Sound devices 442 or Sound devices 702

J

Julienmassie

Member
During 1,5 second i had the idea to buy a sound devices 702 instead of a 442 ...
I love the recording option..
Lacks of output...
Of input ...

Well never mind but somebody already try to work only whit this recorder, no mixer in front on it ? How it was ? Easy ? Or you where like what the hell i was thinking ?
 
I like going direct into the 702. It is actually a little cleaner than going through a mixer since it's once less step. Sound Devices pre-amps are in the 702 so if you are just doing DSLR with a boom it's awesome. If you need multiple mixes or more than 2 inputs then you need the mixer but I think the 702 is a better value.
 
I will mostly use a dslr, xdcam combo. So i need to record and send a mix ( yes a could only record and send nothing to the xdcam but ... i dont do the post production so ... )
I just need a mixer for the fact that i will probably need more than 2 channel if i only buy the 702, but im sure i will never need more than 2 channel if I buy the 442.

Because i already rent a zoom h4n to one of my friend ( i pay im a beer so it cost me around 5,60 to rent it ) ...

I could buy the 702 and a piece of crap mixer like an old fp 33 and just use my fp 33 when i need more than 2 channel ( like wireless mic mix )... maybe ...
 
Consider that the 442 has multiple parallel main outputs, all carrying the same stereo mix. You could send one stereo output to the 702 recorder and a second, identical mix to the XDCAM at the same time. For that matter, there are three sets of balanced main outputs, plus an unbalanced stereo tape out plus a mono out for a total of 5 outputs on the 442 so you could easily send a third stereo mix simultaneously to the DSLR if you wanted and still have two outputs left unused.
 
I would carefully consider before giving up the flexibility of a quality mixer in favor of a two channel recorder (albiet one with great preamps). A good mixer will serve you in so many ways, and as pointed out, provides far more signal routing capabilities than a dedicated recorder. As a sound guy, I never know when I'll be asked to provide feeds for camera or other monitoring situations, as well as the idea that as soon as you commit to something with just two channels, you'll need 3 or 4, or for a reality show I recently did, 8. A quality 4 or 5 channel mixer (the SD 552 looks very nice with the integrated 2 channel SD recorder) will provide a lot more bang for the buck.
 
i woul buy a used 442 ans a used 702 instead of a new or used 552.
The recording menu on the 552 is just ... wrong !

I know the 442 output, direct out, input, feature. I was just wondering if some of you tryed to use only the 702 ...

I will buy a 442, but the temptation for the 702 is still there ... but whit the reason i need to go whit the 442 or maybe the 302 but no ...
 
Julienmassie said:
i woul buy a used 442 ans a used 702 instead of a new or used 552.
The recording menu on the 552 is just ... wrong !

...
Click to expand...

The recorder in the SD 552 is really intended for backup, transcription recording, and dailys and is not quite up to using for the actual production sound, though lots of folks on a tight budget are using it for that. A mixer plus external recorder gives you lots more options.
 
I do almost exclusively indie films, sketches and shorts, some industrials, talking heads, commercials, now music videos , and I have never really needed more than my one boom mic going into the 702 and it definitely sounds better and cleaner than gong through the 442 mixer and then into the 702, and the people at sound devices confirmed this - the ultimate quality in recording is going directly into the 702 from your high end boom. If I do a shoot where I need a lot of people running around with lavs i rent them, but I own the 702, a zoom h4n, and a sanken cs-3e and 99% it's all I ever need.
 
Julienmassie said:
i woul buy a used 442 ans a used 702 instead of a new or used 552.
The recording menu on the 552 is just ... wrong !
.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY what Steve said.
There is no reason why you couldn't use the 552 as your main recorder, you just need to think old school and actually take NOTES?!?
I remember nagra's and I don't recall them having a display to tell you what file you were recording to ;)
 
I was thinking ...
Buy a 702 whit a used 3 channel mixer
Run the bomm direct into the 702
Wireless mic mono mix out from the mixer into the other 702 input...

But i would be looking for a used fp33 ... ibust my budget by 1000$
 
Rippie said:
Well you sir are absolutely in the minority in this case.
Click to expand...

I don't think so... why do you need more than one really good boom on hd-slr shoots? All your major audio you are getting from the close ups and mediums anyway and they are usually smaller indie shoots with lower budgets. Reality show... no.. need a mixer and lavs.. but a low budget film...? Why?
 
Blackout said:
I don't think so... why do you need more than one really good boom on hd-slr shoots? All your major audio you are getting from the close ups and mediums anyway and they are usually smaller indie shoots with lower budgets. Reality show... no.. need a mixer and lavs.. but a low budget film...? Why?
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, the camera was kind of irrelevant to the action that can take place at any given time.
The next time a director only does a wide I'll be sure to tell them and insist they HAVE to do the closeup because they need to get their sound from there.
(IE: a shot where you see the ceiling).
I'll let you know how that turns out, I'll be the unemployed guy on the side of the street.
 
That's not going to be sync sound anyway so you could record wild sound. Or you could stick the boom with a recorder hidden if it's that wide. The sound of 4 people wearing lavs in a wise shot sounds ridiculous anyway and doesn't match unless it's a reality show where no one gives a crap.
 
An affordable high quality unit to consider would be an AETA MIXY - digital out into a Sonny PCM-D50 or a Tascam DR100II.

24/96 at the same sort of quality as a Nagra VI, 4MinX or Aaton Cantar - but stereo and a fraction of the price. :thumbsup:
 
If it is 702 vs 442, I think it is better to go for the 702. When you need more than 2 channels, rent another 702 and link both.
 
Blackout said:
That's not going to be sync sound anyway so you could record wild sound. Or you could stick the boom with a recorder hidden if it's that wide. The sound of 4 people wearing lavs in a wise shot sounds ridiculous anyway and doesn't match unless it's a reality show where no one gives a crap.
Click to expand...

? What's not going to be sync sound? And there is generally a big difference from performance speed to "wild line" speed. I will take sound from another take any day over wild lines.

The shot you describe only sounds "ridiculous" when nobody does a sound post, as in a "reality" show. There is a LOT of lav shots in films you never noticed. You don't think of them as such because they went to the trouble of a real sound post and mix.

What I will agree with is that you don't necessarily need more than a good boom track. BUT that requires that you and the director work out the shots beforehand AND you and the director AND the editor work together from the start to work around that limitation.

In other words if it's your friend or someone you have spent the time with and plans to work around the limitations it can be fine.

IF you are trying to get work as a production sound person you had better have more tricks up your sleeve than just a good boom. And one of those tricks better be a stack of wireless because 90% of the time you will get asked about that right away and you better be able to say yes I can wire them up.
 
I'm laughing that a two year old thread picks up again... "you know... I've been thinking about this (for the past two years) and I don't think you're correct after all"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top