Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6  (Read 1639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3869
  • the data guy
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2020, 07:02:41 PM »
here is a reup with all tracks normalized to 18.00 dB RMS

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dkvmohp99O8D8M71PJMw417Q3uoWszBS/view?usp=sharing
team schoeps, dpa, benchmark, and zoom mostly... subject to change without warning

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3053
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2020, 07:07:16 PM »
Thanks for posting.  I will listen later on through my good DAC and cans...
DPA 4061 | Line Audio CM3 | Naiant X-Q | AT 853
Naiant PFAs | Shure FP24
Zoom F6 | Sony PCM-M10

Team Line Audio
Quote
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.    ///    If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music.
- Gustav Mahler

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2808
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2020, 02:47:59 PM »
Out of curiosity, when will the "great reveal" take place? 

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3869
  • the data guy
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2020, 02:59:01 PM »
i guess now is as good a time as any.

Educated Guess A (/C) = sax
Educated Guess B (/D) = zoom

2x2 A (/C) = zoom
2x2 B (/D) = sax

there is some debate as to whether i used pop/wind screens on the zoom recording, which might be partially responsible for the HF difference

i thought I did, OAITW says i didnt. he has the only photo and i think he might be thinking of my 4011ER setup which was also clamped on his stand (which is my SRS kangol mount which has a relatively wide clip (axially) on a small active/capsule setup, and doesnt leave much room for screens to stay on.)
« Last Edit: February 02, 2020, 06:35:53 PM by jerryfreak »
team schoeps, dpa, benchmark, and zoom mostly... subject to change without warning

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2808
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2020, 10:52:18 AM »
^ Thanks! The differences weren't so stark after the volume leveling, but I could still distinguish them pretty well. I need to listen on my nice 'phones [EDIT: and speakers] to see which (if either) I prefer.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 10:57:48 AM by aaronji »

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13731
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2020, 12:27:05 PM »
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.
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 Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13731
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: comp: Sonosax SX-M2D2 vs Zoom F6
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2020, 11:09:12 AM »
Continuing that idea..

I hear greater 3-dimensionality and source differentiation, 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. 

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?

I've mostly thought of the 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.

^ ..or rather, aware of such compensation when making decisions about them at one time, if now something I'm starting to recall in depth once again.  Thinking back, I realize the attributes mentioned above are very similar to the ones I identified in a series of critical listening tests I made about 6 years ago as part of a decision process informing the re-working my rig, with the intent of shifting from what I still consider my personal reference directional microphone pairs - Microtech Gefell M21 supercards & M94 cardioids - to 4 or 5 miniature DPA 4098 supercardioids - with support from a pair of wide omnis either way. 

Comparing straight 2-ch stereo pair recordings of MG M21 and DPA 4098 and ignoring or compensating for frequency response differences, primarily in low-frequency extension (primarily the Gefells being flatter with a more extended bass response, although the presence of omnis in the array makes that inconsequential), I much preferred the MG M21 for the same reasons as mentioned above - a significantly increased sense of depth, 3-dimensionality, source differentiation, and a sort of smooth and refined overall cohesion.  All aspects that tend to be associated with top-quality microphones.  However, when used as I intended in the multichannel arrays those differences were no longer remained as significant, so much so that I had difficulty telling them apart after making the response compensations.  As such I held no reservations about making the switch.  The motivation for it was practicality - the MG's being significantly larger, heavier, more vulnerable, more valuable, and would not allow me to further extend and explore the multichannel array ideas I had in mind.

Because I was achieving the same aspects in my recordings as a product of the multichannel array configuration rather than via the attributes of a higher-quality single-pair, and because from that point I continued making recordings primarily in that way, I sort of put those straight 2-channel comparison differences out of mind.. or rather, mentally filed that information separately from what was currently relevant and foremost in mind.

I'm now more clearly realizing that those particular attributes represent something of a common arc throughout my own pursuit of making the kind of live music recordings I want to hear.  And that there is more than one way to get there, with each approach that is capable of doing so having different tangential strengths and weaknesses.

Apologies for a somewhat OT drift, although I consider all this sort of the underlying meta-topic relating to identifying what the differences we hear are and what value those differences represent.


Edit- Went back to find some of what I posted about this back then..
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=96009.msg2093969#msg2093969


« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 11:33:44 AM by Gutbucket »
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<<

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.046 seconds with 49 queries.
© 2002-2020 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF