First of all, let me say that my wife would KILL me for even thinking this!
I'm a classically-trained baritone, and use a KSM32 in my home setup with Logic Pro. I like the KSM32, but wanted to "think ahead" to a day when I may want a little more. What do you think about the tubes I've listed (or others not here)? Neumann doesn't make an acceptable tube within this range, so I haven't included them, and I think there are several mics that compete well with Neumann if I could get a few opinions.
Different polar patterns aren't important, since I would use the mic for vocals only.
I may not purchase one of these new, but I could be on the lookout for a used one...or if I were to go to a studio, I could determine the merits of a studio based upon what they have in their locker.
Even though the Mojave isn't quite in the price-range of the others, I included it because it's so hyped. Is the hype justified?
I would not think that way; whereas you might not consider the need for off-axis response (or lack thereof), different polar patterns yield different tones for on-axis sources as well. So a multipattern is like having several different mics in one. Also, proximity effect will change greatly at different polar patterns, which can be quite useful depending on whether or not you want it.
Of course if you're classically trained, that means you actually know how to sing, so you'd probably want to place the mic a couple of feet away. That means that using a pattern that has less proximity effect will paradoxically (not really, but I like that word) have better bass response--the farfield bass response of a highly directional pattern is often not very robust. If I were recording a classical singer in a good space (why would I use a bad space for that?), I'd tend towards the less directional patterns.
All things being equal, I would always choose multipattern over fixed pattern for vocals.
.
.
.
As for your actual question, I doubt there are very many people who aren't gear dealers who would have tried all of those mics, so keep that in mind as people respond.
Thanks so much for your recommendations, mshilarious. Your opinions are things I need to know, because I'm only learning hands-on and what I might read on the web. I thought one of the advantages of a tube was a lessening of the proximity effect, and I think that's what you're saying...only leaning towards a pattern other than cardioid?
It's distracting to also have to think about "working the mic" when using a basic condenser. It'd be nice to be free from that, and concentrate just on the singing. I find myself also intrigued by a tube making me sound better than I am!
No, the tube doesn't have any idea how far you are from the capsule--it's an electronic device, not an acoustic-electro-mechanical device. The same capsule used in the same configuration will have identical proximity effect whether the buffering device is a FET or tube.
, and I think that's what you're saying...only leaning towards a pattern other than cardioid?
Cardioid is the middle of the spectrum on polar pattern and therefore proximity effect. Figure-8 has the most; omni (in theory) has none.
I say "in theory" for omni, because dual-diaphragm capsules don't always exhibit an ideal omni response. But they will have the least proximity effect on their omni setting.
