Decision: Sound Devices 633 or 302/702T?

F

Fidelio

Active member
Hi all,

Recently I have been giving more thought to purchasing a professional mixer/recorder unit and I have, through various research, come to conclude that Sound Devices is probably the most well-respected (or at least most popular?) company in the field of on-location sound recording today (unless I'm mistaken and there's more field work done with units by Nagra, Zaxcom or another company still? I'm not too sure.)

Anywho, I have been looking more intently at their offerings and have basically come to isolate two choices for a professional beginning.

1) The Sound Devices 633 mixer/recorder.

2) A combination of the Sound Devices 302 mixer with the 702T recorder.

The trouble is, I don't know which is the better choice. I have been told that they offer different things, but I am unsure as to which would fit my application better. I intend to use this device to record on-location sound for short and feature films, and I will utilize two channels of audio at most, in all likelihood booming with a single input most of the time.

Is one better than the other in strictly sound quality? I have read somewhere that the 302/702T combo offers quieter pre-amps, but I have no way to substantiate that claim. Anyone here with experience with both?

Other than that, are there options to each that one device possesses solely that the other does not?

All advice is appreciated. Thanks!
 
You might opt out of the 302 and just purchase the 702 given your modest needs.

As an owner of a 302, more than anything, I would be reluctant to give up the nice, bright and expanded scale LED metering. I haven't seen an LCD meter on anything that makes me smile. Progress marches on and LCD metering will be and is the future, but it simply isn't as good IMHO.

Grant
 
Depends on your needs and workload. Only you can answer that.
If you don't know what you need, choosing a mixer/recording rig is the least of your problems.
 
Grant: But wouldn't I want a mixer to complement a recorder? From what I've read, isn't a mixer arguably even more important than a recorder in terms of attenuating sound? As for the LED meters, yes, I've been told as much... thus my interest in the 302, but at the same time the 633 really does seem like an all-in-one package, and since it's the newer model, I'm assuming that it should by reasoning incorporate design or technical elements that would be an improvement of some nature?

Rick: Well, I do, somewhat. I know I will mostly use it with one or two inputs, most of the time for a wired boom. It is to be a modest set-up for me, something that I can use knowing that I am achieving sound quality of a professional grade, but without necessarily requiring the more flexible options that machines higher up on the hierarchy provide (e.g. 664). After parsing through their base options, I've come to isolate my choice to being between a 633 and a 302/702T combo. For my purposes, both machines should reasonably fit the bill, as the 702T offers two-track recording and the 633 at ten tracks. My curiosity is in whether one set-up sound better than the other, if the 302 offers more flexible mixing options than what is available in the 633, and if the 633 could be considered an equivalent or successor of the popular pairing of the 302/702T units.
 
Renting might be the best way to go until you know how often and your exact needs. All of these machines can be rented and at the very least you can spend an hour at any professional sound usual suspect (Trew,Pss,Lsc, Gotham, and many other fine companies) getting to know the gear your interested in. It may turn out that a less expensive machine might fit your needs better. Fostex rc302 ($600) has been used by professional sound mixers successfully before they could afford more expensive gear (can be rented for fifty or sixty dollars a month, at least in Austin, Tx). Good luck.
 
Fidelio said:
2) A combination of the Sound Devices 302 mixer with the 702T recorder.
Click to expand...

If you are only going to ever need two channels, why not look at the MixPre-D? Amazing bang-for-the-buck in that one.

The 702T is a time code device. Do you need time code? If not, why not look at the 702?

As to which is better, the 633 or the 302/702T combination, the 633 is fairly new to market, while the 302 has been around a while, and the 702 and 702T have been around for quite a while. I'd consider the 633 as "new school" and the combination of devices as "old school". I expect that the newer tech. is in the newer devices, and therefore the newer devices should have better sound quality (if nothing else, the new tech avoids the cable(s) and their connectors between the devices). But will it sound better to you, with your workflow and your particular circumstances? You're the only one who can answer that.

Me? I'd be looking for a used 522 or 552. When the 633 came out, a large number of people dropped their 522s onto the used market and upgraded to the 633. But... sounds like a 522 would cover your few bases quite well and might save you some serious coin in the bargain. Just sayin'.
 
