differently because it is all analog, no DSP) and I have always found the high pass on the Cooper board to be a good fit for the Schoeps. I do have a CUT-1 that I use sometimes on one of the Schoeps mounted in a windscreen. It is generally set at the first notch (the setting that is just below "1", could be considered the lowest possible setting) and is used also for the purposes of making the mic physically longer (silly, I know) so it is a better fit in the windscreen.

There are people who use the Schoeps mic and insist that the CUT-1 MUST be used at all times. Often, when questoned, it is discovered that the High Pass in their mixer is not designed properly, does not have a steep enough slope, or has a center frequency that is not right. In these cases I would recommend use of the CUT-1 fitted to the mic. There are some real and theoretical electrical advantages of using the inline CUT-1 (for example, the benefit of attenuating unwanted low frequency energy before it is sent to the amp) but I have never found these to be important in the real world.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

Re Cut-1, I like how it sounds but I want the ability to take that rolloff out on the spur of the moment, w/o taking apart the mic.

W/ the Cut-1 there is no way to quickly A-B the effect of the filter on a voice as there is on the HPF in a console.  I don't like the idea of having low-rolloff in all the time--I miss the low end on vertain voices and sounds.  The SD way of doing this is pretty elegant (digital filters), but I wonder if it adds a  latency delay to the audio.  How deep in the menu structure is it?  Is it easily in-outable?

Philip Perkins

[redge]

This morning, I was told that the Sound Devices 702T will not be available on store shelves until the last week in April (in other words, during NAB).  There does not appear to be any economic incentive to ordering one prior to NAB. 

This afternoon, I was able to have a look at the Tascam HD-P2. Whatever its sound quality, its build quality does not inspire confidence. For the price, and assuming that one is already set up for time code in, and one doesn't need time code out, it may make sense.  As Philip Perkins points out, one can buy two of them (actually 2 1/2) for the price of a 702T.

Anyway, I just want to thank everyone for their comments in this thread and the thread on 16 and 24 bit sound. They were very helpful in making a decision. Unless somebody comes up with something at NAB that is of equal quality to the 702T, at a much better price (which I suspect is unlikely), I'll be buying the 702T.

 

[Philip Perkins]

This morning, I was told that the Sound Devices 702T will not be available on store shelves until the last week in April (in other words, during NAB).  There does not appear to be any economic incentive to ordering one prior to NAB. 

This afternoon, I was able to have a look at the Tascam HD-P2. Whatever its sound quality, its build quality does not inspire confidence. For the price, and assuming that one is already set up for time code in, and one doesn't need time code out, it may make sense.  As Philip Perkins points out, one can buy two of them (actually 2 1/2) for the price of a 702T.

Anyway, I just want to thank everyone for their comments in this thread and the thread on 16 and 24 bit sound. They were very helpful in making a decision. Unless somebody comes up with something at NAB that is of equal quality to the 702T, at a much better price (which I suspect is unlikely), I'll be buying the 702T.

 

I think the 702 looks like a sweet machine.  However, I don't understand what you all mean by "build quality" .  Is the 702 sexier: yes.  Will it survive a 5 ft drop to concrete better than a plastic-bodied machine like a P2 (or a PD4 or a PD6)?  I actually doubt it.  Can a plastic-bodied recorder take the abuse of exterior film work:  absolutely: as we all did w/ our HHBs, PD4s and as I also did with the earlier Tascam DAT machines--to the point of actually "drowning" one and then having it come back to life after it dried out.  Remember, with the P2 and the 702 we are talking about no moving parts, so no recorder-mechanical comparisons (very glad about that).  If you like the sound of the 702 better--I can understand that.  If you like its menu structure and the look and size of it better,  I understand that.  As for "build quality",  I think Tascam knows how to make circuit boards at least as well as SD, and has several million times the experience at it. 

Philip Perkins

[redge]

Philip,

I don't make a decision to spend US$2400 instead of US$900 lightly.  It is a pretty counterintuitive thing to do. I think that it is clear, if one reads my posts in this thread, and reads the thread about 16 and 24 bit recording, why I made that decision. My reasons may not apply to others.

By this morning, I had already decided to buy the 702T without having seen the Tascam. The only reason that I didn't make the purchase was that it became clear, during a discussion with a Sound Devices dealer, that I might as well see what develops between now and NAB.

That being the case, I went to a local store this afternoon and had a look at the HD-P2.

I was struck by the case and the connections. I did not say that the Tascam won't stand up.  I said that it does not inspire confidence. That is a psychological statement based on my experience with other products rather than an empirical statement based on testing.

The only thing that I know, for a fact, is that my reaction, as I handled the recorder, was as follows:  there is no way that I am taking this machine to western Newfoundland and Labrador this summer, let alone to areas of the Middle East that are rugged and isolated next winter.

On a different subject, I read your response today on ramps about room tone. I thought that your comments on the issue were very well-expressed.

Cheers.

[Philip Perkins]

If you are really going to those places I would strongly urge you to have a backup.  In my travels to very remote places w/ dicey or no electricity I carried two of the (plastic) Tascam DATs, and they generally worked flawlessly in spite of weather and stupidity.  The 702 will be great on your shoot, but pack something else too, if only a Microtrack etc.  Re: your trip--how will you offload your CF cards from the 702 (or P2 or Microtrack) in the field, or will you just pack a lot of cards?  The latter would be the most space-conservative, and you could avoid having a computer or Roadstor etc along.  The no-moving parts aspect of the 702/P2/Microtrack/FR2 recorders is becoming one of my favorite things about them.  In a nasty environment I think I'd bet on a CF card over a DVD-R.

Philip Perkins