Zoom F8 vs Sound Devices 688: Hands-On Sound Comparison

The Zoom F8 offers many of the features that sound pros are looking for in a field recorder: 10 track recording, 8 XLR/TRS inputs, timecode support, and a lot more; but at a radically low price point. Let's hear how its recordings compare to those made on a Sound Devices 688.
Examples:
bit.ly/SoundDev...
bit.ly/ZoomF8Ex...
Shop B&H:
bit.ly/ZoomF8Mu...

[@ProjectOverseer]

I have the F8 and recently the F8n ... Built like tanks metal construction, and absolutely superb sound quality. For film its very usable, and for audiophile recordings its truly amazing. I've used mic's costing twice the price of the F8 and never felt compromised.

[@freethinksman4393]

I grabbed the clip and brought it into Pro Tools to see how close I could match the two sounds. The 688 clearly sounds better natively. I added +1.6 db @ 126Hz, +.7db @ 226Hz, -1.2 dB @ 2400 Hz, and a shelf EQ -.2 db @7400. Except for the shelf which was very gentle, all the other EQ curves had very broad Q. I used the Sonnox Oxford EQ (my go-to EQ for VO stuff) and matched it to the point where I can't reliably tell the difference. I just bought an F8 and I'll spend some time tweaking the EQ once I get it, save it as a preset, and know that I can cut dialogue between a 688 and our new F8 whenever we need to. Unless you *really* need the few distinct advantages on the 688 (i.e.: confidence monitoring from the camera return), this is a no brainer. Buy the F8.

[@richardcorfield9926]

I wondered how much the difference I heard was down to different implementation of the high pass filter. Listening only on KZbin so far though. It sounded different, but in the bassier end.

[@phpn99]

Those who say the Sound Devices is expensive, weren't around in the days of Nagra recorders.

[@TrueToad]

I was trying to do a side by side listen using the SoundCloud examples with two tabs opened one for the F8 and the other for the Sound Devices. After a few toggles between tabs I forgot which was which - and frankly I can discern very little difference. In my bag I have a 702 and 302 and recently ordered a Zoom F8: I was tempted to go with the 633, but instead I took the left over funds from the F8 purchase and bought a new Schoeps CMIT Microphone. I feel the microphone is a better investment rather than dropping 2K more for a miniscule difference in a recorder. I use the Bowers Wilkins P7 headphones.

[@perfectx7962]

I thought the Sound Devices was smoother producing an overall more even tone less bright than the f8. It sounded slightly better to me just not $5000 better. If it were a matter of a few hundred dollars I could see saving for the Sound Devices. I'd personally go for the F8 and use the extra 5000 some excellent microphones.

[@WideOpenChange]

And eq in post, voilà.

[@theworksfilms]

The Zoom sounds a bit more aggressive, the SD rendered his voice really smooth. It seems like you can hear more of the room in the Zoom's recording too.

[@manusonidista7968]

Very little differences? Sound from 688 sounds much better, but I think the 100Hz low cut is got somethings to do with this (no need to say the low cut on the sound devices is better). I would do the test only with the 80Hz low cut or even without the low cut at all to really hear how just the preamps sound. Thank you for the video. Listening with Sony MDR-7506

[@Matthew_Raymond]

Better yet, record using a microphone with a built-in or modular high-pass filter.

[@Moneypizzle]

I think the High Pass Filter is causing the extra chest mid rangy sound everybody is talking about. Surely the HPF slopes are not exactly identical on the SD vs F8... so maybe not the best way to make an honest judgement. Anyhow: thanks for the comparison. Impressive F8!

[@VoicesofMusic]

Probably is the filter, as you say.

[@kevinvicks5349]

1:43 Zoom F8 2:06 Sound Devices 688

[@TomasVillegas]

From KZbin there's very little difference. Listening using my HD 25-1 II and my Apogee Duet. Awesome comparison, y'all sound do something like this with the Sony A7R II and A7S II.

[@greyfoxzero]

+Tomas Villegas I wish everyone commenting here would say what their listening through like you did.

[@davidp158]

The F8 sounds very acceptable, but the SD 688 is clearly fuller sounding; more low end, fuller midrange and none of the harsh high midrange that I hear with the F8. I listened to a F8 with headphones, and the headphone amp was disappointing. For serious audio, a better headphone amp (like those in SD products) is highly recommended.

[@waynewayne2870]

Well... don't forget the SD 688 retails for $6,000! The Zoom f8 is avail now for $750 new and compares pretty well in many ways. Many starting out can do $750 and but not 6K :-).

[@charlienyc1]

And Zoom released an F8n with a better headphone amp.

[@YoungBlaze]

how did you mic up the lav, was it wireless?

[@marctrainor5595]

Rob, your a good reviewer in my opinion, and this review is no exception. Aside from your clear and concise review, I'm sure excited about these units. I have the Zoom H6, and I like it a lot. I know the F8 has more inputs and more stuff, which I probably don't need right now, but what a great little unit. I really feel I could hear a difference between the two units, but heck, for the price difference, I darn well should. To me the sound devices sounded bigger, kind of more in your face, but still very clear, but, the F8 sounded pretty darn decent, and for the price difference, I'd say it's a real contender for anyone, maybe other than a top flight pro sound man who just has to have the "extra sound quality", and the extra reliability of the sound device, but the Zoom looks pretty durable. Marc Trainor.

[@dhenrique81]

Such a great overview!

[@philippeschultz2660]

Great review Rob ! Thanks a lot, Phil (France)

[@stevenrix7277]

+Philippe Schultz De rien ^_^

[@SpudzMcKenzy]

At the same recording settings there is a subtle difference in recording quality between the F8 and 688, but for beginner to semi-professional, I feel, it's going to be a great deal for most film production budgets.

[@PeteWoronowski]

Great review with valuable information. Thank you Rob! Cheers, Pete

[@Cesarser004]

Did YT change their audio bitrate? Last I checked they were rendering their videos @128kbps, but if so that's great! Very nice video btw. Really like the Zoom family of recorders.

[@RRivesNYC]

+Cesar Serrano Hi Cesar. Sorry for the confusion. I was actually referring to the audio quality of the file that we export out of our editing software. KZbin does compress the audio even further for streaming. Thanks for watching.

[@BandH]

+Cesar Serrano In most cases, the audio heard while watching a KZbin video is approximately 126 kbps AAC (MPEG-4 audio in an M4A container). Please contact us via e-mail if you have additional questions: [e-mail] >Mark

[@CameronGallagher96]

Awesome video! I love even just learning about the mic too! Awesome stuff!

[@ChrisPFuchs]

I'd like an example without the Roll-Off engaged. The Sound Devices sounds better, but I'm wondering if the High Pass filter has a different roll off on the F8, which is making it sound lacking in the lows in comparison.

[@corradoriccomini4474]

they sound pretty different to my hears , it may be the digital low cut but the bottom end of the zoom is absent and that's what counts when you're listening back from a theatres's system . So I would say the zoom is good as eng device itself and could be used as a recorder for features if paired with some top notch pre-limiter-filtering

[@RyonRykal]

Very good video and comparison! Greetings from a german audio fanboy!

[@brendonmoeller]

very informative video! thank you B&H!

[@christian.kaufmann]

such comparisons using a two way mic splitter don't offer much value, since the splitters outputs aren't created equal. Can you disclose which device got the direct mic connection and which one got the transformer-isolated output? For future reference it is best practice record separate performances directly into each device, or, use a 3-way mic splitter and feed equally transformer-colored signals into each device.

[@r-play790]

Listening on RP10-3's and there's a clear difference in the SD recorder. Has noticeably more mid-range presence.

[@av3nger3]

I hear that too

[@WideOpenChange]

F8: What additional portable equipment do I need to get this to interface with my iPad in a way that I can record electric guitar straight-in (avoiding a traditional guitar amp), dry, and listen to it on headphones (real time)? As a track is being laid down in my iPad app/DAW; I'm seeing the waveform forming on my iPad. Allowing me to select different effects in an iPad app/program so that I can hear them (wet) real-time. Basically, how do I get this to interface with an electric guitar?

[@BandH]

The F8 has no Low-Z (low impedance) inputs for guitar. Although a guitar could be connected to the combi connector (switch to LINE), the gain would need to be cranked way up, introducing lots of unwanted noise into your recording. A workaround might be to use a small mixer that offers Low-Z inputs (guitar) between your guitar and the F8. Then you could LINE OUT from the mixer to the 8's* Line IN without the noise issue. The F8 will interface easily with a Mac via USB, and an iPad using the Zoom Bluetooth iOS app: One of the cool and unique features of the Zoom F8 is its Bluetooth iOS only app. Using a Bluetooth 4.0 capable iOS device you can essentially do all of the things you could do on the recorder, as well as use the mixing interface with virtual linear faders. This is currently the fastest / best way to do any actual live mixing with the F8. To use this feature, aside from downloading the iOS app, you must also download the Bluetooth add-on software from the Zoom website and install it on the F8. >Mark

[@JonnyDurango]

Listening in a treated control room on Amphion One18's. They are both excellent, but the Sound Devices sounds noticeably (in this environment) warmer and cleaner. The Zoom preamps sound every so slightly nasal/harsh in comparison. It's not something you'd ever notice outside a well-done side-by-side comparison like this, which speaks volumes for the quality of the Zoom, especially considering it costs a fraction of the SD and actually outperforms the SD in some ways. By the way, that Schoeps sounds absolutely gorgeous! Love it! Thanks for the great video and well done, scientific comparison!

[@GoemonLovesFujiko]

I passively listened and didn’t notice a difference. Depending on who your audience is - this is important. Will an audience notice warmth or whatever other adjective one seems to have over the other? Probably not. Especially after post processing and mixing with other elements etc. the zoom looks much lighter and easier to manage. Also the sound devices- which I love- have touch screens- which I don’t love.

[@4sknProductions]

can you do an f8 vs tascam dr701d next?

[@SeanPaulsenMusic]

In regards to sonic quality, would it make sense to use a Shure FP-33 going into this device? I've heard the engineers that designed Shure's FP-33 went on to create Sound Devices. I recently came into an FP33 so I wouldn't have to buy one... How much better are the preamps in the FP-33 than the Zoom? (From this test on my Dynaudio nearfields, SD is better.)

[@BandH]

+SeanPaulsenMusic True, SOUND Devices was founded by former SHURE engineers. I would keep the signal chain of the Zoom F8 simple and connect your mics directly without the additional mixer. The results should be pristne with a very clean noise floor as well. Watch your mic placements and gain levels! >Mark

[@tikibongo99]

The best test is to record live music. Try it & show us the results.

[@puffoley24]

The difference quite audible for me.The price is quite different as well :) . I would be interested for a comparison without lowcut. Nice video anyway

[@MikeAndersonSounds]

Nice, the SD definitely has a fuller sound, but it's pretty subtle, and could very easily be fixed with EQ in post (which is going to happen anyway). Honestly, I don't think the SD is worth the extra $3000 or so... Definitely impressed by the F8

[@lorenzomorganjr.6585]

+MikeAndersonSounds I agree with the reference to the sound being fixed with an EQ in post production (which is going to happen anyway). I found myself asking yet telling myself the same point of reference about post production and how very minor subtleties can be fixed (in post production) that may exist between a very good- and great- piece(s) of audio-equipment.

[@ikonmediafilms]

+MikeAndersonSounds ah mean if you consider the fidelity then you can process the files and they would be able to take a beating. So its not like you wouldn't record it properly in production.. just a lil EQ/Compression here and there and you good.

[@lorenzomorganjr.6585]

Thanks, iKon Media. I'm so competitive and innerly-driven with tons of talent and proven skill and resources that I want my film projects to be mimic the million dollar film quality at a fraction of the million dollar film budget cost because I feel a lot of the film projects are mediocre at best and have too much satire (in writing quality, plot quality, etc...which makes the newer films after around 2009 very horrible). As such, excellent sound and a superb picture with astounding color grading is the main focus of my current research and I feel that I can get those previously mentioned (great) features with the Zoom F8 and the new Devinci Resolve 12.5 (which now features Fusion 8) and all the plug-in & other features of Pro Tools 10/12 in post-production (along with Sennheiser or Rode NTG 3 -shotgun mics and the Sanken COS-11D lavalier mics and the great film-like picture that the Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K produces with 13 stops of dynamic range & great low light capabilities on Canon Cine Prime lenses while I'll be using the RAW shooting-mode over the PRO-RES shooting-mode because of the color-grading versatility that RAW provides). So, since my writing ability (i.e., storytelling, script-writing, etc.), production skills, creativity, organizational skills, and an excellent eye for detail are superbly "off-the-rector-scale", a great picture with excellent color grading to match and superb audio is my main focus. I got something to prove to these @#!%&^!(my bad...I just get a little excited), because I don't take my talent and skills for granted, and I always hear dudes "bad-mouth" certain equipment. Similar, to a basketball analogy. The "bad-mouthers" are recreational basketball players with a Wilson x Connected Indoor Basketball, wearing the Rare China Exclusive Nike Air Jordan XIII AJ 13 Gs and an Under Armor HeatGear shirt. And I am "Steph Curry" with a MacGregor X500 from Wal-Mart, wearing Starburys from Starter and a plain white Fruit of the Looms t-shirt. Now if you know who the NBA Star Steph Curry is and his great shooting-ability, then an intelligent person would know that its not the basketball or sneakers that Steph Curry wears that makes his excellent marksmanship so profound...its the man doing the shooting and putting in the work. Who do you think wins a three-point shootout consistently...the everyday recreational basketball player or Steph Curry? LOL (And I am Steph Curry with my god-driven and hard-worked abilities, when it pertains to cinematography, storytelling, etc.)

[@MrHamit64]

Though perhaps an more apt demo would be an Audio Technica AT 8022 as I have this mike. Saddly I've not heard this mike on an SD recorder as the gentleman who demoed the 744T doesn't have it or the 825 that came before it.

[@Drulian]

Nice overview, and that price point is amazeballs. However I worry that the F8's HPF is a digital filter, AFTER the analog signal has been captured. That means the F8 is at risk of sending an overdriven/unlimited analog signal to the AD converter before the HPF can do anything about it. For field recording, this can be a source of anxiety.

[@greyfoxzero]

+Dave Horn There are a few things to consider, the F8 has slightly more headroom than most Sound Devices. Sound Devices has better limiters. The F8 allows safety tracks which would give you a backup channel at a lower gain and this is in the analog domain. This does sacrifice a channel for every one you safety up to 4. If your looking for a cheaper 744t alternative then its great, but it isn't better than a 633 if you consider the return, the limiters, AES, etc. Think of it like a 744t with 633 like qualities. I think its a great unit for a Boom and 3 lav setup, with safety on all tracks.

[@sethholston4142]

The Sound Devices has a familiar sound to it. The Zoom sounds good in its own right.

[@stefanpersson1093]

As far as I'm aware SoundCloud compresses audio at 128 kbps - did you make the WAV-files available somewhere? Thanks for the video!

[@BandH]

The .WAV files are not available. The offered SounCloud links are provided as examples only. >Mark

[@huntingtonuniversityarizon696]

No need for expensive Hirose! Here is our review on how we're powering our ZOOM F8 with an affordable USB to DC (with 12v regulator) cable, and a $20 Anker cell phone battery: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJCcmZemdtWMqdU

[@dugsbugs1]

The Zoom definitely has less bottom end. It's a shame they didn't put the inputs on the back but I guess it's designed to stand up.

[@edward2359]

I like the zoom,.... however its a harsh sound.... 'jitter?'-is high, and the pre-amps leave out the fat in the low mid. If one can hear this on one track on low quality audio on you tube..... can you imagine. Production BG's, 5 dialog tracks,... and more... all mixing at the same time during the dub? It adds up in the mix.

[@johnmellor932]

Both are good. Two different flavours rather than one being worse than the other. But I did prefer the SD, just had the edge over the Zoom. But I'd happily work with the Zoom. But I front end my tascam 701D with an FP33 mixer which supes up the sound.

[@RickNance]

The difference isn't subtle. All about budget I guess. The price difference is a few pretty good mics. If you were running a business and paying a business loan you'd have to get the Sound Devices for the extra features anyway. That'd be probably 2 or 3 jobs a year you could take.

[@pierluigidinardodimaio3708]

I have read that it is not possible to connect external preamps. it is true ?

[@BandH]

That is correct. An extenal microphone preamplifier may not be connected to the Zoom F8. >Mark

[@flunkspagnargel]

It's the Lowcut that sounds bad on the F8. Don't use it and everything sounds good (set it in post or on the mic) thank me later

[@LucianoDonato]

Impossible for me to differentiate on from another when using the splitter

[@lorenzomorganjr.6585]

Can a superb post production enhance the Zoom F8's difference of sound (compared to the SDs) to produce the feature-film sound quality of SDs? (Research purposes)

[@BandH]

+Lorenzo Morgan Jr. Almost without exception, Sound Devices is the choice of audio film engineers. Zoom is offering an excellent product for a value price, however But it is not a fair comparison when one considers the overall build quality and robustness of a Sound Devices product and their superb and personal support. >Mark< Mark S

[@dolovfm]

+B and H Actually i use Sonosax and many of my peers use Aaton Cantar - if you want to hear watch the Oscar's

[@ViniAndradeMusic]

Is Zoom f8n comparable to the MixPre 10T sound quality?

[@BandH]

You get what you pay for Vinicius. While the F8n is very good, Sound Devices delivers a whole next level of audio and build quality. It is a professional product marketed to working audio professionals. >Mark

[@MrHamit64]

Wow sounds pretty good. I had doubts cause I can't stand the tape like hiss of the Handy recorders and so I was afraid this would do that too. Have you all tried an Road NT1-A Mike on it? Love that mike. I'd be curious to see how it sounds here.

[@BandH]

We have not auditioned the Rode NT1-A with the new Zoom F8.. There is no reason to think that this combination should sound anything short of stellar together! >Mark

[@MrHamit64]

Ah okay. I've heard the NT1-A with the Sound Devices 744-T and this in MP3. It was super epic. So I wander how it wold sond on this. Don't get me wrong I like what I heard here, it's just I'm not familiar with the mike used here. So I'd be real curious to hear it with a mike I know and have hearde on something epic before. But I do trust that it would be epic. I'm just curious to see how epic. Though with the demos there was almost no difference. I'm not informed on the 688 mixer though. The only Sound Devices thing I really know is the 44-T recorder. Man I really love the 88-T. But this recorder heare is more reachable money wize and a bit more modern. Also it solves something I've always been bugged with the Sound Devices recorders. This can be used as an audio interface. Way too epic.

[@IIIlIIIllIl]

I am Mike.

[@damoon57]

actually I just want to record from the Piano . what would do you recommend ?

[@BandH]

I would recommend a portable audio recorder like the Zoom H5: The H5 Handy from Zoom is a compact, portable handheld digital recorder that is capable of four-track recording and features an interchangeable, modular microphone system. The recorder ships with an XY microphone capsule and is compatible with the existing line of H6 modules including the optional shotgun mic and XLR/TRS input modules. bhpho.to/2i89Nl7 >Mark

[@damoon57]

Is Zoom F8 too much for just recording from the piano?

[@IIIlIIIllIl]

@Damoon - the best piano recorder on the market is a Flight Data Recorder.

[@astralboy]

Does this work on windows server 2012 R2 in usb mode ? the website does not mention have drivers for 2012 R2, so wanted to know if there are any users out there who have used on a windows server 2012 R2

[@BandH]

+astralboy79 Please contact the manufacturer directly regarding drivers and or operation with Windows Server 2012 R2: Zoom Tel: (631) - 542-5270 Email: [e-mail] Website: www.zoom-na.com Samson (Distributor) Tel: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Website: www.samsontech.com/ >Mark

[@neilmason6550]

There is this thing on the market - it is called an equalizer. If you know how to EQ properly you will not hear any difference between these two recorders. Record as flat as possible and apply your mixing in post - the way you are supposed to do it.

[@johnmellor9577]

I've always disagreed with this take on gear. I had a similar debate when a guy claimed he could make a rode NTG1 sound like an NTG3 - thus he proclaimed spending so much cash on the latter was a waste of money. Eq alone will not make up for inferior preamps, converters and a crappy noise floor. There's a quality with higher end gear that just isn't captured with lower budget kit. You can't eq what was never captured to begin with. Eq is limited/bounded to whatever recording your using it on.

[@neilmason6550]

I can see your point when you compare equipment that are polar opposites on the quality spectrum - yes the better one will capture sound that the poorer quality one just can't. However, the Zoom F8 is not a poor quality unit. The sound devices 688 is better but you can get a very similar quality with the F8 just by using the EQ properly.

[@johnmellor9577]

+Neil Mason mmm... I could never afford a Schoeps in the foreseeable future, so I opted for the Audix SCX1HC which some consider to be the poor man's Schoeps. whilst I do indeed think the Audix sounds amazing, I'd never kid myself thinking I could turn it into a Schoeps with. few eq curves.

[@WideOpenChange]

Exactly. For the price difference I'll have to suffer doing some post eq...which is what I'd be doing anyways on either device. Also, if you know what it's "lacking"; you'll become accustom to tweaking that range in post anyway.

[@weave_of_k]

the 688 sounds noticeably better

[@gabriel101x]

There's a very slight difference between the two. But I guarantee if you showed these to any director they'd tell you they're both the same file.

[@donek179]

The ZOOM doesn't come close. Very brittle and boosted in the high mids. Just listen to the high res files.

Sound devices seemed warmer and richer, but really not that big of a difference. This was listening on my Sony MDR-7506 through a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4. I really like the tech in the Zoom. Very interesting.

[@elblopex]

I highly doubt this difference cannot be leveled with EQ in less than a minute

[@MaritimeVideographicDartmouth]

is the app on google play as well?

[@charlienyc1]

The Zoom Control app is iOS only, i'm afraid. I'm 95% Android but do have an ancient iPad running iOS 9 (the bare minimum) I can use for this. it's not good for much else anyway!

[@christopherrobleto-harvey1547]

BIG difference. The F8 sounds pretty good but when compared to the 688 you can hear how "thin" it actually is. Still, gives entry level dudes a foot in the door so to speak...

[@christopherrobleto-harvey1547]

ps. I followed the link to the BH site, listened from my mac through brand new Sony 7506 headphones.

[@AustinSpace20]

And Zaxcom's preamps sound even better then both these recorders!

[@RoadJournal]

Nice Job !!!

[@redcoalsJK]

anyone else having issues with the F8 in run away recording?

[@2inchfromtheground]

in the end the question is "How valuable is your time?" The more valuable your time is, the more you will invest money into saving time.

[@MoizAudio]

the zoom was a little more sibilant and little hotter signal

[@reptilestudios433]

I'd say better low end for the 688, but, then again, I'm not at the studio, and its a youtube clip, and I had a drink...doubts, doubts, doubts...

[@lukepercy8525]

zoom sounds compressed and louder...

[@phpn99]

If you can't hear the difference, you are either deaf or have no business working in audio

[@henrirapprecording]

Not even remotely a fair comparison.....the 688 is leagues beyond the F8 in feature set, not to mention build quality and sound quality

[@kaybhee6]

pls do real test... with MUSIC, acoustic music and singing...or, is that not possible in todays world anymore

[@sergiomax5263]

95% of humanity would not feel any diference. The another 5% are all here in the comments.

[@AustinSpace20]

You should be using 2 Schopes miss one plugged into each recorder and not using that splitter. So you have a proper test. As it will not give you a real world test since you wouldn't be running the signal threw that splitter in the field. Who knows what that thing does to the affect the sound.

[@2inchfromtheground]

Austin Moore a splitter is just a wire, and if he used two different microphone (even the same model) they can capture sound in different ways, not to mention echo, etc. He did the test the right way

[@mgraham389]

Austin Moore 9 I 8

[@VoicesofMusic]

There's something odd about the sound, maybe it is the splitter but it could be the hi pass filter. Whatever it is, it sounds like some sort of EQ. Usually you use a Y cable or a matched pair.

[@charlienyc1]

Y cables and phantom power can get tricky. They could've used an outboard phantom power supply and taken the transformer-coupled outputs into the recorders. Still I think the HP filters are what is mostly accountable for differences in the sound.

[@eug3nius]

bottom line, the sound devices is better, even when comparing youtube audio

[@MikeAndersonSounds]

+eug3nius better, yes. But is it $4,800 better? Maybe, depending on your budget. Honestly, the F8 is incredibly impressive regardless of price, throw in the price and it's pretty amazing.

[@Foouhomeyg]

+MikeAndersonSounds There are some gigs (even in my own city) I saw listed where you HAVE to have a Sound Devices 664 or 688 and 788T or 744T. Along with sometimes 4-7 Lectrosonics UCR 211/UM200C or greater. Along with a Sanken Cos-11 or Countryman B6 Lavalier mics as well. It's absolutely, absurdly ridiculous why they would expect plenty of people to have all that, but they do pay well. I saw one gig that would pay you $5700 for 6 days for having all that gear.

[@supermonkeycollider]

+Foouhomeyg Hey hey - after your own expenses getting to and from the gig, that might almost pay for one of the Sound Devices devices (unless, of course, you rented)! Wonder if the catering was any good...

[@Foouhomeyg]

+Em Wilson But what if it's within your own city? I've seen gigs that paid that much here in Las Vegas, NV. Of course also in California, New York, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Florida, Utah, Arizona, etc. I was referring to gigs within your own city/town.

[@supermonkeycollider]

I'm picking up what you're putting down - I'd be tempted to run out and buy one if I didn't have one for that kind of money. Can always rent at the local cinema supply house too. The vast majority of the gigs available in Minnesota are for between $250 and $650 a day. For that kind of money, I figure a great mic kit and the F8 could get you through most of the gigs in our market. I would probably go with a sound devices device If I were in it to win it in a major production area. I also dig the sound of the Xacom Nomad.

[@nickkruger9566]

Here come the responses from the "golden ear" crowd that somehow needs to justify spending 5k more on a product due to an industry name for status.