1000 dollar mics vs 100 dollar mics

S

SAMTheGreat

New member
can someone explain the reason why engineers would rather go with the higher ranger of mics ,

i know response has part to do with with it

but what are some other reasons:confused::confused::confused:
 
In the majority of cases....ahhh....they just sound better. :)

You can find inexpensive mics that sound pretty good, and in some case are the right tonal choice for a specific task....but there's going to be differences in build quality, components, consistency from mic to mic, and most of the time a mic has some sort of "magic" associated with it (whatever that is).....it usually ends up being a higher end mic, especially for critical recording.
Not to mention....longterm investment value. High-end mics often appreciate, and most certainly hold their value.
 
A cheap mic can record the full spectrum of human hearing, but there's so much more to it. Good microphones can do a range of other things, such as the overall detail is cleaner and clearer. Some provide a beautiful high end that bring out harmonics in the upper frequency ranges, some record the body of acoustic instruments. There are many reasons to use good microphones, which can go from 1000.00 to 5000.00 to 10,000.00 each.
 
The more expensive mics sound better. Period.

Trouble is though that the differences aren't linear. A $200 mic isn't twice as good as a $100 mic....and a $2000 mic certainly isn't 20 times as good. The differences can be pretty subtle but there nonetheless. It's worth saying that, in a home situation, I'd probably put most of that extra money into acoustic treatment and monitoring rather than a better mic (at least once you hit a certain level--I'd want better than the typical $100 mic).

When you do recording for a living these subtle differences in microphone can make the difference--but generally only if the rest of your studio is equally good.
 
95% of the cost makes up the last 5% of the value. or something like that. That's why a mid-priced product is always the best bargain.
 
Chili said:
95% of the cost makes up the last 5% of the value. or something like that. That's why a mid-priced product is always the best bargain.
Click to expand...

At some point, with most high end products of any type you're paying a portion of the cost of the units that are QC rejected before they put out the one unit that does pass. It's an indirect cost that not many people consider.
 
How is this a "Mixing Techniques" question?

Expensive mics generally sound better, but there are almost as many exceptions to the rule as there are examples of it. You might look better in an off the rack suit that happens to fit you than in an Armani tailored for someone else.
 
SAMTheGreat said:
can someone explain the reason why engineers would rather go with the higher ranger of mics ,

i know response has part to do with with it

but what are some other reasons:confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter.

Each voice has its own characteristics and one mic will benefit a voice but some others will make it sound worse.

Why do engineers have a great variety of mics? Cause they can!
Spending most of the time to find the best mic for each voice is halfway the "battle" and they know that.

So having a wide range of mics help them to experiment and find the best for each voice during recording.

P.S: In many cases more expensive mics do sound better, but it's really not something to swear on. Always experiment and spend time on the source.
 
SAMTheGreat said:
can someone explain the reason why engineers would rather go with the higher ranger of mics
Click to expand...

I'll be the lone dissenting voice. :D

20+ years ago you really did have to pay a lot for a good microphone. These days with most audio gear made in Asia, you can get very high quality for much less money. One good example is the budget microphones from Audio Technica. Now, this is not to say that every cheap microphone is as good as a Neumann or Sennheiser. Build quality and reliability are also a factor. But using a good quality $100 microphone from a reputable manufacturer will never prevent your recordings from sounding fully professional.

--Ethan
 
Ethan Winer said:
One good example is the budget microphones from Audio Technica.
Click to expand...

So...are you saying that using one of their high-end mics like the 4050, 4060 or their newest 5040 ($3000) will not provide any significant improvement to the signal capture quality compared to their budget mics?

Ethan Winer said:
Now, this is not to say that every cheap microphone is as good as a Neumann or Sennheiser.
Click to expand...

Right, and that's the the real point of the OP's questions....why engineers would rather use them over the budget stuff...
...and the answer is, because they are not as good as the Neumann or Sennheiser, etc, etc. :)

There's always going to be situations where a $100 budget mic works out well in a particular situation....but I think the question was more about the overall, global differences and reasons for using expensive mics VS budget mics.
 
Expensive mics don't sound better, but they kind of 'flatter' certain sound sources - it's a bit like an expensive car. Is a Range Rover better than a Fiat Panda? If you need to go off road, or drive down a motorway at 100mph, then yep - it's better. If you're keen on being green, like low car tax prices and want something easy to park when you go shopping, and don't wish to put loads of fuel in - then the Range Rover might be a poorer choice. I know my mics very well, and do not always use the most expensive - I listen first, then pick what will do the job best. I do quite a few recordings for one female singer and always use one particular mic because it suits her voice. On drums I use budget mics on toms because they sound better, but I don't record snare drums with SM57s I use live, I use a AKG451 condenser on lightweight music (Jazz, big band etc). I have a stereo pair of mics I use on classical piano, and a quite expensive ribbon that I never use.

If you had £1500 to spend, there's no way I'd buy one expensive mic. If I see a pair of older Oktava 309s for sale - I'll buy them, ignoring all the hype over modified ones. I have two, and another two of those would be very handy! (Ugly things, of course, but lovely sounding on voices).
 
rob aylestone said:
Expensive mics don't sound better, but they kind of 'flatter' certain sound sources)....
Click to expand...

Well....that kinda argues in favor of them, doesn't it? ;)

Sure, every car with 4 wheels and an engine will usually get you from point A to B....but would you really rather do it in a Fiat Panda or a Range Rover, and tell my honestly that you wouldn't be able to tell the quality differences between the two vehicles. :D

Don't get me wrong, I use a cheap Cascade Fat Head or an old AKG D1000E basic/cheap dynamic for a lot of my guitar/cab recordings.....but when I do other things, I break out the more expensive mics, because they simply sound better for critical recording.

This notion that we never ever need anything that would be considered "expensive" or "high-end" when recording, is a silly notion, often pushed entirely on home rec forums, where budgets are everything.
The real answers is that if your going to do a lot of serious recordings with a lot of variety, you need a variety of gear, and that can be both inexpensive and expensive gear, low-end and high-end stuff.
In a typical pro recording setting, you're not going to get by with 2-3 $100 mics and a $100 interface, or whatever.
 
I do agree - If I could afford the Range Rover, I'd buy one because it would be very nice. If you just need to go to the supermarket, do you need the Range Rover. If you had something like a U87, you probably would NOT use it on everything, because what might flatter one source could make something else sound muddy and dark. I personally don;t like what they sound like on steel strung acoustics with light gauge strings - you end up with quite savage eq trying to make the strings sing. Anywhere near the sound hole just booms away. Through choice on that kind of guitar, I'd want maybe a 451, a 414, or one of my brighter Chinese mics - not one of the mellow ones. I've no problem with using the best mic I have available, but it's 'best' for the job in hand, which seems to change so much.
 
rob aylestone said:
If you just need to go to the supermarket, do you need the Range Rover.
Click to expand...

I would take the Fiat, and save the Ranger Rover for when the ride really mattered. :)
Not having a Range Rover, but then arguing that the Fiat is "as good"....isn't much of an argument.

Kinda the same thing with budget and expensive mics...or any other low budet VS high budget audio gear.
 
Ethan Winer said:
I'll be the lone dissenting voice. :D

20+ years ago you really did have to pay a lot for a good microphone. These days with most audio gear made in Asia, you can get very high quality for much less money. One good example is the budget microphones from Audio Technica. Now, this is not to say that every cheap microphone is as good as a Neumann or Sennheiser. Build quality and reliability are also a factor. But using a good quality $100 microphone from a reputable manufacturer will never prevent your recordings from sounding fully professional.

--Ethan
Click to expand...

"Not preventing you from sounding professional" is not the same as "no difference". As discussed before, the differences become more and more subtle as the price goes up but there are still differences. However, particularly in a home setting, things like acoustic treatment and (dare I say) the quality of the performance generally outweigh and obscure the quality of the mics.

This isn't to say I disagree with you. I have a couple of Neuman mics at the back of the cupboard but, for the past few years have been more likely to pull out one of my sE2200a mics. While I was doing location sound, I had a Sennheiser 416 but found that the Rode NTG 1 and NTG 2 were never a problem despite being a fraction the money.

Spending thousands on a mic is one of the last things I'd recommend--but it's stretching it to imply that cheaper mics as just as good when you're in a fully pro setting.
 
miroslav said:
So...are you saying that using one of their high-end mics like the 4050, 4060 or their newest 5040 ($3000) will not provide any significant improvement to the signal capture quality compared to their budget mics?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. There are literally hundreds of microphone brands and models out there, and I've used less than one percent of them. I imagine most people also have not heard more than a tiny sampling of all available microphones. Even if someone has used 100 different microphones at one time or another, it's very unlikely they were compared properly with nothing changing except the microphone.

--Ethan
 
rob aylestone said:
Expensive mics don't sound better, but they kind of 'flatter' certain sound sources
Click to expand...

Lots of affordable microphones have a "presence boost" to exaggerate highs and sound crisper and clearer etc. Think about it: What can one microphone offer that another doesn't? The only thing I can think of is a specific frequency response, and possibly intentional distortion which most people would rather avoid. Yes, some microphones have more or less proximity effect, but that too is a simple frequency response change. What's wrong with using EQ to get the sound you want?

Of course, some mics are limited at the frequency extremes. No amount of EQ will get you usable output at 15 KHz from a cheap dynamic microphone. But assuming a competent condenser microphone with a large or small diaphragm as appropriate, I'd think EQ would be all you need to make something like an Audio Technica 2020 sound like a vintage U47. What else is there?

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top