Negative mic review? Ever?

  • Thread starter Thread starter amra
  • Start date Start date
amra

amra

Well-known member
Something just occurred to me, after posting to the M-Audio Sputnik thread - that I had never heard anything but good about it.

I have never, that I can remember, ever read a bad review about any mic in a magazine or or online magazine, EVER. All I ever hear is that such and such mic was so good, that it sounded almost as sweet as (insert expensive big name mic here). Or that the hyped high end would be good for male voices, or that it a slight roll off above 2Khz but would be good for a female voice, on and on.

But no one that I can think of, has ever written anything like "This mic sounds horrible. I would never use it, and I cannot recommend it."

Is it just me? Has anyone ever read a scathing or even negative review of a mic, well known or otherwise?
 
I always look for the negative reviews for future gear buys. they tell me more about the product than the good ones.
 
And a lot of times, theyre paying for advertising (or might be soon). So they cant bash them too hard.
 
Someone pointed out that you have to really read the wording to get weather a review is bad or good. Phrases like "While the mic wasn't the best for our singer on this project, it might better be suited for someone with a deep baritone voice, where the high end might be flattering."

Something like that. You have to pay attention.
 
See sound on sounds response to the question on reviews here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07/articles/leader_0307.htm

Snippet:

At Sound On Sound we always strive to bring you the most accurate and informative product reviews that we can. One question that comes up every now and again in the forums and in our email, however, asks why SOS "never seems to give anything a negative review?". The short answer is simply to point out that, where necessary, Sound On Sound most certainly does deliver highly critical reviews (just take a look through our on-line archives); we've been responsible for more than one product being withdrawn from the market altogether. The rather longer answer involves the fact that we always review products in the context for which they were designed. Rather than simply rating things as 'good' or 'poor', our strategy has always been to deliver a meaningful verdict that takes into account the selling price and any similarly priced competition the product might have. If a product reaches an appropriate standard of performance for its price-point, it is hardly relevant to criticise it for failing to stand comparison with something 10 times the price. On many occasions we've concluded that 'product A' performs very well and offers good value, but that 'product B' offers even more features and/or quality for the same money.
 
The good Phil nailed it, combined with Phaque. With just a little reading between the lines, it's pretty easy to seperate the real enthusiasm from the less than enthusiastic lip service, parsed with phrases like "for some applications". I have read plenty of reviews like that, and if the trades gushed over every product they reviewed no matter how bad, they would lose all credibility. Remember always who pays the bills, the advertisers. So most reviews are going to start north of the middle. Also, NEVER buy gear based on any one or two glossy reviews. And don't not buy a piece of gear based on one or two disgruntled user reviews. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, and the more data points you gather, the more you'll know the products strengths and weaknesses.
 
Maybe you've never seen http://www.studioreviews.com/m16-460.htm

We've probably tested through as many mics as anyone out there. You have to keep in mind that it takes a lot of time to test products and write the review. It's a waste of time to write a review about a mic or product you don't like. Secondly, mics also have to be tested in the field - and they have to work for us in action - make us look/sound good. So, there are lots of mics that we just don't continue testing past a certain point - because something about them didn't turn us on enough to keep testing them.

So, we really can't say that the mics that don't continue getting tested are bad mics. All we can say is that the products that make it through our test gauntlet are excellent. And we've had a pretty good track record for product recommendations.

I also, to some degree, feel that one-off reviews are sort of bullshit. Because every product is so user-specific - based on what someone already has, what kind of applications they have, and what kind of sound they want. In our case, reviews and recommendations often also happen in various forums that are specific to a user's questions and needs. And we'll often compare with several different products, and try and list the best attributes and applications for each one.

Another point: A "bad" mic is a mic that doesn't work. If you plug it in and get sound - it's a good mic. There are, we feel, some mics that just excel over the rest - in certain applications, and in their price range - and it's those mics that we hold up and shine the light on. And even then, if there's something we don't like - or that users should be aware of - we'll include it in the review.

I do believe the best products get heard about. If you're looking for a mic, it's better to concentrate on those that continuously come up as recommendations in different forums that have some experienced users backing them up. And not just dealers. If you're researching a product, and don't see a lot of good reviews by firsthand end users - that might tell you something right there. Just because someone writes a negative review, that doesn't buy any credit with me. I look for reviews that are in-depth and show that they were used on many applications in many sessions, even in different studios on different systems.
 
I've seen them, but unfortunately they usually come out a day or two after I've bought the mic :(
 
The Microphone Shootout Stuido 8121

The Studio 8121 Microphone Shootout CD just came to me in the mail.

It compares Neumann U87
AKG C414
Neumann KM 184
Sennheiser e 914
Octavia MC 012
RCA 77 (ribbon)
Royer 121 (ribbon)

on Acoustic guitar...and than some other comparisons on Electric Guitar , Vocals etc....its pretty intense to listen this hard to one instrument miked up and focus on the differences between mics that are pretty similiar.

Its a very interesting concept, you have to listen a couple of times to really pick out the nuances between these mics.

And when you use the mic for a Piano or a Vocal it reacts in a totally different way...and picks up different tones etc...

Anyways, the only real review to believe is your own ears. The small minut differences are so hard to pickup sometimes, that its very hard to give a negative review usually...because most reviews are of the latest new mics on the market, (so the Look, phantom power, price, etc. all come into play and take the attention of the meat of the matter...how it sounds.

Studio Guide1
www.Home-Recording-Studio-Guide.Com
 
another thing that reviewers have to think about is that the more bad reviews they give, the more likely it is that they'll get less gear for review in the future. That along with the potential for lost advertising revenue probably makes it easier for them to just forget about the bad gear and focus on what they actually liked.
 
Dot said:
Maybe you've never seen http://www.studioreviews.com/m16-460.htm

It's a waste of time to write a review about a mic or product you don't like.
Click to expand...

I have heard this before and it makes sense. Magazines usually will only write/publish reviews of the gear they reasonably like.

I agree spending sufficient time on internet forums is how you find what the recording community actually thinks about gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top