The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Tags:

Has anyone tried the Sonosax SX-R4+ yet ?
Old 22nd March 2019
  #61
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
Actually it does.
Proof of this assertion is necessary I'm afraid. If it were true, Tonmeister courses would be unnecessary....and all music degree holders would be automatically qualified as recording engineers, producers and mixers. Clearly this isn't so. Your qualification gives you some theory and practical experience, but it does not make you a practitioner or expert in all of these areas. Your insecure and uncertain product-hopping between Nagra, Tascam, Sonosax etc is indicative of this.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #62
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Proof of this assertion is necessary I'm afraid. If it were true, Tonmeister courses would be unnecessary....and all music degree holders would be automatically qualified as recording engineers, producers and mixers. Clearly this isn't so. Your qualification gives you some theory and practical experience, but it does not make you a practitioner or expert in all of these areas. Your insecure and uncertain product-hopping between Nagra, Tascam, Sonosax etc is indicative of this.
“If/then” (Nice try).
Old 22nd March 2019
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
I listened attentively to those recordings from the link as I am very interested in the AD8+. But what I noticed is something that sounds to me like a bit of an EQ smiley curve: big and swimmy lows and somewhat papery restless highs, diminished mid detail. Is this what people call "transparent"? I find it so tonally poor, lacking harmonic fullness. In order to explain what I mean I attach a sample below, showing how I think an orchestra should sound in the aspects just mentioned. It is recorded in a reverberant church, but still there is detail and plasticity without pushed highs, I think. Listen to the typical buzzing of gut strings. And this is a student's orchestra... No spots, just a main array. I would like to hear some reflection on my observations from you guys who use the AD8+.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emenelton View Post
Anyways to close out my involvement because I was part of this thread ; to clarify in case, in the future some one wants to know if they can hear a Sonosax recording.

The link referenced in that Decca Thread

is a Sonosax AD8+ 7 channel plus 2 direct total 9 track recording

Vienna Home by PlantLady Rec Services | Free Listening on SoundCloud
Attached Files

Beethoven_no._3, 2nd_mvmnt_ECA.mp3 (8.88 MB, 1379 views)

Old 22nd March 2019
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
I listened attentively to those recordings from the link as I am very interested in the AD8+. But what I noticed is something that sounds to me like a bit of an EQ smiley curve: big and swimmy lows and somewhat papery restless highs, diminished mid detail. Is this what people call "transparent"? I find it so tonally poor, lacking harmonic fullness. In order to explain what I mean I attach a sample below, showing how I think an orchestra should sound in the aspects just mentioned. It is recorded in a reverberant church, but still there is detail and plasticity without pushed highs, I think. Listen to the typical buzzing of gut strings. And this is a student's orchestra... No spots, just a main array. I would like to hear some reflection on my observations from you guys who use the AD8+.
I understand what you are saying . I’ve been wrestling for quite a bit now with this mix. I do think however that the resolving of the various instrumental lines in my mix is superior. Thanks for sharing your clips.

Last edited by emenelton; 22nd March 2019 at 04:57 AM..
Old 22nd March 2019
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by emenelton View Post
I do think however that the resolving of the various instrumental lines in my mix is superior.
Maybe from a deterministic point of view, but where is the musical coherence? When I go to a concert I never hear those sandpaper-like highs in strings that I hear in your recording. I do hear it often in recordings though, so your aesthetic is definitely not unusual, but why is this deemed a virtue when preamps emphasize this aspect and (to my ears) create a false impression of transparency or even "translucency"? I feel that the double/triple timed high pitched transients make the sound restless and take away from the joy of listening to the melodies. (Of course since my recording has more reverb filling up the instrument lines it has a different tonal character by nature, but I think that even within this fuller tonality there is actually more relaxed but very high definition. I can hear every single musician in the total image without the need of scratchy highs to know what they are doing.)
Old 22nd March 2019
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
Actually it does. Sorry you are angry, bitter, jealous and resentful. That statement you exude with such dismissive act of in the know illustrates perfectly how little you know that you cannot figure it out.
I have a degree in music as well and I certainly can confirm that musicians and engineers listen to music, and hear sound in general, with a completely different mindset. It is more likely you are attributing fault in performance or musicianship to a fault in the equipment. If the source is poor, then there is no preamp or recording device that will make it better.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumleymusic View Post
I have a degree in music as well and I certainly can confirm that musicians and engineers listen to music, and hear sound in general, with a completely different mindset. It is more likely you are attributing fault in performance or musicianship to a fault in the equipment. If the source is poor, then there is no preamp or recording device that will make it better.
I have three categories of musicians:

1. those who know how to listen to a recording, and who are (unfortunately) amazed that a recording can sound similar to how they actually sound.
2. those who do not care and are just happy to be recorded (which includes some big names)
3. those who do not know how to listen to a recording. This happens very rarely, and would imply there is some truth to HelenaBzg's provocative statement.

Actually there is a 4th: some musicians (sometimes brilliant) want their recorded sound completely different & artificial, as if they embrace the fact that recording is another medium. Probably the most difficult to record.

As for the SX-R4+ samples, they would not make me choose it over my F8 just yet. I concur with Earcatcher. I cannot listen more than a couple of seconds to them, maybe its just soundcloud doing funny stuff, I do not know. Seems something got boosted way too much way up high.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #68
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
I don't own a Sonosax recorder, so this is a bit OT, but listening to both emenelton's and earcatcher's samples is an interesting exercise. For me, it points to different aesthetic and technical choices. The Schubert is rollicking and exciting and the technical production is too - a Decca tree, spaced pairs as flankers, a ribbon on the tympani, some 4-point edits, and probably some EQ, time/phase adjustment...a BIG recording in all senses. Well done. But I do hear some problems on the high strings, and the piccolo, very obviously. The Beethoven is typically dark (well, to my taste anyway) but the different parts are alive and well defined in earcatcher's recording, even with the pleasantly reverberant acoustic; everything is there in the soup without too much salt or pepper and I can taste the different vegetables. This is a very 'pure' recording, both tonally and with regard to the foibles of gut strings and a student orchestra. Thank you to both of the "E's" for posting these samples.

Full disclosure: I almost always prefer coincident and near-coincident recordings to those using spaced omnis...the endless debate continues.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Why attempt to judge a sophisticated Sonosax preamp / converter on the basis of an unknown mix on a data reduced listening platform?

The conclusions here are odd.
This especially after known posters have written that the equipment is super clean and neutral.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
“If/then” (Nice try).
Sorry, but your conclusions about poor sound from Schoeps fall on deaf ears here. Your opinions are on deep discount. Your conclusion is an aberration; a fever dream.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I have three categories of musicians:

1. those who know how to listen to a recording, and who are (unfortunately) amazed that a recording can sound similar to how they actually sound.
2. those who do not care and are just happy to be recorded (which includes some big names)
3. those who do not know how to listen to a recording. This happens very rarely, and would imply there is some truth to HelenaBzg's provocative statement.

Actually there is a 4th: some musicians (sometimes brilliant) want their recorded sound completely different & artificial, as if they embrace the fact that recording is another medium. Probably the most difficult to record.

As for the SX-R4+ samples, they would not make me choose it over my F8 just yet. I concur with Earcatcher. I cannot listen more than a couple of seconds to them, maybe its just soundcloud doing funny stuff, I do not know. Seems something got boosted way too much way up high.
I'm sure there are as many types of musicians as there are musicians. Some are more reasonable and knowledgeable about recordings than others. Some are even confused that an instrument sounds different in a recording than it does 6 inches away from their ears. Some want their recording in a dry room to sound like their favorite group in a gothic era cathedral.

There are many problems with judging quality of equipment based on the recordings on gearslutz as Plush said. We don't know what the recordist did in production or post, what the environment of the recording was, or what the group actually sounded like. I wasn't a fan of either posted recording here for different reasons, but I don't blame the equipment. It could have been a bad room, weak musicians, or simply questionable choices of the engineers.

If we hear 10 different recordings using the same equipment from several different engineers and start to hear the same qualities in each, then we start getting an idea of the equipment's sound. Or, we can rent or borrow a review copy of the equipment and see how it works for ourselves.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #72
Lives for gear
 

I pulled the two files

Last edited by emenelton; 23rd March 2019 at 03:25 AM..
Old 22nd March 2019
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Still can’t evaluate anything because we were not there. We never heard the orchestra or the room with our ears. There is no reference point.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Still can’t evaluate anything because we were not there. We never heard the orchestra or the room with our ears. There is no reference point.
existentially you are accurate ,

The two clips do show the same performance though
one of the AD8+ convertors
two of the km 133 d which are not SONOSAX but digital direct
Old 22nd March 2019
  #75
Lives for gear
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
I much prefer just the tree to any other sample you've posted in this thread Emenelton. I don't like the outrigger sound here and I don't think it adds anything more than it takes away. It would be amazing to just hear the two back omnis of the tree in a short sample, we would perhaps get closer to hearing the sonosax sound.
I hear coherency issues that all Decca tree recordings have for me, in that the two back omnis are too far spaced and the front one just adds issues without solving the back problems, two omnis/wide cardioids probably could resolve most of the detail and the room could be derived in other ways...
The sonosax r4+ is an excellent recorder with a deep, detailed and smooth sound and incredible mid detail. Beautiful, I would highly recommend trying one at home instead of playing the guessing game of what part of a recording is about the AD aha. Much better than a 744T.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by whippoorwill View Post
I much prefer just the tree to any other sample you've posted in this thread Emenelton. I don't like the outrigger sound here and I don't think it adds anything more than it takes away. It would be amazing to just hear the two back omnis of the tree in a short sample, we would perhaps get closer to hearing the sonosax sound.
I hear coherency issues that all Decca tree recordings have for me, in that the two back omnis are too far spaced and the front one just adds issues without solving the back problems, two omnis/wide cardioids probably could resolve most of the detail and the room could be derived in other ways...
The sonosax r4+ is an excellent recorder with a deep, detailed and smooth sound and incredible mid detail. Beautiful, I would highly recommend trying one at home instead of playing the guessing game of what part of a recording is about the AD aha. Much better than a 744T.
The spacing is 52"(26”x2) 40 degree out , the mics are pointing out at the middle on the vn/celli fields which I did not like but chose to not drop the tree to change.

Last edited by emenelton; 23rd March 2019 at 02:08 AM..
Old 22nd March 2019
  #77
Lives for gear
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by emenelton View Post
The spacing is 52" 40 degree out , the mics are pointing out at the middle on the vn/celli fields which I did not like but chose to not drop the tree to change.
I honestly would more readily use spacings closer to 5.2"! 52cm even is too wide for me and that angling is also largely unnecessary IMO. But this isn't really a thread about debating the decca tree. Keep experimenting!
Try a 7" spacing pair of omnis/wide cards, 0-10degrees splay (keeping the capsule distance the same).
Old 22nd March 2019
  #78
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

I'm here at AES Dublin, drooling over the Sonosax and having nice conversations with Jacques Sax.
Old 22nd March 2019
  #79
Lives for gear
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I'm here at AES Dublin, drooling over the Sonosax and having nice conversations with Jacques Sax.
Has the M2D2 shown up?
Old 22nd March 2019
  #80
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by whippoorwill View Post
Has the M2D2 shown up?
Yes
Old 23rd March 2019
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Yuuuuuuuuuuuge
Old 23rd March 2019
  #82
AB3
Lives for gear
 

Nice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I'm here at AES Dublin, drooling over the Sonosax and having nice conversations with Jacques Sax.
Old 23rd March 2019
  #83
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Sorry, but your conclusions about poor sound from Schoeps fall on deaf ears here. Your opinions are on deep discount. Your conclusion is an aberration; a fever dream.
Sorry you can’t hear it.
Old 23rd March 2019
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
Sorry you can’t hear it.
HelenaBgz,

I agree with your observation about the Schoeps euphoric character vs the others, it just that you extrapolated the conclusion much too far. Those mics are used all the time for that very purpose.

Sincerely
Old 23rd March 2019
  #85
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
“If/then” (Nice try).
It's a proven fact that holders of Masters and PhD degrees in Music (from approved universities) automatically have their hearing acuity range extended to the Nyquist cutoff frequency for 24/192 recordings
Old 23rd March 2019
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emenelton View Post
Then what degree past that would allow you to hear the benefits of DSD? Maybe just an on-line certificate that Sony offers
The degree that enables you to explain why there is no difference between DSD and 16 bit 44K in this graph.
Attached Thumbnails
Has anyone tried the Sonosax SX-R4+ yet ?-77315e60-6c48-4bf1-a058-da61cafda662.png  
Old 23rd March 2019
  #87
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emenelton View Post
HelenaBgz,

I agree with your observation about the Schoeps euphoric character vs the others, it just that you extrapolated the conclusion much too far. Those mics are used all the time for that very purpose.

Sincerely
You do realize that everyone here in acting psychotic over a benign comment about myself. #hatemuch #nomoredogstokick I have a feeling someone lost a gig, is divorced over this conduct versus academic. Get your consensus on, I just block you and can’t read your attempt to super glue your self contempt onto someone else.
Old 23rd March 2019
  #88
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
You do realize that everyone here in acting psychotic over a benign comment about myself. #hatemuch #nomoredogstokick I have a feeling someone lost a gig, is divorced over this conduct versus academic. Get your consensus on, I just block you and can’t read your attempt to super glue your self contempt onto someone else.
Have you considered the possibility that none of your suppositions (about adverse life and career events being the drivers) are correct...and that it's simply humour in the face of a (yes, probably benign) stated absurdity...and nothing more than that ? I feel a distinct lack of witty VST hashtags in my plugin collection

Blocking is probably a good idea..as it will increase the apparent signal/noise ratio in your highly opinionated echo chamber, as you clearly have a very low tolerance for any dissenting views to your own
Old 23rd March 2019
  #89
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
The degree that enables you to explain why there is no difference between DSD and 16 bit 44K in this graph.
Well DSD has 64 times the sample rate of 16/44, records the stream of pulses directly, rather than the cruder step increments, and can store that, and play it back directly. No anti-aliasing filters needed, and ostensibly much better dynamic range and lower noise, meaning better-quality sound ? Not that 2 simple diagrams are going to tell you all that, however...
Old 23rd March 2019
  #90
I’ll throw in my .02c, as someone with a performance degree (and background), and also a decade or so of working in professional and academic recording worlds, working on mainly acoustic music recording with many of the best tools available;

I find it very difficult to make blanket statements like these, that “X” is NEVER accurate, when one can think of so many recordings out there that were done with “X” and are, by any measure, “accurate”. Your experience is certainly valid, but maybe your skill is what you might question when so many others seem to have good luck with that tool?

As it pertains to my credentials, I’ve found that over the years my pickiness for gear choice has actually fallen away, as I’ve been exposed to more examples of recordings that I quite like and engineers that I admire, using different tools and techniques than I. I’ll provably stick to a certain crop of tools because they are what I am most familiar and adept with, but I think it’s naive to write entire brands off when there are engineers out there who’ve built entire discographies (often award-winning) on that same microphone brand (or mixer, converter, etc).

I’m not saying we can’t have opinions, to the contrary it’s important to be able to objectively analyze the results we get from different tools in order to advance our professional skills, and forming opinions is part of that. I’m just saying that for me, personally, I’ve found that as soon as I’ve sworn something off or made a generalized opinion about some piece of kit is often the moment I hear a great recording example that goes against my preconceived notion and renders it void. Ive found it a better use of my time and energy to keep an open mind (especially in public ;-)

Making a statement like “Schoeps is never accurate” given the number of incredible and “realistic” recordings made with that microphone brand and the number of legendary engineers who’ve basically hung their hat on their reliability and sound, is going to poke people the wrong way, and trying to back up that supposition with your credentials is... I mean, cmon, turn the lens around, you wouldn’t find that funny were the roles reversed?

As with most things in my life, I find I have the greatest respect for those who keep an open mind and remain curious in life, not because they exhibit those traits arbitrarily, but because a commitment to lifelong learning leads to lifelong growth and improvement, as opposed to obstinate stagnation, which seems to affect much of humanity.




Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenaBzg View Post
Regarding Schoeps, I record orchestras and wind bands and choirs. On solo instruments, I think Schoeps are smooth. In orchestral recordings everything is muddied and quashed. I can’t hear definition, identify clarity of instruments, parts and timbres. I have a bachelors in music and performance so I can hear everything and know the natural sounds from the instrument and it’s effects by room and hall. Schoeps is never accurate. It has a signature that gives a false representation that many find pleasing. It’s like a photo app filter that beautifies the subject. DPA is like a raw photo with no processing. Not always what one wants. .

Last edited by king2070lplaya; 23rd March 2019 at 06:56 PM..
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump