Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Poll

Which file's sound do you prefer?

"file 1"
9 (23.1%)
"file 2"
23 (59%)
No difference or equal quality
7 (17.9%)

Total Members Voted: 39

Author Topic: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp  (Read 7111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« on: January 07, 2018, 12:10:37 PM »
Hi everyone:

Andyjah and I ran some identical Schoeps rigs this Phish NYE Run, and I thought others might want to compare. In the following, the only variable was the Micpre/AD stage. The rigs were as follows:

Andyjah: Schoeps mk22> nbob actives> Naiant PFAs> Sonosax SX-R4 (24bit/96khz)
Noahbickart: Schoeps mk22> nbob actives> Naiant PFAs> Sound Devices Mixpre6 (24bit/48khz)

The microphones were on the same stand, inches apart from one another in identical rycote shockmounts. Each of us used a 60° angle, and 30cm spacing, on Shapeways 3d printed bars. You can see the bar and the pattern via the pictures below.

Andy's file was downsampled to 48kHz, and the files are level matched and normalized. New member and new (schoeps) taper wforwumbo did the 96kHz> 48kHz conversion, and level matching. He disguised the files from me, so I don't even know which is which.

So here is "Tweezer" from 12/30, from both rigs:
File 1: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cRJR6iAtcIOW4B2CFLOVDU-clPV2KmvP
File 2: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YYYvD1eqLFE78PnmJvb29TebvXRTKWlV

Please vote!!!

I'll reveal the sources via PM
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 01:05:06 PM by noahbickart »
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2018, 12:54:58 PM »
I didn't get such a good rig picture the night of this comp, but this is from night one:
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2018, 01:55:01 PM »
Just a quick tech note for those of you who may care about these things:

The downsampling of Andy’s tape was done using XLD, with the VHQ minimum phase setting (I find linear phase option for VHQ resampling creates too much of a group delay lag which to my ear is audible, even for perfect ratio 2x downsampling). Level matching and normalization (the latter of which I suspect I shouldn’t have done) as well as ID3 tag wiping were performed in Logic Pro 10.3; both raw files were within 1 dB-FS of each other before level matching, I didn’t check after normalization.

If any of you are critical of any of these steps, let me know and I’ll re-process the files if I agree with the criticism.
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

Offline rippleish20

  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2018, 02:44:52 PM »
I would be interested in hearing a sample of both recordings later without manipulation. I recognize the 96 versus 48 would give it away, but things like downsampling and normalization can change the sound. (perhaps after the voting is done)
Schoeps CMC6 (MK22's, MK41's) / AKG C480B (ck61, ck63, ck8) / Telefunken M60 (TK61, TK63)  - for sale / DPA (4061)
KCY 250/5 and 250/0 > naiant PFA or IPA or Nbox 
Mixpre-10t / Mixpre-6 / Sony M-10 / Roland R-07 /Tascam DR-100mkIII / d:vice

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2018, 03:15:55 PM »
I would be interested in hearing a sample of both recordings later without manipulation. I recognize the 96 versus 48 would give it away, but things like downsampling and normalization can change the sound. (perhaps after the voting is done)

Andyjah: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=597091
Noahbickart: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=596987

You can select the Tweezer from each torrent to compare the original files.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2018, 05:11:07 PM »
There should be a "I can't hear a difference between them" voting option.
Mics: Core Sound TetraMic | AT4031s | AT AE5100s | AT853s (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3s | DPA 4061s | CA-14 omnis | Studio Projects CS5
Pre: CA9200
Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05 | Tascam DR-2d

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2018, 05:15:06 PM »
resample them both to 44.1 to even the field
Looking forward to hearing these.
Thanks
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2018, 05:20:59 PM »
There should be a "I can't hear a difference between them" voting option.

Done.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2018, 07:06:18 PM »
Such a big difference
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline danlynch

  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3402
  • Gender: Male
    • nyctaper
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2018, 09:42:06 PM »

Option 2 seemed to me to be noticeably better.  Not sure why, but the sound was just more pleasant and cleaner.
Founder and Host of NYCTaper:  http://www.nyctaper.com

Microphones:  Schoeps CCM4Us, Sennheiser MKH-8040s, Neumann KM-150s, Neumann TLM-102s, DPA 4061s, Audio Technica 4051
Recorders:  Sound Devices 744t, Edirol R-44 (Oade Concert Mod), Edirol R-05
Pre-Amps, D/A's:  Apogee Mini-Me, Grace Design V3

My Recordings on Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/danlynch

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2018, 09:55:15 PM »
To me they both sound fine.  The first sample seems to have better low end saturation, but the second has better presence.  So I went with 'no difference'. 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 09:57:54 PM by fanofjam »

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2018, 03:10:11 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample. 
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2018, 05:18:35 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample.

