Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
Yes. I think the volume differences made it hard to judge.
I was thinking more of the sax vs. sd comp we did 2 years ago.
^ I'm looking forward to giving the (revised) Zoom F6/Sax comp a critical listen.. and I very much have the SD/Sax comp from 2yrs back in mind regarding it.
Both sound outstanding and there is no right answer as which is better. ..[snip].. Listen and enjoy and if you find one sounds a bit different well thats cool.
Yes.
Yet still, because concert recording consists of so many interdependent variables, it can be helpful to dig deeper into what the apparent perceived differences are, and how that might translate to workflow processes and the resulting final output. As I recall, I was pretty unequivocal with regards to my preference in the blind SD/Sax comp 2yrs back.. and ended up being the minority position by far in the poll. That outcome was very interesting to me and helped solidify a deeper understanding of how differently folks asses, rank, and value various sonic aspects.
Upon the reveal, most choose the SD over Sax. I can understand why the majority of folks voted as the way they did, and can articulate an argument for that preference even though it is not my own.
The reasons I felt differently were 2-fold: First I simply preferred the Sax sample outright on its own merits. That represents a basic personal preference difference of course, although one which is somewhat dependent on the playback gear used to make the assessment. But more importantly, I felt that I could achieve the aspects folks found valuable with regard to the SD sample (a timbral difference, including a slightly more forward-sounding presence-range, translating as slightly improved vocal range clarity) relatively easily by applying
my standard post-production workflow to the Sax sample, yet did not feel I could do the same to achieve what I prefered about the Sax sample (improved spatial aspects such as the portrayal of 3-dimensional depth) in my standard post-production workflow with the SD sample. This illustrates one aspect of of the complex variable thing. Note that I'm recalling these attributes from memory and I'm certain there are other subtle aspects I've overlooked and forgotten. Also, I see something of a parallel between how critical level-matching can be to the results of a comp and the influence of standard post production processes which are able to easily affect changes to a much greater degree.. yet only with respect to the aspects which are
able to be easily addressed in that realm.
All this is fun to assess, fun to think about and discuss here.. yet in the end these sonic differences may be easily audible when we listen critically, but are for the most part relatively minor and academic in comparison to more dominant practical issues.
A few years ago I was shifting from 6ch recorders to an 8ch recorder. In my search I borrowed an R-88 for a while, considered HS-P82, 788 (had borrowed a 744), and ended up going with an F8. The recorders I tried all sounded somewhat different in careful controlled listening comparisons. But a more important qualification in that regard was if I could achieve the sound I wanted with each of them
given my typical post-production workflow. I was satisfied that I could to the degree that it mattered to me. With that question answered, I was able to shift focus to the more practical (real world important) considerations such as cost, features, functionality, usability, reliability/serviceability, size, etc.