mic expectations and reality checks?

[CoolCat]

Anyone else ever bought some new mics , dropped some cash, wanting the magical UPGRADE....the thrill in test driving and maybe even recording something....after all the shopping buzz and gear reviews and gear deep diving into which capacitor the mics have. the magic...and.. the thrill is kind of like drinking expensive whiskey finding it tastes a lot like the normal stuff.

then the reality check of pulling the old mics out and running them all through the same paces, noise floor, gain, ssssss's testing and playback.... and being confused when there's so little difference you cant hardly hear a huge noticeable magic anything of a $1000 mic and a $100 mic?
seems I have this phenomena happen a lot over the years, not sure what its called?

then I went through the same on the Preamps, $1500 to $200 to $600 to Interface Direct and hmmm? ok...I do still love VU meters and glow and gear, but if I close my eyes, it all sounds kind of similar, in RAW no makeupEqmagicNoPlugins allowed comparison tests...(and if I have to use EQ then what is that saying?)

Reality check...I don't care really, its just a hobby thing.
I know my ears are ok because I listen to music a lot and can hear a good recording vs a bad one.
I know the monitoring system is true with a Grace Design headphone amp and some BeyerD 880 pro....some confidence.

just very strange. this old MXL V67 hangs in there with my others but its not supposed to. The cheap old mic isn't supposed to sound 90% as good as the new $1000 one. damnit!

You ever wonder if even a U87AI or U67 $12000 mic might not be any different? What if you plugged it in and it was different but not magical, and maybe the noise floor wasn't even as good as the MXL V67 $100 mic?

*disclaimer: I was sober during this testing. Possible if I had a few the results might be different.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

To be fair, that V67 IS abnormally good.

 

[jamesperrett]

You ever wonder if even a U87AI or U67 $12000 mic might not be any different? What if you plugged it in and it was different but not magical, and maybe the noise floor wasn't even as good as the MXL V67 $100 mic?

A U87 is definitely different to all the MXL mics I've heard - but whether it sounds better to you is a matter of taste.

 

[Papanate]

just very strange. this old MXL V67 hangs in there with my others but its not supposed to. The cheap old mic isn't supposed to sound 90% as good as the new $1000 one. damnit!

Depends on the Material and how the content is played - in general most mics can sound siimliar - but it’s the nuances that have different mics cutting through.

You ever wonder if even a U87AI or U67 $12000 mic might not be any different? What if you plugged it in and it was different but not magical, and maybe the noise floor wasn't even as good as the MXL V67 $100 mic?

I’ve have a U87, a U47 and a U67 - mics aren’t magical - they are tools to get jobs done - if you material is exceptional the difference you hear will just be a preference - I am not enamored with the U87 - but the U47 and U67 are exceptional to me - a MXL is not going to terrible - but it does have stiffer mid highs and for my taste to much emphasis in the upper midrange to 10Khz - I can EQ the mic to compensate and it sounds good - but if you go back 50 years we didn’t have the tools around to compensate - so the really good mics became the go to for sessions.

*disclaimer: I was sober during this testing. Possible if I had a few the results might be different.

I have a few drinks and my mixing is only good for 10 minutes - then it can be random and erratic - unlike when I was 20 - it didn’t make much difference.

 

[TalismanRich]

Ok, if the mic isn't sounding better ( you did buy a 60yr old U47, right?), it's because your preamp is crap. You can fix that for a few thou! If that doesn't fix it, then you need to get a high dollar AD/DA converter. A couple thou should do it. If that doesn't do it, it's because you're using plug ins. A couple of external processors, maybe 2 compressors, and EQ and a distressor will fix it up for a thousand or 3 for each. Still not there? You might just drop $3, 5 or 10,000 on a tape deck, and another thou on a case of tape.

If it still sounds bad, then it's your monitors. Fix those, then you can redo all the treatment in your room (or just move to a bigger place... $3-500,000 should do).

While you still have some money left in your 401K, you probably should get yourself a vintage D28, a 59 Les Paul and a Dumble. There simply is no substitute for spending massive amounts of money. It guarantees results!

I don't subscribe to the idea that you need to spend multiple thousands on a microphone. I don't know how many times I've read people buying U87s, or TLM103s or some other special mic only to find that it doesn't do magic. The common excuse is always "it doesn't fit your voice". Yeah, there are differences between mics, but with a bit of time, you should be able to get a good result out of most decent mics, even the humble V67. (I'm not talking about bottom feeding mics from Temu and Alibaba. I've heard a few that were dreadful.)

--------------------------

There's a fellow who posts on Youtube about the Ferarri that he bought new for £400,000 that wasn't as reliable as a Honda or Toyota. Electrical issues left him stranded multiple times that Ferarri couldn't fix. It looks great, sounds great, and is probably a really fun ride, but if it strands you 100 miles from home, it's not worth the cost.

 

[rob aylestone]

I've re-discovered this time and time again. My 'hobby' is collecting microphones. For no reason at all. My go to mics always stabilise on a few favourites that just behave predictably and reliably. If I had to shrink my collection to just two mics, so I can do stereo or two things at one - it would be C414 - and if the polar switch broke in cardioid, I'd be fine. My other old, or special ones I would not miss. Two mics stand out as 100% no loss. U87i - maybe 10 years old now, and an RE20. They're fine mics, but do absolutely nothing for me. They don't sound bad or anything, but the promised leap in quality and the experience just didn't happen for me.

Quality is a weird thing. I can absolutely say when something is not meeting my definition - but once it is, it becomes irrelevant. All the posh preamps are just tone controls. If they amplify, with minimal noise or distortion, many consider them bad!

When I was doing some tests on my recently out of storage reel to reels, what hit me was memory vs reality. G36 with tubes, A77 and B77 - all with small things just a little worn or mismatched. The old G36 sounded nicest to my ears. The B77 was temperamental with tape. It was great one one, less good on another - and the A77, being (I thought) a 4 track was a bit thin. Then along came a PR99 - and blew them all away. Sounded like what I get through my monitors. A tiny bit of hiss - but the 'quality' was contemporary.

We do NOT use the no noise, no distortion, wide frequency flat response definition any more when assessing quality. Even the macbook built in audio meets that definition nowadays, and many PCs do too.

We all agree, I think, that hums, buzzes, odd frequency response plots and noise equate to bad quality - but in their absence, what is left is good quality isn't it?

That old Neumann U49 - what exactly is it that makes people like it? I really don't know? Maybe it's nice sounding errors? We get obsessed with things. Buying matched and paired nice mics. Have you ever made a real mistake and nobody noticed? I have - loads of times. Stereo recording, which I do a lot is a great example. Choirs - in churches I do a lot. I've tried all sorts A/B, X/Y, M/S, spot mics, audience mics - a close serial number pair of nice mics, except I lost the scribbled labels as to which was which. The Y should have been fellas, the X the ladies - no idea which was which, so listened and found them. Did the balance, job done. Then found them and discovered I had the Neumann 103 from the Y of the X/Y and the ladies were actually coming from a very cheap samson 03 - being there for a spot mic, just in case. Two mics - very different in sound that worked fine.

I have lots of mics that sound fine, and a few that sound awful on everything - the posh ones are in their boxes, safe from scratching, in case I ever want to sell them.

Frankly - I cannot be bothered to even waste time on some kit. A Midas M32 and 32 channel stagebox that everyone says sound great - sit in my studio. If I need something quick, I'm more likely to see a Zoom H4 sitting there - with batteries, pick any mic that is on a stand with cable plugged in and press record. Job done, customer happy, invoice paid. One 'knowledgeable' guy needs to record a quick replacement vocal. Walks in with a track and a bit of an attitude. You know the kindthinks he is far better and well known than he actually is. Out came the 87, track recorded. one hour later he is done. Perception is everything. He sees a mic, I see him looking at the label, he likes what he hears, he pays the bill. Job done. Sitting on the desk was a Shure SM86. I bet that would have sounded nicer on his voice. No point even suggesting it.

All I know is what is not high quality. everything else is a tweak of EQ. Happy 2025 everyone. The year of expectations.

 

[CoolCat]

Enjoyable set of responses to ponder.

We all agree, I think, that hums, buzzes, odd frequency response plots and noise equate to bad quality - but in their absence, what is left is good quality isn't it?
This is fair enough and a good place to start before beginning the "upgrade reality test".

Yeah, there are differences between mics, but with a bit of time, you should be able to get a good result out of most decent mics, even the humble V67. (I'm not talking about bottom feeding mics from Temu and Alibaba. I've heard a few that were dreadful.)
I think this becomes my test result time after time, year after year. There's still some fun in seeking that "magical mic" but at what cost?
I could see benefits of a mic so well-known like a U87 or AKG414 or U47/67, C12, 251, in a professional way of reference or image for those certain elite customers who demand it. Good point made about the "dreadful mics" lol....even EQ and processing cant help there.