Nothing was done to either recording except the sample rate conversion and level matching.

I never touch my 24bit filesets anyway.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2018, 05:31:57 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample.

Nothing was done to either recording except the sample rate conversion and level matching.

I never touch my 24bit filesets anyway.

shouldn't have to :)
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2018, 06:34:50 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample.

Nothing was done to either recording except the sample rate conversion and level matching.

I never touch my 24bit filesets anyway.

shouldn't have to :)

Charlie, I couldn't agree more!  Personally, I do not alter the sound in any way.  All I do (my edits) is raise the levels , because I record conservatively when live, track out the songs, and fade in at the beginning and out at the end.  No EQing at all.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2018, 06:40:21 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample.

Nothing was done to either recording except the sample rate conversion and level matching.

I never touch my 24bit filesets anyway.

shouldn't have to :)

I think the 16bit files can be improved for compromised playback systems with judicious use of eq and dynamics processing.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2018, 07:01:02 PM »
I look forward to listening and comparing both recordings.  Someone has already expressed my thought regarding what may or may not have been done with the recordings.  EQ?  Normalization? Etc.?  They should both be the same characteristics for a fair comparison.  Personally, I'd like to hear them completely raw, with the only alteration being to edit them to be the same bit/sample.

Nothing was done to either recording except the sample rate conversion and level matching.

I never touch my 24bit filesets anyway.

shouldn't have to :)

I think the 16bit files can be improved for compromised playback systems with judicious use of eq and dynamics processing.

Noah, I'm curious why you limit this statement to 16bit files.  I find that I can enhance most of my recordings, at least for my playback system and sound preferences.  For example, if I were mastering the 'darker' of these two recordings id add a sloping high end EQ profile and I'm pretty sure it would add some pleasing presence to balance the instruments...and particularly to bring Treys leads a little more forward.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 07:08:07 PM by fanofjam »

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2018, 07:06:25 PM »
I assume people who download the 24bit want pure unadulterated audiophile recordings.

I use those and adjust to taste in my own playback
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2018, 07:15:50 PM »
My 16’s and 24’s are mastered the same. I have never used EQ on my Phish recordings and never use compression/limiters on anything.
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2018, 07:28:23 PM »
My 16’s and 24’s are mastered the same. I have never used EQ on my Phish recordings and never use compression/limiters on anything.

Ditto!  They do a fine job with the sound, so all I have to do is make a good recording.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline kindms

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4653
    • The Breakfast
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2018, 07:31:32 PM »
My 16’s and 24’s are mastered the same. I have never used EQ on my Phish recordings and never use compression/limiters on anything.

same 24 and 16 are identical. although i did use a limiter in post on the loud audience clapping between songs when i mastered my John McLaughlin recently but that was a first as i dont usually "stealth"
AKG414 XLS/ST, AKG ck61, ck22, >nBob colettes >PFA > V3, SD MixPre >  TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2, Sony M10
Little Bear tube Pre >Outlaw Audio 2200 Monoblocks > VR-2's

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2018, 08:07:43 PM »
3-5db of gain really helps when there is significant ambient noice from the road or train. And a touch of eq can really compensate for an inferior playback rig.

Look, like most of you nerds I too want full dynamic range and the same frequency response of the show. But I listen, like most of you nerds, on good headphones, monitors, and home speakers.

But sometimes I’m in the car. Or on the subway in NYC on earbuds. Or in someone’s living room and their playback system is a “sound bar.” That’s when the 16bit mastered version on my phone works the best.

I love putting into practice everything I’ve learned about audio, and this includes post processing in a daw. It’s really fun to make the most of your own captures, and modern digital emulations of classic studio equipment are almost as fun to play with as actual audio gear.

I release the best of both worlds:  A DSP 16bit fileset for the masses and my phone and an untouched 24bit fileset for nerds like us on our fancy stereos.

I’m assuming most ts.com members are going to download the 24bit anyway.

For this comp the untouched 24bit files were used.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 08:41:49 PM by noahbickart »
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2018, 09:19:02 PM »
If someone wants to make changes to suit their playback systems, fine with me, but I'm not making any changes for anyone other than myself. As for official releases, well, I pretty much have the same approach. It's worked so far.

I used to check stuff on car stereos and iPods to make sure they sounded good all around. Getting lazy in my old age :)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 09:35:07 PM by Charlie Miller »
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Gender: Male
  • Come On, Get Happy
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2018, 09:46:24 PM »
I don’t think anyone would enjoy my Phish recordings if I EQ’d them to my room. Someone asked me to do that once and I couldn’t understand why.
Audio Engineer - Steve Kimock Productions


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

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2018, 10:53:22 PM »
I think I must have a different perspective on mastering of my recordings.  To my way of thinking, this comp proves that some futzing with a file can be warranted. 

Two mostly similar rigs were recording the same ambient sound from the exact same location but they achieved different results.  Most people like one file better than the other.  That implies to me that the file that isn't preferred is worth enhancing in post. 

I'd be willing to bet that I, or anyone else that's got an ear and some DAW skills, could make the less preferred file sound just as good or better than the one that's preferred with some post production. 

I understand keeping the original raw file, but I don't really understand why everyone wouldn't want to re-listen to (and share) the best sounding version possible.

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2018, 11:12:15 PM »
I think I must have a different perspective on mastering of my recordings.  To my way of thinking, this comp proves that some futzing with a file can be warranted. 

Two mostly similar rigs were recording the same ambient sound from the exact same location but they achieved different results.  Most people like one file better than the other.  That implies to me that the file that isn't preferred is worth enhancing in post. 

I'd be willing to bet that I, or anyone else that's got an ear and some DAW skills, could make the less preferred file sound just as good or better than the one that's preferred with some post production. 

I understand keeping the original raw file, but I don't really understand why everyone wouldn't want to re-listen to (and share) the best sounding version possible.

I both agree and disagree (hence my releasing both styles):

On the one hand, I do believe that post production can help. On the other hand, "the best sounding version possible" is always so subjective, and is likely best created in real time for a specific playback environment. (Filedia and audirvana+ for OSX are great for this, for they allow for 64bit AU plugins like one might use with a DAW).

I don’t think anyone would enjoy my Phish recordings if I EQ’d them to my room. Someone asked me to do that once and I couldn’t understand why.

I agree that EQ fixes for specific rooms rarely translate to other playback systems, consider the following: Hypers, like my mk41v are more directional, but roll off in the bass compared to, say, your mk4. So, in an attempt to get the best of both worlds, for the 16bit version, I just try to bring up the mk41v to a "flat". That's not EQing based on my playback room, but based on the microphone's own frequency response, and actually closer to the sound in the room that night.

I'd love for wforwumbo, waltmon, and djphrayz to chime in as well....

« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 11:14:32 PM by noahbickart »
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline fanofjam

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2018, 11:21:31 PM »
On the one hand, I do believe that post production can help. On the other hand, "the best sounding version possible" is always so subjective,

Very good point...in fact my original vote on this poll was that I didn't have a favorite because they sounded different but IMHO either one could subjectively be better depending on whether I'm listening with a preference towards either low end or presence.

Offline twatts (that "Pants" thing is so lame...)

  • <://PHiSH//><
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Gender: Male
  • Lego made a Mini-Fig of me!
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2018, 12:13:53 AM »
I liked #1 better...  Mike sounded phatter on the bottom...

Both recordings are excellent...

FLAC > Foobar > USB > Audioengine D3 > Senn HD280pro

Terry
***Do you have PHISH, VIDA BLUE, JAZZ MANDOLIN PROJECT or any other Phish related DATs/Tapes/MDs that need to be transferred???  I can do them for you!!!***

I will return your DATs/Tapes/MDs.  I'll also provide Master FLAC files via DropBox.  PM me for details.

Sony PCM R500 > SPDIF > Tascam HD-P2
Nakamichi DR-3 > (Oade Advanced Concert Mod) Tascam HD-P2
Sony MDS-JE510 > Hosa ODL-276 > Tascam HD-P2

******

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2018, 11:57:35 AM »
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.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2018, 01:14:17 PM »
A few things here...

Firstly, the point that sticks out to me, is that this thread is branching into two discussions, and the second discussion is kinda missing the point of the first. The purpose of this poll, is to DIRECTLY a/b the Sonosax SX-R4 and the Sound Devices Mixpre 6, from raw recordings; given how rarely we can isolate JUST this one piece of gear.... And it's not to say one is better than the other, but more so to judge how much of a difference this makes, and hopefully help educate future purchasers of both products. I myself am quite surprised at how different the two recordings sound, and as I upgrade my rig over time (as per my signature right now, the Tascam DR-40 is the obvious weak point at the moment) I will use this guide to help me think about which of these two decks I should consider saving up for, for my own personal tastes and preferences in recording and playback on my system. It seems that many here are judging these two tapes on processing which has not occurred on either tape. Again, I can't stress this enough: on the two files posted in the OP of this thread, there has been NO equalization or dynamics processing on either tape.

For those of you who are really finnicky about whether or not the resampling algorithm affected the sound of one tape over the other, later today I will be manually re-sampling the 96k Sonosax down to 48k with raw low-level C code, literally just removing every other sample and creating in a new file's metadata the 48k sample rate. This induces ZERO distortion to the output file, when downsampling from 96k; if you disagree with that, I point you to Nyquist-Shannon edit: I realized, some of you might be finnicky here; there WILL be distortion to the signal, however it will all occur above 24 kHz, and even still there will be zero phase distortion as no frequency information, for example analyzing a Discrete Fourier Transform, is being added or modified to the signal, just removed. I will manually a-b the two versions of the 96k->48k via XLD and 96k->48k via c code, and if there is a noticeable difference I will re-send Noah a new file to upload. I will also reinforce here that when Noah first received the two files he himself was double-blinded, and only after extensive discussion between the two files did I reveal to him which file was which; this reveal happened for him, after he made this post - which reinforces the standards of double-blinding.

Normalization could arguably have some impact, however like I had stated when I level-matched before normalizing the two files were within 1 dB of one another as it is; as someone who extensively studies both digital audio signal processing and psychoacoustics, I can tell you with confidence that you CANNOT hear a major distinction of 1 dB RMS between two files; the discrimination your brain can perform is minimal (if it were 2.5+ dB, then I'd say we're getting into shaky waters...). I will also re-visit the normalization process later today and check the outputs of the normalized files, to insure they are indeed still level matched to within 1 dB of each other. I imagine that both Noah and Andy normalized their files before publishing, which would make the argument of the impact of me normalizing, moot - given that their normalized data sets pre-level matching were, again, within 1 dB of one another.

Charlie, you make a good point of re-sampling and dithering down to 16/44.1, to totally level the playing field. But I think that at 24/48, the playing field is still normalized, especially if I take the steps above to literally just drop every other sample manually.



NOW... with that being said, there is a second discussion occurring, which is whether or not touching up a tape in post is some form of heresy. I have to say, there are fantastic arguments presented here, from both sides. And why I'm hesitant to chime in, is that it seems the two schools of thought are starting to get a bit heated and defensive over the method that works for them.

I'm going to first begin this discussion by stating my obvious personal belief and bias on this front. I am firmly in the "post is a good thing" camp. I also come from a VERY different school of thought from most of you - my introduction to recording music, comes from working countless hours in a studio tracking, re-tracking, adjusting, re-tracking, adjusting... later/rinse/repeat. Then I'm used to being able to isolate each component of the recording to insure it all gels together - panning, compression, EQ. Then it's all about dressing it up using mixing experience and my own two ears: delay, reverb, etc. Then it's also about creative "mis-use" of effects such as pitch shifting, odd panning, modulation, more delay, more reverb, etc. to get the desired end result as a crafted, sculpted sonic event.

Obviously, we don't have this luxury when taping; it's an entirely different set of variables in the hand we are dealt. And the primary reason why I originally became a taper, was to learn more about how we do things in this world. It's made my own studio recordings infinitely better, as I learn more tips and tricks and intricacies of the entire live taping system. As a studio guy, I've learned LOADS from other tapers that I wouldn't have thought about or tried in the studio, because we as tapers deal with certain specific problems every time we make a tape, and none of those problems are present in the studio. As a result, when I go into the studio now I have infinitely more tools and secret weapons at my disposal, that make me a better producer and mix engineer. Likewise, I think to ignore the body of work and experience that studio guys have, is only harming you in the long run; to ignore what studio guys do day-in and day-out, for a living, is IMO short-sighted. And I don't intend for that to be a harsh attack, but more of a "hmm, maybe you should at least consider what people doing this day-in, day-out have to say about how to make something already great, even better."

Look, I get those of you who say that a good set of microphones should be more than sufficient to properly capture a recording. But many of the recording systems we set up and the tapes we produce, are already inherently flawed and imperfect at the system level. By this same logic, I could argue that the ONLY way to truly and properly capture the experience of being at a show, would be to put binaural mics in your ears, or to get an (unnecessarily expensive and HIGHLY calibrated) binaural manikin and make your recording that way. Likewise, I'd argue that your playback systems are inherently flawed. And so my initial counter-argument, really, is that the entire system is always flawed, based on what approach you take. We can (and frequently) DO take steps to minimize these flaws, and in the long run we can get pretty darned close the more we work together at this.

I imagine many of you who are "no post" purists, hold your opinion partially based on either not-so-great work from others ruining recordings via "re-mastering" or have yourselves been frustrated by trying to play with an EQ, and every time just going back to the original un-EQ'd recording. Both of these are totally valid, and in the long run I'd agree with you that I prefer an untouched tape, warts and all, to a poorly-EQ'd tape. But a properly EQ'd tape? It makes a WORLD of difference. What may be worth my time here, is to perform a similar experiment to what Noah's done here - I will post two tapes: one un-touched, and one where I apply EQ as I would approach it as a studio track, and YOU can decide whether or not you want to forego EQ, not letting me tell you that you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it, because as usual people on both sides of this argument should be taking what I have to say with a grain of salt. RULE NUMBER ONE of audio, is to trust your ears. I can't tell you what sounds good or bad, but YOU can tell yourself what sounds good or bad.

Re: mixing to a room... I'll happily yield to that point. To which my counter-argument is, there's a reason I only mix either in HIGHLY HIHGLY HIGHLY controlled environments, or on headphones that I know and trust intimately from working on them for YEARS. My mixing environment right now is a Focusrite Scarlett or Steinberg UR824 (I plan on moving ASAP to a 32-bit/192k conversion system with decent mic pres, but that's another discussion for another time), through either two or five Genelec 8030As with a Genelec 7030B sub, customizing the crossover network, in a HIGHLY treated room that's basically totally flat, with every wall and the ceiling coated with Owens-Corning 703 and with bass traps in the corners. What I am hearing, is basically the raw monitors, set up carefully to insure maximum linearity of my system and to insure the room I'm working with has no combing. I think that's a slightly different argument than mixing to, say, my bedroom with my two B&W DM302s and highly reflective (if not diffuse - brick and old ornamented wood) room. The former, I say hell yes let me mix in there because I have both controlled for the benefits of and understood the limitations of, that specific mixing environment. The latter, I say yeah you're gonna have an insanely tough time and it's best to leave the tape untouched at that point in time.

At the end of the day, we all have the same goal: to as closely as possible capture the magic happening on stage, and re-produce that magic as closely as possible for both ourselves and for the community at large. It's a massive (and often un-thanked) service we provide to the live music community, and we suffer through all of the hardships and technical difficulties of producing a good tape (for which, I've found, the biggest threat is rando intoxicated dude/dudette that wants to yell and cause trouble and harm to our otherwise mostly peaceful section); because at the end of the day, once we hit the play button after the show, it's all worth it.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:03:04 PM by wforwumbo »
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • 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: 90
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: 5440
  • 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: (33)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 917
  • 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, CMBI (mk4, mk21, mk41, mk4v); sennheiser mkh30, mkh40, md421, md431, md541
Pres: API, a-designs, pendulum, purple, millennia, gt, littlebox, tinybox, usbpre2, CA 9200, pipsqueak, grace V2, pueblo pending
Cables: KCY, CMR, Naiant AKG actives, PFAs, asst.  GAKables and Darktrain
Recorders/converters: dr680, m10, dr-2d, d50, 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: 298
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: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • 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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline Charlie Miller

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • 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: 298
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: 298
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: 2015
  • 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: 298
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: (33)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 917
  • 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, CMBI (mk4, mk21, mk41, mk4v); sennheiser mkh30, mkh40, md421, md431, md541
Pres: API, a-designs, pendulum, purple, millennia, gt, littlebox, tinybox, usbpre2, CA 9200, pipsqueak, grace V2, pueblo pending
Cables: KCY, CMR, Naiant AKG actives, PFAs, asst.  GAKables and Darktrain
Recorders/converters: dr680, m10, dr-2d, d50, 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: 570
  • 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
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
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: 90
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: 90
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

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2018, 10:03:04 PM »
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.

Yup, like Joel, this is how I started as well. I took digital patches with a DA-P1 from many long time tapers. I really enjoyed Scott Bernstein's tlm-170 in hyper x/y, but when I heard the sound of Sgordo's FOB schoeps tapes, I knew that I would eventually go to the dark side. I know padelimike tells a similar story about how he came to fall in love with the sound of the Sennheiser 441.

I've enjoyed a bunch of tapes I've heard of 12/30, and am converting Waltmon's u89 as I type...
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2018, 01:50:59 PM »


Yup, like Joel, this is how I started as well. I took digital patches with a DA-P1 from many long time tapers. I really enjoyed Scott Bernstein's tlm-170 in hyper x/y, but when I heard the sound of Sgordo's FOB schoeps tapes, I knew that I would eventually go to the dark side. I know padelimike tells a similar story about how he came to fall in love with the sound of the Sennheiser 441.

I've enjoyed a bunch of tapes I've heard of 12/30, and am converting Waltmon's u89 as I type...
[/quote]

Noah, one of the first things I learned about microphones, was how important proximity and placement was based on the mics being used and the venue itself.  We've touched on this discussion before, so you may remember my feelings/opinions on the subject.  Different mics perform differently based on where they are being used from; I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Back in the day, I would have loved a pair of B&K's, but at that time, I wasn't always FOB, and 2 different pair of mics wasn't in my budget.  Yes, I said it (or at least implied it!), I do not care for B&K's (now DPA's) when they are not being used in the sweet spot FOB.  The same can be said about other microphones as well, and my needs were more for a microphone that was also acceptable further back when needed.  There are so many excellent microphones to choose from, as well as the rest of our equipment, yet so many people sooner pay attention to reputation, popularity and peer pressure than their own ears...IMHO.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2018, 02:36:00 PM »
Two questions:

At what point is the poll statistically meaningful?

