I'd stayed away from the thread until this morning after finally getting around to having a good listen last night. I don't currently have internet/computer or the stereo setup at home, so I transferred to SD and listened via R-44>Senn HD650. Honestly I was somewhat surprised to find such clear and significant differences. Although I did no formal ABX, I found it easily to constantly identify one vs the other, with a substantial personal preference for "Educated Guess" sample C and "2x2" sample D.
Similar to the SoundDevices/Sonosax comp of a few years back, I hear far greater 3-dimensionality and source differentiation in the Sax samples, aspects I'm most interested in with regards to these kinds of comps. I hear the timbral differences as well, but IME that can be altered relatively easily afterwards whereas the previous mentioned aspects cannot. If I had my editing setup working I might try and see how close I could get the Zoom samples to sound like the Sax samples, which is a technique I find particularly useful for more precisely identifying the differences and determining how relevant they may be "in the bigger picture", inclusive of post-recording workflow.
Upon making that judgement, the following thoughts came to mind:
First, that I'm somewhat curious to hear a F6/SD comp, as both similarly lacked the sense of openness, depth, dimension and source differentiation I hear from the Sax. In direct comparison would they sound similar or different in that way.. along with any other differences.
Second, I started thinking about the Zoom F8 I currently use. It is presumable that the F6 sounds similar to F8, yet I hear attributes that are similar to the Sax aspects in my recordings using the F8. In fact, some of the aspects I value most about my own recordings are these. I recognize that this is an important attribute and intended goal of my oddball microphone setups (in the case of the F8, I'm using all 8 available microphone channels for specifically designed microphone arrays, of which at least 6 are active while listening back directly in stereo or in making a 2ch mix). When I do that and solo various 2ch pairs I typically think "OK good.. yet definitely lacking in those aspects in comparison to a combination with the other channels of the array". This makes be wonder if I may be in effect using these multiple microphone arrays partly as work arounds for the insufficient presence of this aspect in the signal chain I'm using? What would happen if I recorded using my array and an all Sax signal path? Would it be that much better still? Perhaps too much overcompensation?
Interesting to think about, even if 8 channels of Sax is beyond my reach. Up to this point I've thought of OMT multi-microphone arrays as a way of achieving a somewhat more-complete translation of the complex acoustic soundfield at recording position. While that remains true, and provides other valuable options not-directly related, I now realize I may also have been unknowingly compensating for a lack of certain aspects in my signal chains in addition to arranging multidimensional pickup of a complex acoustic.
As the years roll on I increasingly realize:
That we all don't value the same illusions equally.
That there are multiple roads toward the creation of a deeper illusion.
How complicated, multi-dimensional and inter-related all of these disparate aspects are with each other.
Thanks for the comp, especially as the seed sparking awareness and contemplation of these things for me.