Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg  To me, one of the major problems with many of the boutique companies is that 'demos' are hard to come by, or you're left with the option to 'buy several and return most' - which may not give you enough time to evaluate them...
And, no, it doesn't seem that any particular 're-issue' has gained universal approval (or acceptance as a replacement for the 'original') - which means that they may all be useful mics in their own right, but none are quite 'there'. |
... and that's the gooch/catch-22. That's why I proposed the question of who has actually used the REAL thing next to a copy/refirb?
There can be many many factors especially the age/condition of the original issue mic in capsule, tube, etc.... even if something was NOS, the shelf life is apparent, no? Like a fine wine? Or not? Let's say a mic was bought new, then put in a chest for 50 years, then listened to... would it be the same today as it was 50 years ago? Probably not.
I'm still combating my internal psychological/practical/technical side regarding such things. Did a 251 back in the day sound like the TAB 251 of today? Maybe... the recording medium was behind the mic technology... so we're hearing mics that were based on specs of the time and not based on the prime reproduction medium of the time. Am I going down a weird path or does that make some sense to some? Is all a company looking at is freq SPL curves?
The specs set up for mics back then and those mics that are still around today have characteristics that translate today (due to components and age) but the recording mediums of today don't capture the same attitude/character?
I really think there are too many variables, regarding age, to base a new clone/re-issue on original specs cuz things are way too different now both in format recording and age of a an original vintage mic. Yet again they have a process to make some wines older in age at an accelerated rate.... hmmmm.
Did I just draw myself into an MC Echer drawing?
-- Adam Lazlo