-A U87 is definitely different to all the MXL mics I've heard - but whether it sounds better to you is a matter of taste.
-To be fair, that V67 IS abnormally good.
Its a decent transformer, decent capsule, mic. With processing can do a fine job....its not "dreadful" or "beyond help".
V67 is probably just one of hundreds of mics that can sound fine with processing much better, but so can a u89...or my $1000 tube mic.

If Im going to make a Manhattan or Long Island drink, mixtures of several items, does it matter which brands are used? or is it more important the waitress's image and skills, or bartenders ability to mix it...hmmm? but its true Guiness tastes much different than Budweiser or a Bock and even a Guiness draught is different than the Guiness stout.
So I can hear differences in my mics but it seems a pretty small difference, imo. Maybe that's the problem expecting some mastered-excellence magical mic because it has a upgraded tube in it from 1961 used on a famous mixed and mastered hit.

I have a few drinks and my mixing is only good for 10 minutes - then it can be random and erratic - unlike when I was 20 - it didn’t make much difference.
That sounds like data from real tests, real data real results. Wisdom!
I can EQ the mic to compensate and it sounds good - but if you go back 50 years we didn’t have the tools around to compensate - so the really good mics became the go to for sessions.
Always interesting the "how did we get here?" history.
The famous quote is, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants," attributed to Sir Isaac Newton in a 1675 letter, meaning his scientific breakthroughs were built on the knowledge of predecessors, a concept with older roots, possibly from the 12th-century philosopher John of Salisbury. It symbolizes how progress in any field relies on accumulated wisdom and discoveries from those who came before, allowing current thinkers to see further.

So I was listening to McCartneys Blackbird, I think its like, 3 simple tracks and one is a click/foot tap, so vocal and acoustic (not sure of what Mic or chain used).
Kind of a back to basics recording. So I recorded a version putting placement the same , the gain the same mix, best I could copy it, EQ... aka...."clean the chalkboard," remove all things and plug straight into the best interface I have.
step 1- as Rob mentioned- made the rooms quiet as possible, make sure the cables aren't buzzing....
"noises from outside, noises from heaters and fans" pull up the noise gate plugin and the room takes on a pro-studio sound of silence.

step2 added some compression/eq plugin with the $100 mic.....and then stared at my $1500 1990's channel strip that doesn't sound much different even with a $1000 tube mic.
Still confused a bit but its all for fun, no big deal, a hobby ....some passion for recording sounds, why? I have no idea. Maybe since dumping cash on an "upgrade" again,
and same results again....anyway thanks for the thoughts to absorb!

 

[ecc83]

"- loads of times. Stereo recording, which I do a lot is a great example. Choirs - in churches I do a lot. I've tried all sorts A/B, X/Y, M/S, spot mics, audience mics" Rob, have you seen the articles by Hugh Robjohns about stereo in the 2025 sound on sound mags?
If not you might find it interesting...Lost me about month three!

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

Yes Dave - I've been a subscriber for 30 years! My church 'rules' have changed quite a bit. I tried Hugh R's Decca Tree suggestions and while it was a great sound - I struggled to hear the subtle differences when I changed distances, outrigger placement etc. Subjectively, most of the ones I go to are less good than I'd like, and trying to capture the real soundfield actually sounds worse than using less forward techniques and adding my own reverb. My regulars like the sound that in the main, the venues do not have!

 

[Papanate]

That old Neumann U49 - what exactly is it that makes people like it? I really don't know?

I think it is warm - round and offsets any pinprick type sounds - is it better than anything else - not really - I know it better than anything else - so for me it works.

 

[TalismanRich]

Part of the obsession with things like U47s, 59 Les Pauls, Neve consoles, etc is that this is the gear that was used to record some classic music 50, 60 or 70 years ago. What is left out is that not everyone is a Sinatra, or a Beatles, a Streisand, a Count Basie or a Miles Davis.

Put me in Jimmy Clark's Lotus and I guarantee you I won't come close to his lap times. Give me Babe Ruth's bat and I won't hit a home run. Give Babe Ruth a Louisville Slugger Meta bat and watch the balls go over the wall. Give Bobby Jones today's Callaway Elyte clubs and Pro V1 and he'll be shooting low 60s every time.

For me to buy a $5000 mic and a $3000 preamp makes as much sense as me buying a Rolls or Bugatti to go to the grocery.