Topic: Sample Sonosax recordings of classical music?

[lsanbourne]

Hello,

I have been recording myself (I'm an opera singer) for about 7 years, first with Zoom devices and now with MixPre-6 ii, which is a great upgrade. I'm curious what I would gain if I splurged and got a Sonosax setup (e.g. AD8+ and M2D2). Does anyone have sample Sonosax recordings they could share, ideally in comparison with MixPre?

Thank you for taking the time to help!
Larry

[DSatz]

I think you are at the point of diminishing returns with the recorder you already have, unless there's some specific problem that you notice or suspect about it. Sonic differences among well-designed, properly operating preamps and recorders tend to be quite small, except for preamps that are designed to add a certain coloration to recordings--which none of the ones you mentioned are.

On the other hand your microphone(s), your way of using them and your acoustic surroundings--none of which you said anything about--are much larger variables--again assuming that the recorder is doing its job, which is to be a reliable, neutral scribe.

[jbell]

Here was an old comp of the Sonosax and Mixpre6!  Most people preferred the Mixpre6. 

https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=184892.0

[lsanbourne]

Thanks very much! I saw that old comparison and it was helpful, but I would love a comparison with acoustic music, since that's probably more applicable to my use case.

I've heard from a lot of people that going beyond MixPre is beyond the point of diminishing. But even Sound Devices makes things that cost 5x more (not to mention Sonosax, DAD AX32, etc). I figured there must be some reason people buy these (surely it's not just because of additional features?), and I don't think all these people are just wasting their money! So even if it's a small difference, I'm super curious to hear it.

I asked on Gearspace and got lots of extremely strong opinions about how Sonosax is the world's best - but no one had any comparison audio files with classical music.

[goodcooker]

snip " I asked on Gearspace and got lots of extremely strong opinions about how Sonosax is the world's best "

I'm not surprised that you felt opinions there were "extremely strong". But they aren't wrong.

There's some overlap between their user base and ours here - mostly in their location sound forum. Which brings me to my question - how are you recording yourself? Are you recording at live performances or rehearsals where a portable recorder is required? Needs to run on batteries? How many tracks at once?

I agree that there isn't much room to grow beyond the SD Mixpre series recorders without significant jump in cost but there are definitely options and Sonosax has a proven track record for excellence.

There's other options if you are looking for color in your signal chain like running a mic pre in front of the recorder or using different mics even. Depends on your use case.

EDIT _ I didn't catch at first that you are looking at the AD8 preamp not one of their all in one recorders like the SX-R4. My bad. Still interested to hear what you are doing with your gear especially if it's live on location.

[lsanbourne]

Thanks for your reply! For the record, I completely believe Sonosax is better - I just hope to be able to hear the difference myself before spending 5-6x more.

For this, my "mobile session" setup, I am recording live performances and sessions in churches or small theaters, usually including myself as a performer, usually into a DAW so that we can easily listen to takes. I'd use 4-6 channels now but want to be able to grow. Ideally the setup would also work on batteries with self recording (like MixPre), but for the session use case, I mainly just want great quality and don't want to have to lug a 1U box just to get extra channels.

For context, I also own RME Babyface Pro and 12Mic, but since 4 channels is a common use case and I'm very frequently on international tours taking a zillion flights, I want something that fits into a carryon bag (besides mic stands...grr mic stands...).

Larry

[Ronmac]

I think you are at the point of diminishing returns with the recorder you already have, unless there's some specific problem that you notice or suspect about it. Sonic differences among well-designed, properly operating preamps and recorders tend to be quite small, except for preamps that are designed to add a certain coloration to recordings--which none of the ones you mentioned are.

On the other hand your microphone(s), your way of using them and your acoustic surroundings--none of which you said anything about--are much larger variables--again assuming that the recorder is doing its job, which is to be a reliable, neutral scribe.

I totally agree. Having someone else provide a recording using a device(s) in an unfamiliar location won't offer much.

Thanks for your reply! For the record, I completely believe Sonosax is better - I just hope to be able to hear the difference myself before spending 5-6x more.
Larry

If you believe the Sonosax is better buy it. You will be happy, until someone tells you something else is better.

[kuba e]

Larry, welcome to the Tapersssection forum!

