Fredo Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Can someone comment on the quality of the preamps/AD of the Sound Devices 644 vs. the 788. We plan to use one of both as a front end for recording Foley and would like to know if the 644 preamps are different/better than the ones on the 788. We have a 744T for our location recordings, so I am pretty familiar with the sound and what I'm after in the 644 or 788. Thanks for your advice Fredo Gevaert Temple Of Tune Belgium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jozzafunk Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Different - they're both excellent - there was quite a discussion on this just recently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted January 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 OK, I just found the thread you are referring to. Unless someone has a specific comment about using them as front end for Foley recording, I can do with the comments in the other thread. Thanks Fredo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkautzsch Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I prefer the limiters of the 788T, set to the shortest release time possible. Slight use might be helpful in getting some sounds (door slams, impacts, all kinds of percussive sounds) more "bite". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'd use a 744T - best pre, best limiters, best all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'd use a 744T - best pre, best limiters, best all around. I agree. If you don't need any if the other features of the 788T, the 744T is best. And it can be bought at a fairly low price used nowadays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 It is just my idea or the prices for US products have increased? Sound Devices 788T has 7.100€ (ex VAT) now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 It is just my idea or the prices for US products have increased? Sound Devices 788T has 7.100€ (ex VAT) now. Of course, the € went down. As discussed in another recent thread, prices go often up with the currency going down, but never up. I am, however, talking about buying a used 744T used from one of the usual suspects in the US, which sell for a around $2000 or even less. Add to that shipping and VAT (it depends on your personal situation whether you can reclaim that) and import tax. All of this will be arranged for by the vendor and the courier, so it's simple to do and may be a bargain - just calculate for everything to be sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I prefer the limiters of the 788T, set to the shortest release time possible. Slight use might be helpful in getting some sounds (door slams, impacts, all kinds of percussive sounds) more "bite". Me too. 664's low cut do not cut under 80 Hz. 788's low cut can cut under 40Hz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Childers Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I love the 664! And owned a 744t. Both are fantastic but sound different. To me for foley I'd go with the 744 or 788 for sure..if that's the recorders sole purpose. The 664 will only do 48khz as a sample rate too so that is something to consider when taking about recording foley or sound effects. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thank you for all the replies. As said earlier, we do own a 744T. Reason why I want my Foley front end system to be as good. The problem however is more complicated. I need to be able to mix different sources to a new track in real time. Here in Europe, most of us record Foley within perspective. So, for example, if we have a bicycle coming toward us, we fade from a distant mic to a close mic. This means we have to have input trims *and* Mix faders, or rotary knobs, at our fingertips. So the "mixed" signal is then routed into the DAW, while we still have the individual channels as backup in the recorder. (Or recorded on other tracks) Our first idea was to put in a 788 with a CL9. But since this is no cheap solution and a bit of overkill, looks a 664 would do the job too. If only we could connect a CL9 to out trusted 744, this would make me very happy. Thanks again for your help. Appreciated. Fredo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 If only we could connect a CL9 to out trusted 744, this would make me very happy. But the Cl-9 won't provide any additional preamps to 744T. However, if you are happy with your 744. why not get a 442 or 302 or MixPre to go along with your 744? Those are great tools to have anyway and a 442 can be had 2nd hand at fairly low prices. The preamps of those mixers are pretty much on par with those on the 664. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 But the Cl-9 won't provide any additional preamps to 744T. No, but I don't need the extra channels. It's just a matter of controlling input trims and mix levels. However, if you are happy with your 744. why not get a 442 or 302 or MixPre to go along with your 744?. Because I would lose the routing functionality. Imagine a Foley Room that has 4 mics. 1 distant mic, and 3 close mics placed at different places, for different purposes. Having faders at the fingertips allows me to choose which mic/channel is going to the single digital feed to the DAW. (The DAW which gives me all monitoring facilities). This allows me also to mix any mic with any mic into that single digital signal. (Distance vs close-up). In addition to that, I have the trim pots at my fingertips (Door slam vs. cloth movement). And I can also route the individual -non mixed- channels into the recorder or DAW as a safety backup. These are all things that are complicated or impossible with single analog solutions or traditional gear. Or we would have to add an analog or digital mixing stage, before the signal goes into the DAW. With this solution, the trims, AD, Mix faders, and routing come in one package. And it's just a matter of being able to control all these in the most convenient way possible. Which is the CL9. That being said, a 552 would do the job too I think. Hope this clears it up. Fredo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkautzsch Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 So you're not outdoors in harsh conditions with no shore power, right? Then why not use a digital desk? Thinking 01V96 or better. Output the mix to PT, and the direct outs to your 744T's line inputs. Way cheaper. IIRC, you can assign PT tracks to be recorded in different folders, right? Then you could have one "main" folder and one "iso" folder, and record everything into PT directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Hi Peter, The whole point is that I don't want to use a digital or analog mixing desk. And/or any other Preamp and DA, except for those that are part of the Sound Devices systems. I do not want any compromise in Sound Quality (We currently use Lafont LP-21's, and I won't go for anything less quality-wise) And I want *all* controls (Input Trims & mix faders) at my fingertips. Fredo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 You already know what you want to do. Just do it. As Senator would say: "you have our blessing". Go for the pricier and better option and live a happier life. You won't look back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reinout Weebers Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Fredo, I'll be selling my 788 soon, i've send you a pm. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reinout Weebers Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 And additional to your setup: The 788 also can output digital AES(744 only has SPDIF) while being a wordclock slave. So no DA/AD problems or jitter when recording to a DAW. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 And additional to your setup: The 788 also can output digital AES(744 only has SPDIF) while being a wordclock slave. So no DA/AD problems or jitter when recording to a DAW. Just for the complete picture: the 744T does have AES3 outs as well as WordClock i/o, and is thus perfectly suited to be recorded digitally into a DAW. It's AES3id which is not exactly the same as AES3, but similar, and it is similar to SPDIF, but again not exactly the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reinout Weebers Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Just for the complete picture: the 744T does have AES3 outs as well as WordClock i/o, and is thus perfectly suited to be recorded digitally into a DAW. It's AES3id which is not exactly the same as AES3, but similar, and it is similar to SPDIF, but again not exactly the same Hi Constantin, I never stated the 744 didn't have WC, but good to mention, furthermore, interesting point. Although the 744T doesn't have the hands on capabilities that Fredo asks for. Wiki states "S/PDIF and AES3 are similar in many ways and are interchangeable at the protocol level, but at the physical level they specify different electrical signaling levels, which may be significant in some applications." SPDIF, AES3 and AES3id don't differ that mutch on proticol level, but the physical differences are indeed something to keep in mind. SPDIF is a real consumer, livingroom, standard to connect the DVD player within short range (10m). AES3 and AES3id to my (new)knowledge are indeed professional, but the only way you'll get the advantages from AES3id (1000m) over the balanced AES3 (100m) is via (75ohm BNC)COAX cable in stead of (110-ohm STP)XLR. You won't see me walking around with Coax and a smile. I rather have a flexible XLR cable that I can use for many purposes, and includes a return line. My humble opinion aside. You should look at your total setup, what equippement am I connecting, what protocols and connectors does it use, do I need WC, what length do I need my cables to be.... and so forth. The less you'll have to convert the less you'll invite problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipWestbrook Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Or you could just get a 442 so you have 4 channels and faders. 552 is great for dialogue but for SFX you may want something quieter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Hi Constantin, I never stated the 744 didn't have WC, but good to mention, furthermore, interesting point. Although the 744T doesn't have the hands on capabilities that Fredo asks for. Absolutely, I didn't mention this in disagreeing with you so much, instead I meant to clarify that the 744T has those (or similar) capabilities, too. Anyway, Fredo needs a 788T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Or you could just get a 442 so you have 4 channels and faders. 552 is great for dialogue but for SFX you may want something quieter. The OP already discarded that idea earlier in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolo72 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Why just Sound devices ? Sonosax and Aaton cantars have nicer sound and limiters. While new they are more expensive I can see quite a few more on the used market when their latest products are released this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted February 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Sonosax and Aaton cantars have nicer sound and limiters. Is that so? I have no experience with Sonosax or Aatons, so I really can't tell if they are better than the Sound Devices. Fredo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.