You get what you pay for.

ausrock said:
Han,

A couple of years ago I ran a "blind comparison" on some mics on an acoustic, amongst them was a U87, a 414, C1 plus a couple of other AKGs. Anyone that heard the tracks agreed that two mics stood out above the others, the tracks they picked were the U87 and the C1 and there was a concesus of opinion that the C1 was giving a truer representation of that particular guitar.

If I were to repeat the exercise now I may get a different result, who knows.
Click to expand...

Ausrock

I have some problems with that, because I know that the hi end or a U87 is much more 'silky' than a C1, which is a very bright microphone.

Was it a U87 or a U87ai?
 
Han said:
Yo, I got the message! Actually, a while ago I was recording a vocalist who made his choice out of the M149, V69, V77 and B1.

He took the B1, but that's a matter of personal taste. What I'm talking about is sound quality in a way of being true to the source.
Click to expand...

Well, then, in that case, a measurement microphone would always be the best choice, then? Certainly a B&K measurement mic with 40kHz of top end extension, +/-.1dB flat frequency response, dead-money omni pattern, and phase linear from 20Hz to 20kHz would be the truest to the source.

Also imho, this would make a terrible mic for recording things for a rock/pop music mix. "True to the source" is usually not the objective. "Sounds good" is.

For example, the other day I had a vocalist over and I was recording side by side a B1 and an MK-219. The 219 sounded flat and terrible, nearly useless. Maybe with excessive EQ I could have made it work. The B1 on the other hand was just glorious right out of the box, only problem was it was loud enough to occasionally clip my DAW front end.

Later that day, I proceeded to attempt to overdub some backing vocals. I had the B1 already set up and working, so I sang into it. I thought I must have had it turned around backwards, maybe it was broken? It sounded shrill and terrible (on my voice). It was like there was nothing below 300 Hz. A disaster. I really thought my mic was broken. I replaced it with the same MK-219 that I had rejected earlier and all was well. Sounded silky and smooth and just right, but of course this is a different vocalist!

FWIW I have on many occasions attempted to record vocalists with one of my Behringer ECM8000's and they always sound flat and lifeless. My MK-219 is good on acoustic guitar but the B1 is completely terrible on acoustic guitar to my ear. The ECM8000 is brilliant on acoustic guitar. Howcome a mic can be flat and lifeless on one source and brilliant on another if "true to the source" is the measure of "sounds good"? Whether a mic sounds good or not is simply a factor of how it is used, how it complements the instrument or source it is recording, how that track is workable into a mix, etc. For instance, if I'm recording solo fingerstyle acoustic guitar I will use entirely different mics, technique, you name it, vs. an acoustic guitar for mix into a rock tune.

I have a variety of mics that are nowhere near "true to the source" but are extremely useful for recording music. One of them is a Shure 705A "Rocket" crystal mic. Killer mic, totally colored. One is my modified MK-219. Dark, smooth, detailed.

"You get what you pay for" is just a convenient crutch for people who cannot (or choose not to) discern the difference in sound based just on listening.
 
I think most of the people on this bbs like cheap budget mics because they can't afford good mics, or can't hear the difference. There may be a few exceptions... like, we know Alan must defend cheap Chinese budget mics because he sells them."

EDITED: Humm, after reading my above statement... I wish I didn't post that, because it came off all wrong and not the way I meant.
 
Last edited:
I thought you and Alan made up, and here you go stirring the pot again.

Let's not forget this is still a home recording board. Most of use are on a budget and likely won't ever make back half of what we spend on our studios. I find your over-generalization insulting and condescending. May I suggest you take your oh-so-discerning tastes and go hang out with the big boys at Gearslutz.
 
Krash

You quote a part of my post, but in the same post I said what you are saying as well:

QUOTE

It may be that a particular mic makes the sound of a source sound even 'better' in a way that you like the mic's sound more than the source.

Some vocalists don't like a hi end LDC because they are used to the enormous bump of the lows, due to the proximity of an SM58 for example.

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

When you sing, your skull is resonating and you will hear a much fuller and bigger sound than an individual who's in the same room (or the mic) .

So you probably want a mic that sounds bigger than life.
 
DJL said:
I think most of the people on this bbs like cheap budget mics because they can't afford good mics, or can't hear the difference. There may be a few exceptions... like, we know Alan must defend cheap Chinese budget mics because he sells them.
Click to expand...


Oh boy. So aside from lying to everyone here and the boys at PMI about laying your childish angst to rest, what are you implying? Every project studio owner should avoid low cost mics? At what sacrifice?

Yeah, perhaps you ought to find a board that is more "pro" so your condescending attitude will find a home and your ego has willing and deserving sparing partners.
 
toorglick, yeah I know... see the edit.

freshmattyp said:
I thought you and Alan made up, and here you go stirring the pot again.

Let's not forget this is still a home recording board. Most of use are on a budget and likely won't ever make back half of what we spend on our studios. I find your over-generalization insulting and condescending. May I suggest you take your oh-so-discerning tastes and go hang out with the big boys at Gearslutz.
Click to expand...
"You get what you pay for"

You know Alan and I made up and I'm not stirring the pot... anyway you can't honestly tell me you truely believe that a cheap chinese made budget mic is as good as a handcrafted Brauner mic... or is that what you really believe?
 
Last edited:
DJL said:
"You get what you pay for"

You know Alan and I made up and I'm not stirring the pot... anyway you can't honestly tell me you truely believe that a cheap chinese made budget mic is as good as a handcrafted Brauner mic... or is that what you really believe?
Click to expand...

Depends on what I need it for and how it sits in the mix. The budget mic might be the right choice over the Brauner.

As for build quality, I don't think there are many (if any) mass-produced mics that equal the Brauner, so you really can't make this statement only about Chinese made mics. It applies equally to AT, AKG, etc.

Since you're all about the quality, I assume you drive and handcrafted Rolls or Bentley? ;)
 
Last edited:
DJL said:
No... lol, but I do believe you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that to a certain extent. Otherwise, I'd still be using my computer mic and an Emerson casette recorder. :p

Money buys atention to detail. Sometimes that equals quality.
 
QUOTE............"you get what you pay for"

We like to think so but it isn't always the case.............BTW, this is just meant as an general observation.

Realistically, the statement that started this thread can be applied in different ways............one is the actual physical quality which is or should be a defined quantity. The other relates to a mics performance and this, as has been mentioned earlier can vary enormously........this is where a cheaper mic can shine and/or an expensive mic can sound like shite and vice versa.
 
I'm in a fortunate enough position that in the guise of "investment" with the household CEO aka wife :), could get a Neumann U47 or Telly 251.

But...

The truth is the humble Shure Unidyne III (or VI) capsule, and the Beyer mentioned above are in the same league for me IMHO, although they have a
different coloration. This is why it's important for a vocalist to try these out to get a better understanding of their tonal options.

Two other factors to keep in mind is the tonality of the musical arrangement,
and the potential of musicians playing/singing at the same time in order to retain more of the sonic "glue" that binds a moving overall performance on a record.

A good example is the Brian Wilson's masterpiece "Pet Sounds".
The various vocal microphones used were;

1) Neumann U47 (primarily for group vocals or when Mike Love sang bass)
2) RCA 77DX ribbon (for group vocals)
3) Shure 545 (Brian Wilson lead vocal/Mike Love lead/poss Carl Wilson too?)

As you may know, Brian thought out the arrangements, instrumentation,
microphones, etc. far in advance ala Phil Spector.

He would lean towards the 545 for his solos, then drop back to U47 for the harmony vocals with the rest of the group which was the establised way to control dynamics vs. the reliance on compression that's prevalent nowadays.

Now tell me the Shure 545 sounds cheap!

Case closed...:)

Chris
 
All good points. I'm not sure that with music you always get what you pay for, but with electronics you do. Microphones straddle this divide in a way that computers and guitars never will. My 1980s Japanese-made Westone Prestige is the most beautiful guitar I've ever clapped eyes on - £170. I wanted a single-coils guitar ... American Strats were tried but I bought a Burns Marquee for £200 because I preferred it (green-burst ... yum!).

I know the point that DJL makes (and Han did earlier on) that spending more will usually get you an electronically superior piece, but obviously it's also true that you should always choose a mic for its sound rather than its price-tag.

Look at 'garage rock'. Any fool with a computer microphone could make a vocal track that sounds like the singer from The Strokes. And you wouldn't be able to make copies of The Who on your Protools rig anywhere near as easily as if you used a four-track ...
 
I think when it comes to price versus quality, the gap is way closer than it's ever been in history between the cheapies and the handmade microphones.

It's changing the industry, and no matter how you may want to defend the 50,000.00 you spent on microphones, you know that you could take the same engineers cranking out the hits of today, give them only chinese made microphones, and they would continue putting out great sounding recordings.

Of course we want expensive, hand made microphones if we can afford them. They do sound better, but the amount that they sound better than mass produced mikes has diminished to very small percentages.

Newer studios will continue to put the name Gefell, Telefunken, Brauner, and Neumann in their equipment lists, but it will be for the prestige as much as for the actual quality of the microphones.

That said, I wish I could afford a Brauner VM1. Maybe if I sold my car?
 
Do you get what you pay for in a car? Sort of by definition yes because the price of the car is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it.

So why aren't we all driving six figure sports cars? Why would anybody use anything but one to go anyplace?

The fact of the matter is with a hign end car, or mic, much of what you are paying for is the name.
 
To produce a Rolls etc is a very simple skill just throw money at it.

BUT to produce a mass market car that really impresses now that takes real ability.
 
I just wanna say that the mic isn't responsible for the quality which is what I think of when I hear the phrase:

"You get what you pay for..."

The mic IMO is the LAST thing that will decide quality

I think of a mic like a painter thinks of a brush...a better brush won't make a better painting
 
Well, from being an ex-painter I know some things you just can't paint right unless you have the correct brush.

And you get what you pay for... even when buying paint brushes.
 
Gotta agree with DJ...............if you know brushes that analogy doesn't hold up. I own one brush which cost me well in excess of $200US and there isn't anything else that does what it does as well as it does it.
 
Han said:
Any novice can put a SM57 in front of a speaker cabinet, run it through a board with the EQ bypassed and record it to whatever he likes.

That same novice can also discover that when he puts a Beyer M88 in the same spot, he will have a sound that's more true to the source, thus 'better'.

Another problem is recording acoustic instruments, stereo recordings. That's where one needs experience and skill.

Alan's statement doesn't fly, if you put a great mic on a guitar, saxophone, cello, violin, trumpet or whatever, it will always sound better than an inexpensive and less great mic.

I'm sure when I put my M149 in a kick, it will sound great. The kick will kill the capsule, so I won't do that, but it will sound great.
I've put a C1000 in a kick and it sounded pretty good, but it got killed in the first song.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm so sorry you're wrong. Your're blanket statements are in essense arguing that a "expensive" mic = a "great" mic. However,as you mature as an engineer you will learn that this is not the case at all. There are tons of mics out there, some cheap, some expensive that will work best for a given task. It is your duty as an engineer to find which will work best. Being "true" to the source as you put it does not IN ANY WAY dictate whether the Beyer 88 is in fact the better mic for micing a cabinet. It's what best for the song at hand. Perhaps, if you were to dislodge the 57 thats crammed up your ass you might realize this too. So do us all a favor and drop the blanket statements. Or maybe you know something that a million other engineers far wiser than us know.
That is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top