I would not worry much about 'which one sounds better' between a 633 and 302/702 combo. Any difference would be negligible.
OTOH, the 552's internal recorder was designed for backup purposes, and according to SD, not as a primary recorder. But I'm sure it still sounds good. If only one or two tracks are needed to be recorded, a stand-alone 702/722 would be primo.
As was stated, it's all about features more than 'the sound'.. TC, tracks, channels, size, power requirements, ect., ect.
 
Yes indeed, for only a couple of channels, a Mixpre-D would be fine, and you get the bonus of a digital computer input.

Although I don't own a 702, I would be confident the preamps and limiters to be of equal quality to the 302 mixer. The field operation might not be quite as nice, but again, you have modest needs so just the recorder might work for you. You could buy the recorder first, and then add the mixer if you have the need.

You might also consider a 302 and a more modest recorder. I have coupled a 302 to a couple different Tascam recorders and it works fine. Though I'd love to have a 702 instead if just because of the build quality.

It's always fun spending other peoples money!

Grant

Edit: remember to save some money for a bag, cables, and remote power which could run $500 to 1000 depending on what you want-need.
 
As ggrantly stated, I also have a 302 and fed a 744 and DR-40 with negligible 'sound quality' difference. (all other input parameters being equal)
 
Along those same lines a MixPre D into any recorder than will take a digital in should sound as "good" as any other since The recorder is then just a digital storage device.

Personally I would spend some time thinking about how you want to work and how you are likely to work. The fewer connection you have to make in The bag The less likely something will go wrong. Also if you don't get some sort of independent battery system you are looking at keeping track of two battery systems with two different batteries. Not a killer but something to think about. The biggest plus I see to 702/ 302 would be The ability to go off and do FX recording with just The 702 making it a smaller lighter package. If that is not part of your plans I see no advantage to that combo.
 
Per Noizs' comment, although there may not be much difference in audio quality between a 702 and other recorders with a good mixer in front, there is a huge difference in build quality. That would include plugs, switches, case, basically the entire device.

Grant
 
Thank you for the informative advice everyone. It's given me more perspective on the practicalities of harnessing two devices at once, and also made me more informed as to the overall sound quality of both set-ups.

Scott, you mentioned that with a 302 "in front", the quality of the recorder is rendered moot. Is this true for all scenarios, Sound Devices products or otherwise, as a matter of science (i.e. signal path)? That is, the initial point of contact (the first input) being the most important node of the nexus? Seeing as there seems to be a consensus here as to the flexibility of the calibre of recorder post-input, even though there is still that need to relay the data through another set of cables. Does it have to do with the fact that the data has already gone through the analog-digital conversion, and thus cannot be further degraded in the ensuing transfers?
 
The 302 and most mixers are all analogue, the recorder converts to digital. The Mixpre d has analogue to digital conversion. Recorders normally do the a/d conversion. The weakness in less expensive equipment is usually in the pre-amps and the acquisition of the analogue component before conversation. If the front end device, whether mixer or combo mixer-recorder, can acquire the analogue signal in very high quality, the actual recorder matters much less; digital bits are just bits.

So a great mixer in front of a cheaper recorder can work quite well.

Grant
 
Fidelio said:
Scott, you mentioned that with a 302 "in front", the quality of the recorder is rendered moot. Is this true for all scenarios, Sound Devices products or otherwise, as a matter of science (i.e. signal path)? That is, the initial point of contact (the first input) being the most important node of the nexus? Seeing as there seems to be a consensus here as to the flexibility of the calibre of recorder post-input, even though there is still that need to relay the data through another set of cables. Does it have to do with the fact that the data has already gone through the analog-digital conversion, and thus cannot be further degraded in the ensuing transfers?
Click to expand...

He said nothing of the recorder's quality being rendered moot, just that it isn't as crucial with a good mixer in front.

Your recorded sound can only be as good as the weakest link in the chain. The first stop is the mic. If the mic is of poor quality, there's nothing that can be done downstream to fix it. Further, if it's a good mic but it isn't properly placed, the recorded sound cannot be fixed downstream.

The second stop is the pre-amp, through which the mic's output signal must pass before being recorded. If the pre-amp is weak and adds noise, you're stuck with noise. BUT, if the pre-amp is clean and does not add any other adverse effects to the sound, you're good. Since the pre-amp is crucial, that's what we're really looking at here. If you're using a low-cost recorder, chances are that the pre-amps are not the best. The solution, then, is to add a good mixer (with good pre-amps) between the mic and mixer, thus removing the recorder's pre-amps from the signal chain. A really good, high-end recorder might offer good pre-amps as well, but a good mixer in front means that this isn't as big of a concern. eeding a line-level signal from a mixer to a low-cost recorder doesn't guarantee that the recorder's pre-amps are completely eliminated from the chain, as many of the cheap recorders simply pad the input gain way down when switched over for line-level input. The pre-amps are not actually bypassed, but are minimized in how the affect the incoming signal.

The next stop is the A/D conversion (analog to digital). Again, quality of this can vary though not nearly as much as the pre-amps. If you have a recorder that takes a digital input, and a mixer with good A/D conversion that outputs a digital signal, you can truly bypass any analog processing in the recorder. In this case, the recorder is nothing more than a "bit bucket," or a recepticle to hold digital data. If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter how good the pre-amps are in the recorder.

For what it's worth, I have used a combination of Sound Devices MixPre-D and Fostex FR2-LE recorder for small projects for quite a while and have always gotten great results. In fact, that combination could do you quite well if things like time code and multi-track recording aren't going to be useful (or necessary) to you now or in the future.
 
As Grant picked up on I didn't say with the 302, I said with the MixPre-D the recorder becomes nothing more than a bit bucket.
With an analog mixer feeding a line level signal to almost any cheap recorder your quality will go up but you are still going through not great audio circuitry.

With a good preamp that has a digital out you bypass all of the recorders analog section and the maybe iffy A/D converter so the quality is really whatever the mixer outputs.
 
Hi Scott, my apologies for confounding the 302 with the MixPre-D, I had mistakenly conflated your post with others'.

Alex, thank you for the exceptional explanation of the signal chain! It's very informative.

To digress, are most pre-amps custom-built, or at least heavily modified, by individual companies as guarded proprietary technologies? Given their heavy emphasis as a most significant component of these audio devices, and how much of an influence they have to the qualities of the sound.
 
Fidelio said:
To digress, are most pre-amps custom-built, or at least heavily modified, by individual companies as guarded proprietary technologies? Given their heavy emphasis as a most significant component of these audio devices, and how much of an influence they have to the qualities of the sound.
Click to expand...

Confused. It sounds like you think preamps are devices that are bought as an item and stuck in various devices.
I'm sure there are preamp on a chip devices out there (probably for sticking in games and motherboards voice recorders etc.) but I doubt seriously any major name sound company is using them. I would be fairly surprised if the preamp is not specifically designed for recorders such as SD or even Tascam.

I'm not sure I would peg it as the "most" significant component. It is clearly one that matters a LOT, but so does a very stable clock for digitizing, and a high quality converter. Anything before the digitizing is finished is pretty important. After that it's a digital stream and it's pretty robust. Or maybe more accurately at the digital stage there is a lot less that "degrades" the signal, most problems at that point either go unnoticed or destroy the data.
 
Fidelio said:
To digress, are most pre-amps custom-built, or at least heavily modified, by individual companies as guarded proprietary technologies?
Click to expand...

You talk as if a pre-amp is an individual device. In fact, it's typically an collection of individual circuits, and the circuits are made of lots of devices. If you're thinking of an individual semiconductor package, that's more of a digital thing. Most analog circuits don't translate well to semiconductor packages, especially if they are producing real voltage or power gain.

So if you open up a device that contains an analog preamp circuit, expect to see a PWB with a fair number of individual devices soldered to it. The design of such a circuit (and the physical implementation of the PWB) is typically the work product of electrical engineers. And yes, the design is typically proprietary. And there are thousands of designs for preamps.

My favorite example of a state-of-the-art preamp is an Audio Research Reference Phone 10, a vacuum tube preamp designed to interface with a moving coil (a single loop of wire so fine it's hard to see with the naked eye) phono cartridge used to play vinyl records. Built as two 19" rack mount chassis, so they could separate the amplification from the power supply and eliminate that tiny bit of RF contamination in the signal path. Proprietary? Well, it's got a nice long list of patents, so yes. And it costs more than my car. But I hear it's pretty good. :happy:
 
Last edited:
Ah, gotcha. For some reason I somehow always envisioned it as a self-enclosed device, but I guess that just goes to illustrate my neophytism...

Very thorough explanation Bruce, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top