When should I publicly identify the sources?
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline adrianf74

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2018, 03:16:44 PM »
Two questions:

At what point is the poll statistically meaningful?

When should I publicly identify the sources?

Are any polls statistically meaningful.  I think most people give an honest answer when they're asked to choose between two flavours so I'm certain this has some substance.

As for when to identify the sources -- that's your choice.  You could do it today but why not wait a full 7-days to allow a few more responses?

Looking forward to the results...

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2018, 03:21:57 PM »
Two questions:

At what point is the poll statistically meaningful?

When should I publicly identify the sources?

Some of us...OK, me, are slower than others.  Please wait to reveal, I do not want my opinion colored with extraneous knowledge.  :smash:
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline nolamule

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
  • where's my mule?
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2018, 06:00:09 PM »
My vote is for sample #2, not exactly sure why but I kept going back to it.

My playback was MacBook Pro > Apogee Groove > HD650  :headphones:

Offline kindms

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4653
    • The Breakfast
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2018, 07:21:13 PM »
I prefer #2 slightly.
AKG414 XLS/ST, AKG ck61, ck22, >nBob colettes >PFA > V3, SD MixPre >  TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2, Sony M10
Little Bear tube Pre >Outlaw Audio 2200 Monoblocks > VR-2's

Offline goodcooker

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2649
  • Gender: Male
  • goes to 11
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2018, 09:13:55 PM »
I'm looking at both sources side by side in CD Wave Editor and they look like they are phase inverted. The left side spikes in sample one are showing as right side spikes in sample two.

Look at 19:30:58.


I like sample two. More smooth. Sample one is more aggressive and harsh with more midrange - I like the scooped mids sound of sample two.


Playback - USB > Focusrite 2I2 > ART SLA1 amp > Acoustic Research M2 with Polk powered sub crossed over at ~100hZ. Maybe I'll give it another go with the Sennheiser HD280 cans.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 09:47:14 PM by goodcooker »
Schoeps MK41 > nBob > PFA || MBHO KA300 > PFA
Aerco MP2 || Grace Lunatec V2 || RAD MS2 || nBox Platinum
Marantz PMD706 || PMD620

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/goodcooker

"Are you the Zman?" - fan at Panic 10-08-10 Kansas City

"I don't know who left this perfectly good inflatable wook doll here, but if I'm blowing her up, I'm keeping her." -  hoppedup

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2018, 01:37:45 PM »
Comparing the two originals from this post was like comparing an inverted mirror image.  After adjusting the level of the 2nd to match the 1st, yes the difference in volume was bothering me that much, I A/B'd them from Audacity using headphones (Sennheiser HD 380 pro).  Although sounding extremely similar, yet visually perplexing, I didn't hear enough of a difference for me to feel one was better than the other.  If I had to choose which one to download, burn and have to enjoy, I would go with mk22.02, because I seemed to find mk22.01 slightly more "in your face".  But seriously, I could flip a coin and would be happy with either one.  And for the record, I do not feel either of these recordings should be EQ'd in any way.




Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline jbell

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (141)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Spreadicated
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2018, 03:26:33 PM »
Both samples sound great had a hard time picking!!  Really makes me want a set of  mk22 caps.  The samples are very close and I would take either one.  I gave sample 1 the slight edge.

Foobar2000> Sony MDR V6
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 04:48:14 PM by jbell »
Microtech Gefell M20's> Nbob KCY> Naiant PFA(60V)> Sound Devices Mixpre-6

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2018, 06:27:38 PM »
Both samples sound great had a hard time picking!!  Really makes me want a set of  mk22 caps.  The samples are very close and I would take either one.  I gave sample 1 the slight edge.

Foobar2000> Sony MDR V6

I think that between the mk41 and the mk22, you can cover almost everything. Sell the mk4 pair and get mk22!!!!
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline adrianf74

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2018, 06:44:03 PM »
Both samples sound great had a hard time picking!!  Really makes me want a set of  mk22 caps.  The samples are very close and I would take either one.  I gave sample 1 the slight edge.

Foobar2000> Sony MDR V6

I think that between the mk41 and the mk22, you can cover almost everything. Sell the mk4 pair and get mk22!!!!

QFT.  These are the two sets of caps I owned when I ran Schoeps.  Peronally, I preferred the MK22's to the 41's _most of the time_ although the MK41's, as we all known, cut through the crap in bad sounding rooms or if you're really far back.

Offline nolamule

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
  • where's my mule?
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2018, 09:17:38 PM »
Statistically speaking, the more samples the better, wih 30 samples being the minimum.

Two questions:

At what point is the poll statistically meaningful?

When should I publicly identify the sources?

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2410
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2018, 05:56:11 AM »
Two questions:

At what point is the poll statistically meaningful?

When should I publicly identify the sources?

There may be other options, but, off the top of my head, I think you could use either the binomial or the one-dimensional goodness-of-fit chi-square test.  The binomial test, an exact test, asks whether or not a single proportion differs from the expectation; the common example is to see if the number of heads you get doing a series of coin flips differs from 50%, but you can also dichotomize other questions.  The common example for that is to see if the number of ones you roll on a die differs from 1/6 (so number of ones in a given number of rolls).  Given the current poll numbers (5, 18, 7), you would test 18 votes for file 2 out of 30 total votes with an expected frequency of 1/3 (33%).  In the R implementation, you get P = 0.003 with an estimated true frequency of 0.60 and a 95% confidence interval between 0.41 and 0.77.  [In R: binom.test(18,30,1/3)]

In the chi-square test, you look at whether the observed distribution of proportions differs from the expected distribution of proportions.  For the poll, you would expect a proportion of 1/3 for each of the three categories.  Testing the proportions of 5/30, 18/30 and 7/30 against 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, you would get P = 0.007.  [In R: chisq.test(c(5,18,7)).  Note that if you don't specify the expected proportions, R assumes that it is 1/(number of categories) for each category.]

Long story short, both tests show that file 2 was selected significantly more frequently than you would expect by chance.  If anyone is really curious (which I kind of doubt!), I can post links or R outputs.  And while I am at it R is a really great, flexible, and free "language and environment for statistical computing and graphics".

Statistically speaking, the more samples the better, wih 30 samples being the minimum.

Definitely better to have larger sample sizes.  The number 30, though, is a very general (and somewhat dubious) rule-of-thumb for continuously distributed variables in parametric analyses (unlike this poll).  There are lots of caveats.  For the binomial test, there are no real sample size requirements (although it's power will be dependent on the number of successes and trials and the expected proportion).  For the chi-square test, a minimum of five expected observations per category (15 votes for this poll) is a well-accepted cut-off.

Offline rippleish20

  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2018, 01:09:34 PM »
Both samples sound great had a hard time picking!!  Really makes me want a set of  mk22 caps.  The samples are very close and I would take either one.  I gave sample 1 the slight edge.

Foobar2000> Sony MDR V6

I think that between the mk41 and the mk22, you can cover almost everything. Sell the mk4 pair and get mk22!!!!

QFT.  These are the two sets of caps I owned when I ran Schoeps.  Peronally, I preferred the MK22's to the 41's _most of the time_ although the MK41's, as we all known, cut through the crap in bad sounding rooms or if you're really far back.

These have become my favorite two also.
Schoeps CMC6 (MK22's, MK41's) / AKG C480B (ck61, ck63, ck8) / Telefunken M60 (TK61, TK63)  - for sale / DPA (4061)
KCY 250/5 and 250/0 > naiant PFA or IPA or Nbox 
Mixpre-10t / Mixpre-6 / Sony M-10 / Roland R-07 /Tascam DR-100mkIII / d:vice

Offline jbell

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (141)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Spreadicated
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2018, 09:40:38 AM »
Any chance of getting a pm with source info??
Microtech Gefell M20's> Nbob KCY> Naiant PFA(60V)> Sound Devices Mixpre-6

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2018, 10:03:08 AM »
Any chance of getting a pm with source info??

pm sent.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline jbell

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (141)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Spreadicated
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2018, 10:27:24 AM »
Microtech Gefell M20's> Nbob KCY> Naiant PFA(60V)> Sound Devices Mixpre-6

Offline yug du nord

  • uncleyug>Snowman>
  • Trade Count: (54)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5062
  • made with natural flavor
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #63 on: January 18, 2018, 12:11:30 AM »
#2 for me...  smoother, better balanced.
#1 seems a bit harsh on the top end to me. 
At least to my ears.
Both sound good on their own..  but in a comp...  I go #2.
Thanks for the efforts!
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline yug du nord

  • uncleyug>Snowman>
  • Trade Count: (54)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5062
  • made with natural flavor
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #64 on: January 18, 2018, 12:49:08 AM »
Out of curiosity, how high were the mikes raised on the stand?
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2018, 05:23:59 PM »
I'm surprised to hear the difference. I am an ordinary, low-cost listener. I did not expect I am able to hear difference between these two high-quality preamps. Did it really not affect the microphones or its configuration, for example a slightly different angle? Did you try to switch the microphones to the opposite preamp during a concert? I only ask because I am really surprised. I prefer #1. I thought the main emphasis was to make these expensive preamps neutral. But maybe it has some limits.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 05:32:35 PM by kuba e »

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2018, 06:17:44 PM »
Out of curiosity, how high were the mikes raised on the stand?

I think about 8-9 feet.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2018, 06:20:09 PM »
I'm surprised to hear the difference. I am an ordinary, low-cost listener. I did not expect I am able to hear difference between these two high-quality preamps. Did it really not affect the microphones or its configuration, for example a slightly different angle? Did you try to switch the microphones to the opposite preamp during a concert? I only ask because I am really surprised. I prefer #1. I thought the main emphasis was to make these expensive preamps neutral. But maybe it has some limits.

Everything else in the chain (microphones, nbob actives, PFA) was identical. And we used the same fixed angle bars, pictures of which are linked on the first page of the thread. The microphones were inches apart from one another on the stand.

As noted above, this is about as perfect a comp as you are going to find, unless you actually split the signal of a single pair of transducers.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2018, 03:45:43 PM »
Out of curiosity, how high were the mikes raised on the stand?

I think about 8-9 feet.

I think they were closer to 12-13 feet.  Remember, we were already about 3 feet up before affixing the stands to the rail.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Fun times: 3 Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD744T + 2 Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 12548
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2018, 05:57:51 PM »
Just found this thread, somehow had missed it until now.

I like sample 1 slightly better.. at least at work through AT in-ears plugged straight into the computer.  Interesting that after voting and viewing the results it appears sample 1 is the underdog by a significant margin.  Should be interesting to re-listen at home though through a few sets of high-quality headphones at lease.  My big-speaker playback system remains packed away since the hurricane threat here last fall.  Will report back if that changes my judgment.

Thanks for the comp!
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline wforwumbo

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2018, 12:31:19 PM »
I suspect it’s probably time to reveal which source is which, but I’ll leave that to Noah’s discretion. Is there anyone that hasn’t had time to A/B the recordings that wants to?
2x Schoeps mk21 (matched pair) -> nbob KCY -> Naiant PFA -> Sound Devices Mixpre 6

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2018, 12:53:10 PM »
I suspect it’s probably time to reveal which source is which, but I’ll leave that to Noah’s discretion. Is there anyone that hasn’t had time to A/B the recordings that wants to?

People have been PMing me, and I've been responding in kind.

I'm inclined to keep it that way in the hopes that people will continue to vote blind.

36 votes and counting.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 12548
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #72 on: January 31, 2018, 04:04:54 PM »
Okay, reporting back as promised.. [no spoilers]

I'll post the subjective assessment I shared with Noah and Nick after a second listen at home through my "good 'phones", even though it didn't change the initial judgement I posted above-

I still prefer file 1.  It has better sense of spatial clarity, separation of sources, and initial transient edges.  File 2 is less 3-dimensional and more homogeneous.  I confirmed this subjective assessment and preference through rapid A/B switching while listening critically, and also though more casual longer-term listening, the latter consisting of both focused listening as well as distracted "background music" listening.   I end up with the same preference for file 1 in all cases.  It's not earth-shattering, but a significant enough difference which I quickly became well-enough adapted to that I could pretty rapidly identify which was which correctly each time upon randomizing the stimulus.   The more I listened the easier it became to confirm a preference for file 1.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline adrianf74

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Gender: Male
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2018, 03:23:19 PM »
I listened to the two files again after voting for file 2.  I still prefer 2 for the over all recording but I found the vocals on file 1 to be a little more present.   I listened a few different ways (headphones with a GeekOut 450 DA on my laptop, on my Marantz stereo (with satellite speakers) and on my laptop with its crappy speakers.  I felt the same way listening each way.

Suffice to say, both recordings are excellent and the difference between the two recordings is minimal to me.  I'll still standby saying I like file 2 better "as a whole."

Offline MattH

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2018, 09:21:01 PM »
I already voted and preferred sample 1 but was curious if both pairs used the same large DPA windscreens and which pair was in front of or higher/lower than the other.
mics: Soundfield ST450, JW mod Milab VIP-50's, Milab VM-44 Links (Matched Cards, Matched S-Cards), BR mod Nak 700's
pre's: Audio Developments AD 066(11), V2, Littlebox, Tinybox, Reutelhuber
recorders: Sonosax SX-R4, Tascam DR-680, Korg MR-1, Tascam DR-2, Mackie DL32R
playback: Teac UD-501 DAC > Meyer Sound

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2018, 11:11:17 PM »
I already voted and preferred sample 1 but was curious if both pairs used the same large DPA windscreens and which pair was in front of or higher/lower than the other.

I used small schoeps windscreens and Andy used the dpa’s.
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline yug du nord

  • uncleyug>Snowman>
  • Trade Count: (54)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5062
  • made with natural flavor
Re: mk22> Sonosax SX-R4 VS. mk22> SD Mixpre6 Comp
« Reply #76 on: February 04, 2018, 01:44:26 PM »
^Schoeps B1's or B5's?
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
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> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.707 seconds with 103 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF