Re: [LAU] best cheap mic(s) for acoustic / vocal recording?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:19:11PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote: I don't buy this. What I've been reading there is not "metaphorical laymans's terms", it's plain misleading, by suggesting there is something that there isn't. Apart from basic requirements w.r.t. quality of construction and usability, and assuming there are no technical problems such as distortion and noise, the most important quality of a mic is probably consistency of frequency response in all directions. This is essential for a mic used for e.g. orchestral recording which will pick up a mix of all instruments and room ambiance, and somewhat less for one used for close miking of individual instruments. Provided that the mics you are comparing are technically OK, variations in sonic 'quality' are mostly due to usually small differences in frequency response and litte else. What else could there be ? If a mic doesn't distort (i.e. it's a linear system) the frequency and phase response tell you all there is to know. Unless there are real problems like nasty high-Q resonances etc., a bit of EQ will wipe out most differences. Instead of explaining this very basic fact, many reviewers use a pletora of subjective terms to suggest that there are some mythical qualities that can't be captured in any objective way. This is good for marketing of course, and that's why it exists. The market value of your studio goes up if you own some expensive (preferably vintage) mics supposedly having magical qualities, and if you babble about them in a public forum. Most of the 'audiophile' world has now been infested by producers of subjectivist nonsense, urging people to buy $800 mains leads since it's clear beyond any doubt that they will improve the 'transparency' of your system. It's sad to see similar non- scientific nonsense from people presenting themselfs as pros. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !