Has The Price/performance Curve Changed?

[Jack Hammer]

How has modern technology, manufacturing techniques, computers, competition, cheap labor in third world countries effected the price/performance cureve on microphones. I recently read an article by a well known rtecordist who offered that there is no reason anymore to use the high priced microphones or yesteryear.

We have seen the explosion of affordable large condenser mic's along with the digital/DAW "home" recording revolution. the nature of the reocrding business has changed, the nature of the music business has changed and the nature of the equipement has changed.

The ultimate question, does one really need to spend more than $1,000.00 on a mic t get "the" or a "modern" vocal sound.

The indicators and signals say no. What do you say and why?

 

[philboyd studge]

For the same reasons there's a Rolls Royce there will be high end microphones, but great recordings can easily be had without them.

I hope someday that 'home' recordings will someday penetrate the charts and maybe even dominate them. The death of the recording industry couldn't happen to a bunch of more deserving folks.

 

[alanhyatt]

While the price vs. performance has changed the quality of the home project studio, and I would like to think I have contributed to that, vintage and expensive mics will always be around.

If you can afford to buy them, why not use them! Sure they are better, but by how much, and just how many people are you recording each day that is asking you to have them?

Even now, I don't bring my personal mics on sessions anymore. I don't trust very many singers to handle them the way I want them handled, so we just rent them when we need them. It is easier to pick out the differences on individule tracks in a good quality studio, but even then you have to ask if the difference is worth the $4K more. What kills me is by the time you mix the session, send it to the mastering house, most or all of the subtleties are lost.

So what ever make the artist happy is what I do. Most of the time I have control over the mic I want the artist to use, but others I don't. So while I probably have want they want, I am unwilling to bring mine out. This way I keep my mics smelling fresh and in good condition so when I re-sell them I get as much as I can.

 

[chessrock]

I think what's happened is the point of diminishing returns has shifted way down.

It used to be that you could select from a number of $200 mics that sounded good . . . and a number of $400 mics that sounded like twice the mic. And so on untill you get up to the $1000 mics and beyond.

I think what's been happening is that the $400 mic may or may not sound $200 better than a $200 mic these days. The next step up from a $200 mic may very well be a $1,000 mic. But even then, will it sound $1000 better? Probably not, but it will most likely sound like enough of a step up to warrant spending the extra money on it if it's important enough to you.

The most important thing to remember, though, is that not any one mic is going to be the end-all be-all to all vocal sounds and styles. The good thing is that there's plenty of variety at the lower end of the spectrum. So it's feasible to have several different-enough sounding mics to where one of them will likely work and possibly even sound brilliant on any given occasion or sound source . . . if you're willing to try them all out on that source.

 

[littledog]

Might be interesting to see how Stephen Paul's soon to be released (I hope!) $1500 offering (via Alan Hyatt) changes the parameters of the debate...

 

[Michael Jones]

It was just a few days ago that an Elam 250 went for $13,000 on e-bay. This particular mic, and it's power supply were in pristine condition, which, I'm sure added to its apparent value. Clearly, the demand for these mics is still there.

Obviously, something of this magnitude is beyond the reach of even the serious home and semi-pro recordists.
But, if one of us were able to pit this Elam up against one of our BEST mics, would we notice a difference? Pffft! We'll probably never know! 'Cause we can't do it.

But, if a world class studio, put that Elam up in front of a world class singer, then swapped it out for one of our $1000 mics, would we notice a difference? If I gave Joshua Bell a $1000 Violin, then gave him a million dollar Stradivarius would we notice a difference? I believe we would, on both counts. And given that, there in lies the market for such high priced gear.

Has technology had an impact on the price/performance curve? Sure it has. Undeniably. It's brought us further up the curve, but the peak remains elusive.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Has technology had an impact on the price/performance curve? Sure it has. Undeniably. It's brought us further up the curve, but the peak remains elusive.

And thus it shall remain.

 

[Michael Jones]

And thus it shall remain.

Oh, without a doubt!

 

[Jack Hammer]

Good point Mr. Jones. That, I believe, in conjunction with what Alan Hyat has said and the many different and varied posts that have appeared in this forum have answered the question quite well. And so it is at least clear to me that it is entirely possible, even probable, that a good musician with a good instrument and a good set of ears will get a fine sound out of some of the more reasonably priced microphones now offered.

And, dare I say, taking Mr. Jones' and Mr. Hyat's points one step further, I do very much believe that in the end, on most pop recordings involing electronic instruments and pop style singing the extreme subtleties that are the domain of the "elusive" high end are usualy lost if they were ever there to begin with. Moreoever, they are unecessary in the overall picture. After all, I would venture to say that the vast majority of the listening populationn listens on inferior equipment such as "boom-boxes" and the like.

The real question is are we fooling ourselves into believing that such subtle high end equipment matters or, more to the point, that it matters to the public for whom we, pros, semi-pros and amatuers alike claim to make our reccordings.

 

[H2oskiphil]

Ah, the ever elusive "But will anyone hear the difference?" question...

I used to sell audio equipment in a store that specialized in entry level to mid-fi equipment. It was easy to sell a customer up from Sony to Adcom-virtually anyone can hear the difference. The hard sell was moving from mid-fi to "high" fi (read as "high price tag") equipment. The differences, as you get to that level, are a LOT more subtle, if they exist at all. I found that the key to selling $600 speaker cables was not so much the difference that they made in the sound quality, but the PERCEIVED difference in sound quality. Many times, it was not that there was a difference that I could point out, but a difference that the CUSTOMER thought he or she could hear. Call it stupidity, call it gullibility, call it "better ears than mine", or call it "audio snobbery", if you want, but these people actually heard (or thought they could hear) a difference that made the additional cost worthwhile to them, and were in a financial position that the price difference was secondary to that perceived difference.

Same deal here. There will always be people that have the $$$ to pay for what they perceive to be the absolute best ______ (mic, preamp, monitors, whatever) on the market, regardless of price. Will 99% of the public hear or appreciate the difference? Nope. But that won't keep those people from spending the money. And as long as those people exist, the market for $1000 3 meter speaker cables, $10,000 CD players, and $25,000 mics will exist, as well.

I'll simply cater to the other 99%.

If you read back through Harvey's posts, you'll find that he hasn't gone out and blown his wad on Elams and U87's. A lot of his mics are the same ones you'll find in the mic lockers of many of the contributors to these forums. Why? Because they work for 99% of the situations he faces. One major difference, though. If Harvey NEEDS an Elam or a U87, he can get one with probably one phone call. You or I may have to do a little more work...

 

[wilkee]

Ah, the ever elusive "But will anyone hear the difference?" question...

Not many posts that I agree with 100% but this is one of them.

Tony

 

[H2oskiphil]

Not many posts that I agree with 100% but this is one of them.

Tony

Thanks, Tony.

The other thing to think about is the "boutique" value of some of these products.

I'm sure that the SPA mic, when it's available, will be as good as anything out there, price not withstanding. And home and small studio owners will snap them up. But if you're a major recording studio, dealing with "name" clients on a regular basis, are you as interested in that product? (Not intended as a slam at Stephen or Alan, BTW, just using an example of a product that will probably be considered "high-end" that will be priced at a level that most of us would at least consider paying...)

Maybe not.

Why? Because your "talent" expects "the best", and they know the names of "the best" products. If you stick something in front of their face that they don't know or recognize, how many of them will be skeptical or doubtful? How many will be willing to let you (as the engineer in the studio) make the decisions about what equipment they're going to use? How many will be open minded to a name or product they've never heard of? My guess is, not many...(Harvey, jump in here whenever you want to refute any of these statements... )

The market for the stratospherically priced equipment will continue as long as the mystique surrounding this stuff exists.

 

[WATYF]

I hope someday that 'home' recordings will someday penetrate the charts and maybe even dominate them. The death of the recording industry couldn't happen to a bunch of more deserving folks.

Hhhmmm... I dunno aboot that one... So, basically, you think we'd go from over-produced, super-compressed, perfectly quantized music to poorly mixed, overly-dynamic, audibly imperfect music? I doobt it..

I agree with pretty much everything bein' said here.. there'll always be a market for high-priced gear, some "improvement" is simply perceived in the mind of the buyer, the quality difference from price-range to price-range has decreased, etc. etc. etc... but most of all, I'd agree with Michael that unless the stuff gets put in the right hands.. and unless the gear, whatever it is, is used to its fullest potential, then you will notice a difference, and so will most everyone else.

The concept of the majority of music coming straight from "home-recording" is definitely more of a financial reality then it ever has been.. but there is still that little matter of finely honed talent...

and that's something that you can't buy for under 200 bucks...



WATYF

(don't get me wrong now... there's some clear talent looming aroond these walls (myself not included... ), but I have yet to hear a mix that stacks up with the quality of what hits the "big time".)

 

[Sennheiser]

I think that with the explosion of the digital recording revolution and the fact that this medium puts many home/project studios within the grasp of producing a professional recording, the mic manufacturers have recognized this fact.

They have made more affordable, better sounding mics at a lower cost. This is also a result of advancing technology in the last decade.

If they had not explored and researched this, I feel however, that it would have stalled sales of new digital equipment that previously only professional studios would have been able to afford. The same thing with synths, DAW and other digital devices.

Everything has gotten cheaper and better.

20 years ago I could only dream of a 24 track recorder. $50K, $65K? Yeah, those were the going rates for some analog machines back then. Many more cost more than that. Now days, $4K for a 24 track digital machine is within reach of almost anyone with a job and a desire to save money.

Esoteric, specialty, and most German mics haven't followed this trend. They still build many of them the way they did 20 or 30 years ago. Manufacturing costs are still high on items like this. Especially in Europe. Even if they were not, they have the name and the reputation that keeps the price high.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Why? Because your "talent" expects "the best", and they know the names of "the best" products. If you stick something in front of their face that they don't know or recognize, how many of them will be skeptical or doubtful? How many will be willing to let you (as the engineer in the studio) make the decisions about what equipment they're going to use? How many will be open minded to a name or product they've never heard of? My guess is, not many...(Harvey, jump in here whenever you want to refute any of these statements... )

I'm not gonna refute any of your statements, but I do want to point out that Stephen Paul's name is VERY well known in the professional studio circles. It's just not very well known in home studios until recently.

 

[heinz]

Many years ago when the camera moved from being a high-end professional tool, and suddenly became accessible to regular people, there was suddenly a flood of amateur photographers who felt that one day they would be able to swing with the high-end photographers.

About 10 years ago, when computer rendering & 3d animation became accessible on desktop computers, there were many people who thought that major feature films would be done on desktop pc's, and that everyday folks would someday take over that industry.

Within the last 5 years or so, the advent of digital recording on home computers clearly has spawned the same thinking.

But y'know what? While many people now make a comfortable living as photographers, animators, and recording engineers, the truth is, the high-end is still the high-end. Why? Because it still takes tons of studying, experience, and talent to achieve the state of the art. And those who reach that level of talent and understanding of their craft quickly outgrow the mediocre tools that satisfy most, and need the high-end tools to push the envelope to the state of the art, the bleeding edge.

That will never change, because the high-end curve will always be far ahead of the medium-end technology, IMO.

 

[Sennheiser]

But y'know what? While many people now make a comfortable living as photographers, animators, and recording engineers, the truth is, the high-end is still the high-end. Why? Because it still takes tons of studying, experience, and talent to achieve the state of the art. And those who reach that level of talent and understanding of their craft quickly outgrow the mediocre tools that satisfy most, and need the high-end tools to push the envelope to the state of the art, the bleeding edge.

Very well stated.

I guess that is why as my mixes get better I want better equipment to see how much they will improve. And the cycle continues. At each level of recording you strive to reach the next level.

The problem is, is that the really really high end will always be out of reach for most of us.

As equipment manufacturers build better high dollar equipment, the pro's are always the first to jump on it and we will always be behind the curve. Even though the technology "trickle down" will always be there, no one with an average income will ever likely
be able to catch up. If you're not in the "business" I guess most of us can forget it.

Unless you are independantly wealthy.

 

[littledog]

I'm not gonna refute any of your statements, but I do want to point out that Stephen Paul's name is VERY well known in the professional studio circles. It's just not very well known in home studios until recently.

I'd like to elaborate further on Harvey's excellent point.

First of all, the majority of musicians knows very little about what the best recording gear is. And most of them just want to sound good. If they hear themselves sounding better than they ever thought possible coming out of your monitors, they won't care if you are recording with mics from K-Mart. After all, how many extra CD's are sold because the public finds out the studio used Neumann mics? How many average people even heard of neumann mics?

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you do get a client who comes in and says: "What's the deal with this Stephen Paul mic? Some guy at the bar last weekend said I should only use Alfred E. Newmans, or something like that..."

Just respond with: "Neumann microphones have been trying, with limited success, to utilize Stephen Paul's innovations for years. This mic will blow away anything else you've ever tried. As a matter of fact, this mic will give you such a great sound, that alone it may be the factor that makes your recording stand out from the crowd."

Anyone want to try and tell me that your hypothetical client won't be so pumped to try it that he won't even remember who Alfred E. Newman is?

My personal experience is that performers love to be guinea pigs for the "latest and greatest" gear. If you tell them something is the "next hot thing", and they have a chance to jump in ahead of the crowd - 99% will be thrilled at the chance.

 

[Sennheiser]

Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

(spelling edit)

 

[regebro]

YES, the price performace curve has changed. No doubt about that whatsoever. The whole concept of homerecording arrived with the 4-track porta 20 years ago, and the sound Quality Per Dollar you get has steadily increased since then.

Today you can buy a 16-channel studio in a box that includes everything but the microphones, instruments and the studio for $4000, that has sound quality and functionality you would have to go to a million dollar studio 20 years ago to get, largely in thanks to the digital revolution. Yes, yes, "analog sounds better" but the fact is that most people can't tell the difference. There is no doubt that you can do professional recordings with recording equipment well under $5000 in cost (not including instruments, then), and if you don't believe me, listen in on the mp3 clinic.

Will homerecordings dominate "the market"? Not unlikely at all. The change in price performance in combination with the free copying of music will make it very hard to make money out of recording music. That of course means that "the market" won't be much of a *market* at all, but more of a swappers club, but still. And if you can't make money out of recording music, you won't spend money recording music either, right? That means that commercial recordings will be seen as advertising material for the big artists tours and t-shirts. So, most recordings not done for big artists will be done by homereccers. We do need amateur zero-budget video producing for this to happen though.