Our friends are right. The things that have the biggest effect on the quality of the recording are: the first is the space, then the location of the microphones, then the microphones themselves and their configuration, and the recording equipment is the last. The exact same applies to money. The biggest effect is the placement and configuration of the microphones, it's free. Then the microphones themselves, that already costs something, but the improvement can be big. Finally, there is a recorder, it also cost something, but the improvement is much less significant.

Here on the forum there are people who have a lot of experience recording classical music and have always been willing to share their experience even with amateurs like me. I have learned a lot here thanks to them. It's a bit of a shame not to take the opportunity to consult your recording process.

[voltronic]

Hi there, another classical person here (pianist and choir director / singer). Just chiming in to agree that there's no need at all to upgrade from your MixPre; its preamps are already outstanding. The same could be said for the Zoom F series recorders, which I am a huge fan of.

Like others have said, the biggest improvements will be made by better technique, and then second, better microphones. Speaking of which: how are you recording yourself, and what mics are you currently using?

The people on GS Remote who say that you should be using Sonosax, DAD, Pueblo or other preamps are generally people who are professional recording engineers and who own the finest microphones available. At that elite level of technique, experience, and equipment, you are refining to the nth degree, and top end outboard preamplification and conversion might get you to the mountaintop.

I am very fortunate to have recently acquired some DPA 4000 series mics which are definitely in the world-class category, yet I have zero desire to replace or supplement my Zoom F6. My technique is the area that needs the most work, so that's what I'm focusing on.

[dallman]

Hi there, another classical person here (pianist and choir director / singer). Just chiming in to agree that there's no need at all to upgrade from your MixPre; its preamps are already outstanding. The same could be said for the Zoom F series recorders, which I am a huge fan of.

Like others have said, the biggest improvements will be made by better technique, and then second, better microphones. Speaking of which: how are you recording yourself, and what mics are you currently using?

The people on GS Remote who say that you should be using Sonosax, DAD, Pueblo or other preamps are generally people who are professional recording engineers and who own the finest microphones available. At that elite level of technique, experience, and equipment, you are refining to the nth degree, and top end outboard preamplification and conversion might get you to the mountaintop.

I am very fortunate to have recently acquired some DPA 4000 series mics which are definitely in the world-class category, yet I have zero desire to replace or supplement my Zoom F6. My technique is the area that needs the most work, so that's what I'm focusing on.

Well said!

[lsanbourne]

I have 4 Schoeps MK5 mics and 2 Line Audio CM4s for occasional room sound (see Decca book). I'm a professional musician but also wanting to do record others professionally.

My current device does not have enough channels. So I am trying to decide whether it is worth it to get something better than MixPre 10, but I don't want to do it without blind listening examples.

[voltronic]

I have 4 Schoeps MK5 mics and 2 Line Audio CM4s for occasional room sound (see Decca book). I'm a professional musician but also wanting to do record others professionally.

My current device does not have enough channels. So I am trying to decide whether it is worth it to get something better than MixPre 10, but I don't want to do it without blind listening examples.

Those are all outstanding mics, and it's good to find another person here using the Haigh / Dunkerly Decca book.

If I were you I would get a Zoom F6 which gets you your 6 channels for under $750. Its preamps are more than up to the task, and later today I may post some samples in Team DPA or Team Classical of a concert I just sang in and recorded. Check my post history for many other classical / acoustic recordings made with this recorder.

If you need 8 preamps, get the F8n PRO, or the MixPre-II 10 if you'd prefer to stick with Sound Devices. I really don't think you need to look for anything more expensive for all the reasons mentioned in previous replies.

Also, please share some of your recordings if you would feel comfortable doing so. There are precious few of us on this forum who post classical concerts.

[lsanbourne]

Thanks, Voltronic! Are Team DPA and Team Classical subforums somewhere here? Sorry for the newbie question. Looking forward to hearing your recordings and will do my best to post some of my own.

I remain really curious to hear comparisons with Sonosax AD8+ and SD 888, since (1) I don't like the headphone amp on the MixPre-6 ii and (2) I have never worked with such a high-end device and am curious what it sounds like. I know everyone's trying to convince me not to buy or worry about it, but that isn't quelling the curiosity with which I posted my original question.

[grawk]

Don't let people discourage you from trying to get the best result you can.  Everyone sees the point of diminishing returns in different places.  I'd suggest checking out http://jwsoundgroup.net as a place that might have someone that's tried the sonosax preamps.

[voltronic]

Don't let people discourage you from trying to get the best result you can.  Everyone sees the point of diminishing returns in different places.  I'd suggest checking out http://jwsoundgroup.net as a place that might have someone that's tried the sonosax preamps.

Also Gearspace Remote Possibilities. But I think we're just trying to save the OP money. Nothing wrong with trying everything out, though.

Regarding the headphone amp comment - The headphone amps in the zoom f series are known to be not very good, even though the rest of the recorder is. I very rarely do any critical monitoring through headphones at recordings anyway, I just made you a quick listen to gauge overall balance and then just press record.

[voltronic]

Thanks, Voltronic! Are Team DPA and Team Classical subforums somewhere here? Sorry for the newbie question. Looking forward to hearing your recordings and will do my best to post some of my own.

I remain really curious to hear comparisons with Sonosax AD8+ and SD 888, since (1) I don't like the headphone amp on the MixPre-6 ii and (2) I have never worked with such a high-end device and am curious what it sounds like. I know everyone's trying to convince me not to buy or worry about it, but that isn't quelling the curiosity with which I posted my original question.

Here's the recording I was talking about. Both of those Team Boards are linked on my profile.

https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=176324.msg2404124#msg2404124

[SMsound]

I record mostly opera recitals (singer(s) + piano is the most common) in nice halls and sometimes conductors' living rooms, etc.

I have done a lot of shootouts where I have identical matched stereo pairs of mics set up in front of a soprano and we swap out one piece of equipment like a preamp, then see if she and I can tell the difference.

I personally would stick to your MixPre-6-II.

As you know, the order of importance in terms of what makes a good recording is something like:

-having a recorder that doesn't break down/have a bug
-singer/performance
-hall accoustic
-mic placement (how many and where)

Then lower on the list is:
-mics
-mixing skills

Then even lower is:
-preamps
-converters

What does your mic locker look like? How are you setting up?

My experience with shootouts is that yes, some sopranos have golden ears and can hear when we swap one good preamp for another (and tell me that, for example, tracks 1 3 and 7 are preamp one but 2 4 5 6 are preamp 2). Same with converters.

However, these are *tiny* differences. Even the difference between two flat small diaphragm condensers like Schoeps MK21 vs Line Audio CM4 are very small to their golden ears (though they can still reliably tell them apart) and often invisible to my ears.

Your MixPre-6-II, unlike the sonosax, is 32 bit meaning you don't have to take an extra minute to set and adjust levels while you're also trying to perform. My guess is that you could swap it for the 'sax, but you will get much farther just buying more Schoeps or whatever you like, placing them better, and getting into a better hall, or doing whatever else you need to do in order to feel great on performance day.

FWIW, the sopranos I work with very slightly prefer the transformer preamps of a MixPre-D into the MixPre-6 via Aux ch. 5/6, instead of the MixPre-6's own preamps. This is based on my tests with Schoeps CMC1-MK21 or Line Audio mics (CM4, Omni1) in the usual opera spot position, about 4' in front of the singer.

[Organfreak]

Don't let people discourage you from trying to get the best result you can.  Everyone sees the point of diminishing returns in different places.  I'd suggest checking out http://jwsoundgroup.net as a place that might have someone that's tried the sonosax preamps.

Also Gearspace Remote Possibilities. But I think we're just trying to save the OP money. Nothing wrong with trying everything out, though.

Regarding the headphone amp comment - The headphone amps in the zoom f series are known to be not very good, even though the rest of the recorder is. I very rarely do any critical monitoring through headphones at recordings anyway, I just made you a quick listen to gauge overall balance and then just press record.

The headphone amp in the F6 is - to my ears - quite good - anyway better than my Creek OBH-21 headphone amp (listening using AKG K702 cans).
The F series headphone amp was revised by Zoom earlier in their F series envelopment.

[Ronmac]

I record mostly opera recitals (singer(s) + piano is the most common) in nice halls and sometimes conductors' living rooms, etc.

I have done a lot of shootouts where I have identical matched stereo pairs of mics set up in front of a soprano and we swap out one piece of equipment like a preamp, then see if she and I can tell the difference.

I personally would stick to your MixPre-6-II.

As you know, the order of importance in terms of what makes a good recording is something like:

-having a recorder that doesn't break down/have a bug
-singer/performance
-hall accoustic
-mic placement (how many and where)

Then lower on the list is:
-mics
-mixing skills

Then even lower is:
-preamps
-converters

What does your mic locker look like? How are you setting up?

My experience with shootouts is that yes, some sopranos have golden ears and can hear when we swap one good preamp for another (and tell me that, for example, tracks 1 3 and 7 are preamp one but 2 4 5 6 are preamp 2). Same with converters.

However, these are *tiny* differences. Even the difference between two flat small diaphragm condensers like Schoeps MK21 vs Line Audio CM4 are very small to their golden ears (though they can still reliably tell them apart) and often invisible to my ears.

Your MixPre-6-II, unlike the sonosax, is 32 bit meaning you don't have to take an extra minute to set and adjust levels while you're also trying to perform. My guess is that you could swap it for the 'sax, but you will get much farther just buying more Schoeps or whatever you like, placing them better, and getting into a better hall, or doing whatever else you need to do in order to feel great on performance day.

FWIW, the sopranos I work with very slightly prefer the transformer preamps of a MixPre-D into the MixPre-6 via Aux ch. 5/6, instead of the MixPre-6's own preamps. This is based on my tests with Schoeps CMC1-MK21 or Line Audio mics (CM4, Omni1) in the usual opera spot position, about 4' in front of the singer.

^^^^ THIS

I regularly augment my MixPre 6ii with a Sound Devices preamp, either the 552 or MixPre-D for their smooth, input transformer influenced character, or a USBPre 2 for a more clinical sound.

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me. 

[voltronic]

Don't let people discourage you from trying to get the best result you can.  Everyone sees the point of diminishing returns in different places.  I'd suggest checking out http://jwsoundgroup.net as a place that might have someone that's tried the sonosax preamps.

Also Gearspace Remote Possibilities. But I think we're just trying to save the OP money. Nothing wrong with trying everything out, though.

Regarding the headphone amp comment - The headphone amps in the zoom f series are known to be not very good, even though the rest of the recorder is. I very rarely do any critical monitoring through headphones at recordings anyway, I just made you a quick listen to gauge overall balance and then just press record.

The headphone amp in the F6 is - to my ears - quite good - anyway better than my Creek OBH-21 headphone amp (listening using AKG K702 cans).
The F series headphone amp was revised by Zoom earlier in their F series envelopment.

I should have been more precise in my comment. I have never had a problem with the F6 headphone amp, but I have read criticisms from others about it. But maybe those people were remembering the sound of the F4 and first-gen F8 headphone amps?

[voltronic]

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me.

Same. Someday I'll probably need 8 preamps, and it will be between the MP10 and the F8. Though I wish Zoom would delete their proprietary connector on the F8 (which has no place on a pro recorder, IMHO) and put dual NP-F battery mounts on the back. That's one of the biggest reasons I haven't gone for an F8 yet.

[goodcooker]

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me.

Same. Someday I'll probably need 8 preamps, and it will be between the MP10 and the F8. Though I wish Zoom would delete their proprietary connector on the F8 (which has no place on a pro recorder, IMHO) and put dual NP-F battery mounts on the back. That's one of the biggest reasons I haven't gone for an F8 yet.

Isn't the F8 a hirose connector? That's not proprietary - that's industry standard. Converters for Dtap, NPF and all sorts of other battery solutions exist. I'm sure they went with that due to it's use by Sound Devices and lots of other pro brands.

[grawk]

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me.

Same. Someday I'll probably need 8 preamps, and it will be between the MP10 and the F8. Though I wish Zoom would delete their proprietary connector on the F8 (which has no place on a pro recorder, IMHO) and put dual NP-F battery mounts on the back. That's one of the biggest reasons I haven't gone for an F8 yet.

Isn't the F8 a hirose connector? That's not proprietary - that's industry standard. Converters for Dtap, NPF and all sorts of other battery solutions exist. I'm sure they went with that due to it's use by Sound Devices and lots of other pro brands.

It's got a connector to use the lousy mics from the H series recorders.

[goodcooker]

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me.

Same. Someday I'll probably need 8 preamps, and it will be between the MP10 and the F8. Though I wish Zoom would delete their proprietary connector on the F8 (which has no place on a pro recorder, IMHO) and put dual NP-F battery mounts on the back. That's one of the biggest reasons I haven't gone for an F8 yet.

Isn't the F8 a hirose connector? That's not proprietary - that's industry standard. Converters for Dtap, NPF and all sorts of other battery solutions exist. I'm sure they went with that due to it's use by Sound Devices and lots of other pro brands.

It's got a connector to use the lousy mics from the H series recorders.

I thought we were talking about the battery connector. But I realize now he meant losing that goofy connector for those mics and adding a NPF slot. Got it.

[voltronic]

The only reason I would ever consider upgrading the MP6ii would be to achieve an even higher channel count, and the MP10 would satisfy that need, for me.

Same. Someday I'll probably need 8 preamps, and it will be between the MP10 and the F8. Though I wish Zoom would delete their proprietary connector on the F8 (which has no place on a pro recorder, IMHO) and put dual NP-F battery mounts on the back. That's one of the biggest reasons I haven't gone for an F8 yet.

Isn't the F8 a hirose connector? That's not proprietary - that's industry standard. Converters for Dtap, NPF and all sorts of other battery solutions exist. I'm sure they went with that due to it's use by Sound Devices and lots of other pro brands.

It's got a connector to use the lousy mics from the H series recorders.

I thought we were talking about the battery connector. But I realize now he meant losing that goofy connector for those mics and adding a NPF slot. Got it.

Correct, and I think the BNC timecode connectors could be relocated to accommodate the battery mounts.

[Gutbucket]

Regarding your usage case-

For this, my "mobile session" setup, I am recording live performances and sessions in churches or small theaters, usually including myself as a performer, usually into a DAW so that we can easily listen to takes. I'd use 4-6 channels now but want to be able to grow. Ideally the setup would also work on batteries with self recording (like MixPre), but for the session use case, I mainly just want great quality and don't want to have to lug a 1U box just to get extra channels.

For context, I also own RME Babyface Pro and 12Mic, but since 4 channels is a common use case and I'm very frequently on international tours taking a zillion flights, I want something that fits into a carryon bag (besides mic stands...grr mic stands...).

Larry

(..and grr cabling..)

Given your described usage, the collective elimination of an extra preamp unit, the powering requirements for it, and elimination of the additional interconnect cabling is likely to be particularly attractive practical considerations to be balanced against perceivable sonic differences.

 ..and I say that as one of the folks here that heard a significant difference in the comparison jbell linked to in the 3rd post of the thread, with a personal preference for the Sonosax over the Mixpre6. >

Here was an old comp of the Sonosax and Mixpre6!  Most people preferred the Mixpre6. 

https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=184892.0

Based on my own subjective balancing of practicality against perfection, your most preferred microphones direct into Zoom F8n Pro or SoundDevices Mixpre 10-II are the two options I'd most strongly consider.  Both provide 8 standard-size XLR inputs with good quality preamps and will make for an excellent sounding recording rig that is compact and relatively simple to setup, power and run.  But of course you will need to make the final determination for yourself, and perhaps reassess that after using it for a while.

[Gutbucket]

Regarding the Zoom F series headphone amp-

Upon initial release, the Zoom F8 headphone amp lacked sufficient gain to properly drive high impedance headphones.  This was later corrected via a firmware update that provided a menu option which allows the user to digitally increase the base-line gain by an adjustable amount of up to +24dB (also added was control over the shape of the gain curve affected by the headphone volume knob- linear, inverse-exponential, or S-shaped).  I keep it set to +20dB for driving Sennheiser HD650, HD600 and other relatively high impedance headphones to appropriate loudness levels for critical listening directly off the recorder after a recording session, and am fully satisfied with it after making that adjustment. The same setting is appropriate for the lower impedance sealed-back headphones I'd use for active monitoring in a recording situation, although I rarely do that.

[goodcooker]

A group called Classical Location Recording just came across my Facebook feed. If you are on FB maybe stop in and ask them. Since many of these groups are global you may have some better luck in your search for samples of Sonosax gear.

[tim_k]

Magnus Bergsson of fieldrecording.net is a Sonosax and Mixpre user who records classical music as well as field recordings. You could reach out to him and see if he has any comparisons, I know he does a lot of mic comparisons at least.

[gaijin]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

[grawk]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

pretty harsh criticism. What makes you think sonosax is overrated?

[voltronic]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

pretty harsh criticism. What makes you think sonosax is overrated?

Agreed. Have you ever used any of their gear, or listened to recordings made using them? All of the professional recording engineers I've spoken to rank their preamps in the top echelon, along with Pueblo Audio.

[gaijin]

My point is WAY overstated for sure, but is such a conclusion the wrong one to derive when looking things like the results of that comp and practical listening experience?  If something is theoretically orders of magnitude better but upon measured, critical analysis proves to be only nominally better (or anecdotally worse as was the case in that comp), can we really all continue to stand around and go "wow, that Sonosax is amazing; best in class!"... I'm more of a realist / brass tacks kind of guy.

[rocksuitcase]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

pretty harsh criticism. What makes you think sonosax is overrated?

Agreed. Have you ever used any of their gear, or listened to recordings made using them? All of the professional recording engineers I've spoken to rank their preamps in the top echelon, along with Pueblo Audio.

kindms is using a sonosax sxm2d2 and the results with the exact same microphones vs their past use with the Grace V2/V3 are more detailed with a more balanced low end, to my ears. 

[gaijin]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

pretty harsh criticism. What makes you think sonosax is overrated?

Agreed. Have you ever used any of their gear, or listened to recordings made using them? All of the professional recording engineers I've spoken to rank their preamps in the top echelon, along with Pueblo Audio.

Both used and listened...does it feel like a top quality machine...absolutely.  Would someone as experienced as you or certainly most listeners be able to accurately identify it vs. even an Zoom product?  Especially with post work?  I'm willing to go pretty heavy in that the answer to that is going to be no.  There are comps to back that up. 

I'm also reminded of a couple of top tier "professional engineers" that couldn't get over the PCM-D1's "best as it is ever gonna get" ADCs and signal path.  I own one, with an XLR-1.  I've recorded 100s of shows on one.  I A/B comped most of those shows with the same mics and my brother running a D50.  After years of listening to those recordings and trying to hear what other's told me I'm missing with professional IEMs, monitors, etc., I am an convinced there is no discernable consistent difference.  The transition to digital rendered most of this "gotta have the absolute best preamp and signal path" null and void. 

[gaijin]

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

pretty harsh criticism. What makes you think sonosax is overrated?

Agreed. Have you ever used any of their gear, or listened to recordings made using them? All of the professional recording engineers I've spoken to rank their preamps in the top echelon, along with Pueblo Audio.

kindms is using a sonosax sxm2d2 and the results with the exact same microphones vs their past use with the Grace V2/V3 are more detailed with a more balanced low end, to my ears.

Absolutely believe, appreciate, and value the observation, but my point is it's not consistent with the wider body of evidence as it applies to "most" humans.  When those gold plated HDMI cables were out, there were lots of people who could absolutely see the visual improvements it made too...

[grawk]

anyone can take a better tool and turn out an inferior product. The sonosax preamps are demonstrably better than the vast majority of their competitors and in the right hands turn out clearly better product.

Gold plated hdmi cables are a way to take money from idiots.

[gaijin]

anyone can take a better tool and turn out an inferior product. The sonosax preamps are demonstrably better than the vast majority of their competitors and in the right hands turn out clearly better product.

Gold plated hdmi cables are a way to take money from idiots.

While I agree the gold hdmi take was overly hyperbolic, for the avoidance of doubt, could I ask for a bit of clarity around "turn out clearly better product"?

Can you give an example of comps one can listen to where (with all other variables as closely aligned as is humanly possible), a Sonosax device turned out a clearly better product? 

Where is the line drawn?  The guy has Schoeps mics and MixPre6-ii.  Point blank, will he get "clearly better product" by swapping the MixPre out for the Sonosax?  I say unlikely... 

Better yet, as opposed to the typical fluffy interpretive dance of nerdspeak along the lines of "soundstage, presence, richness, tonality, fullness, blah, blah" (which are clearly subjective even in their meaning based on a huge percentage of comp results available on this board), can you point to some quantifiable, consistent proof of this better product (ideally taking a scientific method approach to the analysis)?  I cannot, and I've looked.  Plently.  I'd love to buy a shiny new Swedish toy, but not with a debatably nominal benefit over a $250 F3. 

Yes, "professional engineers" to tell us the excellence that we should be hearing in the Sonosax (in theory) are a dimeadozen.  As with anything in life, reinforced by the experts, droves of allegiant fans line up on the side of their team.  In practice / the real world though, I have never found anyone who can give consistent evidence of that.  I'm looking for something more concrete before I chase what were accurately referred to here as "diminishing returns" (and I personally think that is being generous).  Seems like this guy is too. 

By the way, I've got my Krona ready in hand...

[grawk]

cool, don’t chase the admittedly diminishing returns. Upgrade your microphones before the preamp/recorder for sure regardless. the f3 is a capable device that can produce a fantastic recording.

[goodcooker]

It is truly laughable that people have commented here with "don't worry about Sonosax just get a Zoom".

@gaijin - I understand that you, for whatever reason, want "a scientific method approach to the analysis" but music doesn't work that way. Specs on paper don't tell the whole story. I agree that a lot of the "audiophile speak" that folks use to justify their sale (or purchase) of gear sounds a little goofy with terms that are not quantifiable with metrics but are instead very subjective to the listener.

If the guy wants to spend a shitload on upgrading his Sound Devices recorder to go with his multiple pairs of Schoeps mics to record his opera performances I don't know that it really germane to the topic to debate at length whether it's worth it over a Zoom F3.

You say there are comps to back up your position and that you have in fact used some Sonosax gear. Can you point the OP in the direction of some samples so he can hear for himself? That's what he came here for. Some samples.

[voltronic]

Give me [controlled ABX testing], or give me [conjecture]!

[grawk]

those are a test of playback as much as anything else.

[aaronji]

Give me [controlled ABX testing], or give me [conjecture]!

I think very much in this way. Heck, as a scientist, I was trained to do so. I have come to realize, though, that, as a taper, sometimes I want a particular piece of gear without a performance-based metric for it. A prime example is my Aerco MP-2. I just wanted the thing, maybe for its history and rustic appearance (although, to be fair, it sounds awesome and pairs well with my DPAs), even though there were other options. I tend to think mic preferences are the same. Some people just like the Schoeps or DPA or Neumann or AKG sound, even if they are all generally pretty excellent (if DPA didn't exist I would be happy with one of the others). 

Buy what you like (as long as you're still feeding the kids); use what you buy!

[Gutbucket]

Agreed. Find a methodology for deciding that satisfies on-going self-questioning.  Could be comps or recordings made by others, suggestions, your own tests, or reading the tea-leaves in the bottom of the cup.

Sonosax - the "24k gold plated HDMI cable" of field recorders... Just can't bring myself to drink the Kool aid, even when someone as wise and experienced as Gutbucket has told us repeatedly that we should.

I do like Sonosax preamps and have pretty consistently heard a difference through them in well controlled comps (which I can only describe in subjective nerdspeak as "a somehow more lush dimensional depth in the stereo image", more than anything tonal).  They are well respected and make top quality gear.  Regardless, I don't own any Sonosax preamps myself, mostly for practical and cost reasons.. not because I cant discern any difference or don't like the sound, but because I found better practical value elsewhere based on my goals and the way I choose to operate.  Its an assessment of how to achieve the results I want within the constraints of practicality and cost. I'm primarily of the "microphones and how they are used and interact with each other is the most important and interesting part of concert recording" camp, and put most of my focus there.  All the other stuff mostly needs to work correctly in a sufficiently transparent way. 

TL;DR-
In doing my own comparative testing over the years I found I got greater value via multichannel microphone arrays plugged directly into the  preamps built into good-quality modern recorders, than by using a single top-quality stereo pair or two through higher quality external preamps, and in practical terms and cost-wise I can't do both.  Folks are welcome to disagree with that assessment and I'm sure many do, which is perfectly fine by me - to each his own.  I found I could more consistently achieve a similar or greater "lush dimensional depth in the stereo image" (the aspects I found I valued most in the Sonosax preamps), in addition to other benefits, with greater flexibility, less practical problems, and at about the same cost. I came to see that choice as a basic and appropriate trade off in how I go about taping - increasing the complication of the array while eliminating external preamps, extra interconnect cabling, powering requirements, and additional gear to haul.  I mention all this mostly to explain the logic behind my own decision and path forward, not to try and convince anyone to do the same.  I recognize that my path is an oddball one not widely applicable to most others.

[voltronic]

those are a test of playback as much as anything else.

Sure, and also the perception and discernment of the listener. But at least you're minimizing variables on the other end.