Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Poll

Which file's sound do you prefer?

"file 1"
8 (21.6%)
"file 2"
22 (59.5%)
No difference or equal quality
7 (18.9%)

Total Members Voted: 37

Author Topic: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp  (Read 5325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2018, 03:09:12 PM »
I don’t think that they are on the same level at 48k since one of the files has been SRC’d, that was my point of making them both 44.1. Just so they both have the same process don’t to them.  Splitting hairs I guess.

I think this needs it’s own thread/sticky
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


Schoeps CMC6/MK4 & AKG C460b/CK8
Lunatec V2  > Sound Devices 744T

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2018, 04:58:42 PM »
I don’t think that they are on the same level at 48k since one of the files has been SRC’d, that was my point of making them both 44.1. Just so they both have the same process don’t to them.  Splitting hairs I guess.

I think this needs it’s own thread/sticky

But that's the thing - they ARE on the same level at 48k. It's literally just throwing out every other sample, no additional information has been added back. If we were to resample down to 44.1, then the re-sampling algorithm would do one of two things: either reconstruct chunks of the waveform (usually with a spline or Lagrange polynomial) and then sample that at the new rate, or sub-sample the space at the least common multiple between 44.1 and 48, then interpolate individual samples (once again usually with a cubic spline or Lagrange polynomial. Either way, the result is that you are adding Gaussian error to each sample that's not at a perfect ratio of 44.1:48, and this will be particularly apparent in the phase offset of each sample.

Down-sampling from 96k to 48k does no such computational process - again, it is just throwing out every other sample. I want to reinforce this again: down-sampling from 96k to 48k introduces no distortion to the waveform, and the algorithm generates no additional information.
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

Offline H₂O

  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5402
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2018, 05:20:59 PM »
I always thought the only real way to compare pre amps/recorders was to split the signal off one set of mics.  Only one pre would provide phantom.  This eliminates mic layout/positioning differences, etc

This is the way I have always done it in the past.
 
Also if either deck provides a post pre (before the AD) analog out you can pass it to the others line in to compare at a more granular level

FWIW - I am very against any mastering to recordings beyond slight level adjustments tracking, and drop out patching
Music can at the least least explain you and at the most expand you
LMA Recordings

List

Offline pohaku

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 873
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2018, 06:42:18 PM »
I just want my recordings to sound good with as little work as possible on my part.  Is that asking too much?
Mics: akg c460 (ck61, ck63), c414buls, c568eb; at4049a, 4051a, 4053a, at853; josephson c42; neumann U87, km84i; beyer m130, m160, m500; aea r84; gefell m71, mt711s, m200, m201; sony c38; schoeps cmc6, (mk4, mk21, mk41, mk4v); sennheiser mkh40, md421, md431, md541
Pres: API, a-designs, pendulum, purple, millennia, gt, littlebox, tinybox, usbpre2, CA 9200, pipsqueak, pueblo pending
Cables: KCY, CMR, Naiant AKG actives, PFAs, asst.  GAKables and Darktrain
Recorders/converters: dr680, m10, dr-2d, d50, dr70d, zoom f8, 788T SSD CL-8, lynx aurora 8


Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job!

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2018, 07:46:33 PM »
I just want my recordings to sound good with as little work as possible on my part.  Is that asking too much?

You just need another mic. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 09:21:02 PM by fanofjam »

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1745
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2018, 08:11:14 PM »
I just want my recordings to sound good with as little work as possible on my part.  Is that asking too much?

Nope. All it takes is money.
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Naiant PFA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10
Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> Adcom SLC 505> Marantz Ma500 (x2)> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-400
Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2018, 08:33:05 PM »
I just want my recordings to sound good with as little work as possible on my part.  Is that asking too much?

Nope. All it takes is money.

I know quite a few tapers that have exceptional gear but still can't make a decent tape. Money helps but so does skill. Now if i had money I would invest in some more caps for me schoeps. Something i hope to do this year.
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


Schoeps CMC6/MK4 & AKG C460b/CK8
Lunatec V2  > Sound Devices 744T

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2018, 09:41:30 PM »
I know quite a few tapers that have exceptional gear but still can't make a decent tape.

Really?  This seems like a pretty harsh statement.  You clearly have critical and discerning ears, but anyone with great gear can make a 'decent tape'.  Sure, if you optimize all of the variables available in a given recording situation, a knowledgeable person can take a scenario from decent to better, but come on, audience audio taping isn't rocket science, at least in terms of someone setting up a pair of Schoeps mics on a stand and getting a recording that nearly everyone would consider a 'decent tape'.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 09:55:48 PM by fanofjam »

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2018, 09:54:48 PM »
In case people wanted a clear example of what I was trying to explain above, I'm linking two more versions of Tweezer from 12/30.

These are from the mk41v file sets, the 16bit has been "mastered," with dynamics processing and EQ. The "raw" is untouched.

"mastered" 16bit: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BwnzBTYcIS3W9DbewGISo-jxiBML0u9L
"raw" 24bit: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrVXpKy_vkEiikfAW8ZZclAll9aFD3Ft

I'm really curious about what people think of the mastered version.

It was a little bit hard to compare them because the level of the mastered version is quite a bit higher than the raw version.  But after ramping back the level on the mastered version so that it's close to the level of the raw version, the mastered version clearly sounds better.  The leads are more out front, as they should be, and there's just an overall greater soundstage and presence on the mastered version. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 09:58:04 PM by fanofjam »

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2018, 09:56:32 PM »
I know quite a few tapers that have exceptional gear but still can't make a decent tape.

Really?  This seems like a pretty harsh statement.  You clearly have critical and discerning ears, but anyone with great gear can make a 'decent tape'.  Sure, if you optimize all of the variables available in a given recording situation, a knowledgeable person might be able to take a scenario from decent to better, but come on, audience audio taping isn't rocket science, at least in terms of someone setting up a pair of Schoeps mics on a stand and getting a recording that nearly everyone would consider a 'decent tape'.

 Not meant to be harsh, just truth. Not everyone knows what to do, let alone the basics, which is why this place is essential to the community. There's the 'it's good enough' mentality that gets in their way. I told him if he wants 'good enough' he could save a lot of money and sell his gear and be a patcher which he did for a while. Then there's the folks who make good tapes in spite of themselves, which was me for a while.
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


Schoeps CMC6/MK4 & AKG C460b/CK8
Lunatec V2  > Sound Devices 744T

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2018, 10:02:38 PM »
Then there's the folks who make good tapes in spite of themselves,

You just reminded me of a dude I saw taping a few years ago at a festival that had his mics in roughly an NOS config, but one mic pointed at a 45 degree angle up towards the sky and the other at a 45 degree angle towards the ground.  OK, your point is taken.  LOL.

Offline pohaku

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 873
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2018, 01:01:06 AM »
I just want my recordings to sound good with as little work as possible on my part.  Is that asking too much?

You just need another mic.

True, one never has enough mics. :guitarist:
Mics: akg c460 (ck61, ck63), c414buls, c568eb; at4049a, 4051a, 4053a, at853; josephson c42; neumann U87, km84i; beyer m130, m160, m500; aea r84; gefell m71, mt711s, m200, m201; sony c38; schoeps cmc6, (mk4, mk21, mk41, mk4v); sennheiser mkh40, md421, md431, md541
Pres: API, a-designs, pendulum, purple, millennia, gt, littlebox, tinybox, usbpre2, CA 9200, pipsqueak, pueblo pending
Cables: KCY, CMR, Naiant AKG actives, PFAs, asst.  GAKables and Darktrain
Recorders/converters: dr680, m10, dr-2d, d50, dr70d, zoom f8, 788T SSD CL-8, lynx aurora 8


Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job!

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2018, 06:51:12 PM »
Wow, this thread has taken an interesting turn.  Just to add my two cents...

I really enjoyed reading wforwumbo's post.  I agree with much of it, but not 100%.  I appreciate the EQing aspect and the reasoning behind it, I'm just a bit of a purest when it comes to the sound.  My feelings behind my thought process is this:  If the FOH soundman knows what he's doing, then the sound coming to us should be the best it can be.  Moreover, it should be the way we are meant to hear it...in other words, the way the band intends it to sound.  That said, my job, as a taper, is not to alter that sound, but rather to duplicate and preserve it as best I can.  I am not suggesting that sometimes a recording may be able to be tweaked to sound more pleasing to the taper's ear.
Ultimately, we do what we do to please ourselves.  What you may like most might not be my first concern and visa versa...which is more often than not, why some people like EQing their recordings.

When it comes to equipment, we buy what we like and what sounds pleasing to our ears.  There are many different microphones that will give a higher, sharper, lower, deeper, bassier, warmer, more sterile, etc, etc, etc, sound.  Those who are smart, auditioned different equipment before making purchases.  That is to say, they didn't just say, "oh, Schoeps, or B&K's, or this or that are great mics, so I'll buy those".  Personally, I started out patching and wrote down everything I was patched out of and learned about different equipment that way, in addition to getting tapes from others, along with the anal report, so I was able to check out other sounds.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Another thing I'd like to address is what Charlie had said about tapers making bad recordings despite having good equipment (or something like that).  Oh yeah, I totally agree!  I have heard recordings in the past which floored me when I found out what they used and where they recorded from.  How on earth could they have botched such a recording?  Simple, little to no field experience = not knowing what to do.  You and I take for granted how to set up our mics, what to set our inputs at, etc...without that knowledge, it's often a crap-shoot what a person will walk away with.

EQing a recording is a never ending debate that, despite my personal feelings, has no right or wrong answer.  It is what it is, and our own expression of this art form is what we make of it and choose to create.

 :cheers:

Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2018, 07:36:58 PM »
I always thought the only real way to compare pre amps/recorders was to split the signal off one set of mics.  Only one pre would provide phantom.  This eliminates mic layout/positioning differences, etc

Which is why this comparison is particularly of interest. Both microphones were in exactly the same spot, ± 6" of one another, in the exact same layout. Both cables were identical. Literally the ONLY differences between the two recordings, are the Mixpre 6 and the Sonosax SX-R4. That's why this comparison is poignant - we don't often have such an opportunity to isolate just one piece of gear and see how it impacts the recordings we make.

BTW, if you are Nora on a certain streaming site, I want to say thank you for your years of service - I and many of my friends have heard many of your streams to hear shows we couldn't attend! I would like to chat with you in OTS one day about your layout and seeing how you get your recordings.
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2018, 07:47:50 PM »
I really enjoyed reading wforwumbo's post.  I agree with much of it, but not 100%.  I appreciate the EQing aspect and the reasoning behind it, I'm just a bit of a purest when it comes to the sound.  My feelings behind my thought process is this:  If the FOH soundman knows what he's doing, then the sound coming to us should be the best it can be.  Moreover, it should be the way we are meant to hear it...in other words, the way the band intends it to sound.  That said, my job, as a taper, is not to alter that sound, but rather to duplicate and preserve it as best I can.  I am not suggesting that sometimes a recording may be able to be tweaked to sound more pleasing to the taper's ear.
Ultimately, we do what we do to please ourselves.  What you may like most might not be my first concern and visa versa...which is more often than not, why some people like EQing their recordings.

When it comes to equipment, we buy what we like and what sounds pleasing to our ears.  There are many different microphones that will give a higher, sharper, lower, deeper, bassier, warmer, more sterile, etc, etc, etc, sound.  Those who are smart, auditioned different equipment before making purchases.  That is to say, they didn't just say, "oh, Schoeps, or B&K's, or this or that are great mics, so I'll buy those".  Personally, I started out patching and wrote down everything I was patched out of and learned about different equipment that way, in addition to getting tapes from others, along with the anal report, so I was able to check out other sounds.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Another thing I'd like to address is what Charlie had said about tapers making bad recordings despite having good equipment (or something like that).  Oh yeah, I totally agree!  I have heard recordings in the past which floored me when I found out what they used and where they recorded from.  How on earth could they have botched such a recording?  Simple, little to no field experience = not knowing what to do.  You and I take for granted how to set up our mics, what to set our inputs at, etc...without that knowledge, it's often a crap-shoot what a person will walk away with.

 :cheers:

You raise a few points, and while we may disagree I'll definitely toast to our common goal! :cheers:

If I were to split hairs, then again I'd return to my binaural manikin/dummy head argument, for wanting to capture a recording as closely as possible to what we are hearing. Few microphones can truly reproduce the directionality of our binaural hearing system, which is itself a complex and tricky system that we don't fully understand. Likewise, every playback system is going to be imperfect as well. Again, this isn't to say we can't do lots to minimize these imperfections, but I'm still highly skeptical of the "capturing a performance as purely as possible" aspect, given the constraints we are already dealing with as tapers.

Now, that said, again I will have to agree with you that for post, what most people out there are doing outside of basic patching/level adjustments between channels and fades, isn't that great. Which is why I had to clarify, that when I do post work I 1. know what I am doing and 2. am doing my post work in a heavily controlled environment, with a careful ear that has been mixing for years.

I really think I need to put up a similar poll of my own post work: without, and with, post work via EQ... done the way EQ *should* be done.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 07:54:02 PM by wforwumbo »
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF