Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung  But where is the border between mid-line and top shelf. Even the most expensive microphones have their con's.
Is a DPA 4006 always better than a KSM 141..? I don't believe so.
It's not as easy as just buying the most expensive you can get!  |
I really like this thread and wanted to add:
I wouldn't use a 4006 in every situation, nor a KSM141.
Both are fantastic mics, each with its own strengths.
No mic is a total all-rounder
(except maybe an, insert ______ mic here, which is
the perfect mic for almost every need I have).
I think it comes down to:
1. what you ARE ABLE to hear
and
2. knowing what you WANT to hear.
The border between mid and top-shelf microphones is a very arbitrary, random line growing more vast and blurry all the time; and here's us: trying to figure out for ourselves where each mic's usefulness lies, filtered through WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS, figured against our budget and divided by our patience to wait for the good stuff but still needing to do the work at hand and sometimes (read:
many times, maybe all the time) settling for something less than top-shelf and
still producing quite admirable work, but still always wondering...wondering what it would sound like if I only had an
X MIC instead of, my
x mic.
In closing, with 24 bit dynamic range and excellent electronics, converters and performers and instruments and rooms....cheap mics will get shown up with a QUICKNESS. every time. Maybe it's a little more obscured by some of those variables being less than top-notch themselves, but eventually the cheap sounding mic will be revealed TO SOMEONE who can tell.
I think there's a reason the more costly tried and true mics (ie, Schoeps, Neumann, Gefell, Sennheiser, DPA, AKG and all the others I didn't mention) are the go-to sound capture tools for this type of work.
Maybe I've had too much to drink.
(and again, Remoteness so eloquently states using few words what I'm blathering on about)