Thoughts on mic and preamp elitism...

[jnorman]

A few recent threads wherein posters wax in reverence over certain mics and preamps make me ponder my own personal experiences. over the past few years, i have owned a variety of higher end equipment, and have had the opportunity to do direct AB testing of various mics and preamps. during these tests, i have (of course) responded to my own ears, and have included blind listening tests with several of my professional music artist friends.

i might start by mentioning the extensive mic and preamp testing done by lynn fuston at 3D Audio - his 3D Mic CD and 3D Pre CD are both highly educational in providing direct controlled comparative listening of a broad range of mics and preamps ranging from extremely expensive to pedestrian gear. i assume many of you have listened to fuston's CD's. from my own listening, it is not at all clear that a vintage ELA-M251 is "better" than, for example, an AT4050, or even a lowly SM57 in some circumstances. sure, you can hear a "difference" between many of the mics, but to state firmly that mic A has better "reach" or "dimension" or some other esoteric quality surely falls into the realm of personal preference rather than any definable characteristic. with preamps, it is even more difficult to even hear any differences between various brands and models, and the characterisitics which describe higher quality or accuracy or preferred "color" become ever more vague.

I have had professional performers, during blind mic tests, select AT4051 mics over schoeps CMC64s, DPA 4011s, and DPA 4006s on a bosendorfer grand piano. i have watched them select DPA 4011s over schoeps cmc64s, and then moments later select AKG C481s over the DPAs. they have chosen cascade fatheads over royer r-121s and coles 4038s on violin and cello. I have seen them select the preamps in my mackie mixer over the preamps in my Millennia Media HV-3D. I have had them unable to hear the difference between an ART tube pre and a sytek.

the recent thread about the new senn 8020 vs the schoeps mk2s is positively rife with engineers identifying the schoeps sound to the detriment of the senn sound, and using almost denigrating descriptions of the senns in comparison - in direct contrast to the OP's original impression of the two mics he was testing. are we trying to convince the OP that his own ears are not as good as "ours"? are we trying to indicate that "our" monitoring system is superior? are we taking into consideration the listening environment and equipment used by consumers? are we sure that the slight lift around 5khz evident in mic A, which "clearly" improves "air" in the mix is at all evident to the final listener? or are we all just talking some personal preference based on our familiarity with some specific characteristic, or worse, some adherence or loyalty to some certain brand due to a perceived "cachet" or pride in ownership of brand names we can drop in our conversations with clients or other engineers? how much of this is actual sonic quality vs vanity or delusion?

in the end, i have heard many many examples of recordings made with inexpensive mics and preamps that are perfectly enjoyable and sound just fine. we all seem to agree that it is the performance that truly matters, but still we obsess endlessly about minutia in our signal chain.

what are your thoughts on this? thanks.

[d_fu]

Ooooh, this could turn into one of those threads again...
Guess I'll just state that I agree with you and then keep out. (EDIT: Or maybe not...)

Originally Posted by jnorman

in the end, i have heard many many examples of recordings made with inexpensive mics and preamps that are perfectly enjoyable and sound just fine.

thumbsup

There are also plenty of examples of the opposite...

Daniel

[rumleymusic]

There are also plenty of examples of the opposite...

It could be that more experienced engineers tend to seek better equipment. Entry level equipment is more abundant among people with entry level experience.

I have heard many bad recordings using top'o'the line stuff, and I have heard good recordings with budget equipement, but I have no doubt that those good recordings would sound even better with better equipement.

Fore some experienced people it is purely a budget problem, and elitism among the wannabes and well off folks is a source of great frustration, cough... but then again, so is this: Recording and Production News page

[RobAnderson]

the recent thread about the new senn 8020 vs the schoeps mk2s is positively rife with engineers identifying the schoeps sound to the detriment of the senn sound, and using almost denigrating descriptions of the senns in comparison

FWIW, I preferred the sound of the Sennheisers in that thread. I don't think anybody was "denigrating" the sound of them - these are both excellent microphones. To me the HF boost of the Schoeps was "fogging up" the clarity of the image. Others had a different preference. At the end of the day it was very much an issue of "splitting hairs." Either recording would have been perfectly acceptable.

"Brighter" and "louder" almost always sound better on a visceral level to the untrained ear. Sometimes "thinner" can sound better because it masks problems in the lower midrange,as well as sounding "brighter." Care must also be taken to ensure that the gains are evenly matched on the material being compared - something that can be very difficult to do.

It is usually only after some real critical listening on good playback systems in good listening environments that a true comparison can be made. Even then, everyone may have their own preference based on "how" they hear or what they are listening for.

Frankly, a great deal of how a recording "sounds" is beyond my control - it is dictated to me by the music, the musicians, the instruments, and the acoustics where the recording will take place. I have made excellent sounding recordings with what some would consider to be "sub-par" equipment and I have made some not-so-great sounding recordings with very expensive equipment.

I have no loyalty to any particular brand of mic's or preamps. However, I am very familiar with how certain mic's, preamps, or combinations thereof will change or color the sound in a given situation. I then choose what I perceive will be the best tools for the job given what I have available to me, and it is up to me to utilize them in the best way possible.

[videoteque]

When people try to guess a microphone or pre in a blind test they describe sounds in an easy language "A is brighter and B is darker", after the fact, when people know the brands, then the inside Shakespeare that is inside us take the spotlight...

The truth is that audio quality is subjective. No one can give an equation for it but most of us would agree when something sounds better. There are soooo many variables, that most recorders don't want to fail in the more controlable ones: your own equipement.

Gear takes a big role in the fact of being paid to record too. I try to be as gear atheist as I can, but I would never pay someone to come to record something important with two Rodes and a Zoom recorder. Even if well placed, they could do a good (if not great) recording. I would always go to the one with a matched pair of M50s and a two-track tube tape recorder that are in any case much noisier...

I think that to loose much sleep over mics/pres minutae is useless. Much better to arrive in time for the rehersals and have time to make proper tests before a recording, try to not run miles of cables if not necessary, move the mics/musicians instead of doing everything with plug-ins, etc. etc.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

It could be that more experienced engineers tend to seek better equipment. Entry level equipment is more abundant among people with entry level experience.

No doubt, but comparisons between Schoeps, DPA, and even AKG 480 or Beyer 930 etc. hardly have much to do with "entry level" IMHO.
"Better equipment" is not always about "sound quality" only - it's about features, functionality, reliability - and of course, a certain bit of elitism...

[Corran]

I've become a believer in better mics make it easier to get a good sound. You can still get a good sound with other mics, but it's sometimes harder.

I ran ORTF with Oktava MK-012's for a while, I was never quite happy. Running the same pattern in the same hall, and a pair of Schoeps MK4's give me the sound I'm looking for. Why? I don't know, don't really care either - I just know what I hear and I'm not planning on re-selling my Schoeps pair for sure.

The specific thread you mentioned, I had a feeling one of the samples was the Schoeps due to the high-frequency lift, but I honestly liked that one better (being a performer in wind ensembles often, I know what I'm looking for and still haven't gotten the "perfect" band recording. Close though). I am heavily anticipating my next concert where I will be using the MK2S capsules I should be getting in soon.

I do agree that there is some snob comments occasionally, but, I also believe the bit about better quality tools make your job easier.

Also don't forget, stuff like the AT 4051, AKG 460b, etc. aren't bad mics, just different. Now I still personally think an MXL pair is clearly going to be inferior to a Schoeps/DPA/whatever pair.

When I get a chance I'm going to strap together pairs of Schoeps omnis, Earthworks omnis, Oktava omnis, and MXL omnis in a shootout. Just have to find time and an appropriate concert or rehearsal to do it. I also need to buy the Oktava omnis!

[NorseHorse]

Cool mics and preamps are romantic. Caution: Metaphor Ahead...

Think about samurai swords! Sure, you could chop off a limb wth a mid-range samurai sword, but a super-elite samurai sword has cool decorations and makes cutting 1% easier. Plus, there are all those OTHER samurai with regular swords. Even if they're just as skilled as you, the fuedal lord may like you a little more cause you have the sword that took two years to make.

When it comes down to it, whatever chops your foe in half will work.

[rumleymusic]

No doubt, but comparisons between Schoeps, DPA, and even AKG 480 or Beyer 930 etc. hardly have much to do with "entry level" IMHO.

Yeah but those are all great mics. And to complain about any of them is definitely elitism. I was think of "entry-level" as the bottom feeder throw-aways like Behringer, Samson, and cheap M-Audio mics. Things you would be too embarrassed to publish on your gear list.

Did I mention that I own a B2-Pro? Don't tell anyone.

or are we all just talking some personal preference based on our familiarity with some specific characteristic, or worse, some adherence or loyalty to some certain brand due to a perceived "cachet" or pride in ownership of brand names we can drop in our conversations with clients or other engineers? how much of this is actual sonic quality vs vanity or delusion?

I think at the level of the Schoeps and Senns, there is a stubbornness to believe that legendary brand (schoeps) is without a doubt better. And not just different. It is kind of like arguing that blue is better than green. Or Coke is better than Pepsi, which it is . There is the level though where there really is no argument for elitism, like comparing a $50 sdc to an $1800 sdc. The reason for the price difference is clearly audible. Though I also saw one blind test on vocals where in comparison to C414's, U87's, and some other heavy hitters, the overwhelming preference was the little old sm57. Life is full of contradictions.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

Did I mention that I own a B2-Pro? Don't tell anyone.

I used an MXL 2003 as a spot for a solo horn once, and the horn player just loved the sound...

[Howie J]

Originally Posted by Corran

I've become a believer in better mics make it easier to get a good sound. You can still get a good sound with other mics, but it's sometimes harder.

You almost took the words out of my mouth.

The times I get to work with really high end gear and compare it to "mid-level" or "budget" gear, one word comes to mind. Forgiveness..and I'm not talking about confession.

If you REALLY get perfect and spend the arduous time to place a really cheap mic in the exact spot at the exact angle, etc, etc, you can get that great sound. Great sounding mics/pres seem to give a little bit of wiggle room. So if you don't get placement 100% accurate, you can still pull off a solid recording...and if you DO have the time for perfect placement/planning...

[BrianHanke]

To be perfectly blunt: unless one is making tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the recording business, there is absolutely no requirement that one spend exorbitant amounts of money on gear.

Almost all recording equipment available on the market today is competent and gets the job done. We all have our own personal tastes and for a variety of reasons we may decide that we prefer a Neumann mic or a Great River preamp over the competition.

But, for anyone to imply that there is a "night and day" difference between an AKG 414 and an AT 4050 (for example) is inaccurate at best and pure hyperbole at worst. Both mics convert sound waves into electricity in a predictable manner. Either one can be used to capture a wonderful performance.

I don't record others for a living, so perhaps my perspective is limited. I've made the choice to spend quite a bit of money on mics and not so much on the rest of my signal chain. It simply hasn't been demonstrated to me, through personal experience or otherwise, that fancy preamps, conversion or monitors can make my creative process any more productive or enjoyable. That's a very personal decision, but it makes sense for me in my situation. It's actually a comfortable place to be in because I can step back a bit and see extreme opinions for what they really are.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

It could be that more experienced engineers tend to seek better equipment. Entry level equipment is more abundant among people with entry level experience.

I have heard many bad recordings using top'o'the line stuff, and I have heard good recordings with budget equipement, but I have no doubt that those good recordings would sound even better with better equipement.
Recording and Production News page

I agree completely with this. Although I would use the word "refinement" when describing why one pre amp is used over another. A talented engineer CAN make good recording with budget gear, but chooses not to.
More interestingly, there are the exceptions. I have a friend that does lots of major label (classical) recordings with a mackie 800r. He works 10 times more than I do. Even though I strongly believe that there are more refined sounding preamps for what he's doing, why would I ever question his choice? Both my friend his and clients are happy, why mess with it?

[ears2thesky]

A specific mic/preamp combo might be appropriate for one production goal regardless of the cost. Many folks blend "hi-fi" and "lo-fi" sounds to attain a greater sense of textural variety. Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree uses a very modest setup and garners rave reviews for the quality of his productions.

Snobbery is inevitably a counterproductive yet pervasive mindset especially in art.

[chris319]

Spot on, jnorman.

To be perfectly blunt: unless one is making tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the recording business, there is absolutely no requirement that one spend exorbitant amounts of money on gear.

Either that or you're working for a corporation or institution (the BBC or Berklee, for example) and you're spec'ing mics to be purchased with corporate or institutional money which isn't your personal money. "A benefactor just donated $5,000 so we can buy those Schoepses now."

Some day I'm going to rent a $2,000 mic and take a $100 mic out of my collection. I will record the same material using both mics. I am then going to post clips and say "This one is the $2,000 mic and this one is the $100 mic" and see how the discussion unfolds. However, devil that I am, I'm going to tell everyone that the $2,000 mic is the $100 mic and the $100 mic is the $2,000 mic, and see how much praise the true $100 mic garners.

[BrianHanke]

Originally Posted by Don S

More interestingly, there are the exceptions. I have a friend that does lots of major label (classical) recordings with a mackie 800r.

This is exactly the kind of practical information that folks just starting out with recording or doing it as a hobby need to understand. thumbsup

Originally Posted by ears2thesky

Snobbery is inevitably a counterproductive yet pervasive mindset especially in art.

Well said!

Originally Posted by chris319

Either that or you're working for a corporation or institution (the BBC or Berklee, for example) and you're spec'ing mics to be purchased with corporate or institutional money which isn't your personal money. "A benefactor just donated $5,000 so we can buy those Schoepses now."

True! I LOVE spending other people's money. My own, not so much...

[RobAnderson]

But, for anyone to imply that there is a "night and day" difference between an AKG 414 and an AT 4050 (for example) is inaccurate at best and pure hyperbole at worst. Both mics convert sound waves into electricity in a predictable manner. Either one can be used to capture a wonderful performance.

But I'd say these mic's are in roughly the same price point. Both are good workhorses, but I would not expect either of them to be particularly spectacular on anything. Now compare a 414 to a Brauner and we are in a different category.

FWIW, cheaper mic's are not "bad" but can sometimes have hidden "gotcha's" such as the way they handle bleed on a crowded stage or a grainy or muffled high-end response, or some sort of coloration in the midrange. These things are not always immediately apparent but can bite you in the a** later on as you are trying to mix.

On the other hand, you have to consider is what the right tool for the job is. If I am recording a screaming heavy metal singer, I would not think twice about pulling out a 58 over some really expensive condenser - it's going to give me the sound I want. If I want a gritty upright bass sound, I'm going to pull out the Oktava over the Neumann - it's going to give me the sound I want.

It really doesn't matter at the end of the day - tools are just tools and you do the best you can with what you have got. But I have done it both ways and I have to admit that I've found that when it comes to this stuff, you often get what you pay for.

[Plush]

Reasons to be happy PART 10:

Advisory: I admit that I am a microphone freak and also a microphone pre-amp freak.
I don't think I'm a snob because my fetish is driven by performance of the equipment.

May I propose a few reasons why a certain mic or mic amp can be particularly valuable?

1. better mics and better mic amps have a lot of headroom.
They have substantially more headroom than less sophisticated (read cheap) designs.

2. Flexibility of the mic system.

3. refinement of the sound---refined vs. coarse (mannered vs. neanderthal)

4. build quality--I try to avoid Made in China. I will always pay more for "Made in USA" or "Made in Germany" even for "Made in Slovakia." I am so determined in this area that sometimes I will pay 10 times as much to have it be designed and made well.

5. I seek to have the recorded sound sound "expensive."

6. Some preamps show little difference to other preamps. Other preamps stand head and shoulders above and apart from even the "accepted standard" mic amps.

7. Snobbism, except in L.A., is such a poor reason to have a certain piece of gear. Yet we all succumb, to a degree, to pride in our set-ups.

I will freely admit that many of the recordings I have made that have won important awards have been made with top quality gear.

[chris319]

I am going to start importing mics from China. I'll make a few mods here and there and they'll sound great. I'm going to sell $100 mics for $2,000 under the brand name "Shep's". I'm going to make millions.

Get yourself a pair of Shep's mics today!

[BrianHanke]

Originally Posted by RobAnderson

But I'd say these mic's are in roughly the same price point. Both are good workhorses, but I would not expect either of them to be particularly spectacular on anything. Now compare a 414 to a Brauner and we are in a different category.

Perhaps, but the 414 is more expensive and arguably possesses the halo of the AKG pedigree.

Originally Posted by RobAnderson

If I want a gritty upright bass sound, I'm going to pull out the Oktava over the Neumann - it's going to give me the sound I want.

Yes, absolutely. This just goes to demonstrate the flexible nature of the word "better." If you want the Oktava sound, then it's a "better" mic than the Neumann for that application.

Originally Posted by chris319

Get yourself a pair of Shep's mics today!

Hmm, maybe you need a more Teutonic-sounding name to really rake in the bucks. How about Sheps Funkenwerk? Make sure you leave out the apostrophe so people know you mean business.

[chris319]

Make sure you leave out the apostrophe so people know you mean business.

Oh no, then people will think it's a rip-off.

[videoteque]

Originally Posted by chris319

Get yourself a pair of Shep's mics today!

How do they compare to an original u47??

[chris319]

Originally Posted by videoteque

How do they compare to an original u47??

They're off the bang-for-buck-o-meter.

[Roland]

Whilst I'm not the greatest fan of "vintage so it's better" microphones, and I can quite believe that using a 4051 or a Cascade fathead may in certain situations sound as good, even better than Schoeps or Neumanns or DPA's the fact is that this is a 1 in 10 situation. Most times the better mic's will sound better, smoother, quieter, less distortion.

During most recording sessions I do there isn't the time or scope for lots of experimentation, that's not to say that I don't. but practicalities means it's about setting up, making a couple of tweaks then going with the music. In this situation the "big" name mic's and pre's won't let you down, the lessor one's mentioned here, may well be below par. A Ford Focus as a car will often be fine for most uses, but to suggest that it's as good a car as an Aston or Merceds is nonsense.

DPA and Alike reputation is not only based on there products cost, but on consistent results, the fact that there is some budget kit that has good reputations and is used by many professionals is (IMHO) proof enough that it's not just pure snobbery. It also has to be born in mind that a cold one mic against another isn't a totally unbiased test, for one you don't know the conditions under which the test was performed (i.e. the positioning might favor the lessor mic) and secondly when using multiple microphones on a session there is a cumulative effect that a one to one comparison often doesn't highlight well. I for one, am always looking for "sleepers", but the reality is often you do really get what you pay for. YMMV of course.

Regards


Roland

[David Spearritt]

Hear, hear, Roland. I buy expensive mics and gear for reliability and time saving. I value my time very highly, and get really annoyed when it's wasted. Because I have the highest quality mics and preamps, I don't have to EQ or compress later, I can mix on site, burn the master, get paid and move quickly onto the next project. Good gear has many more benefits other than sonics. Time saving is one of the most important.

[d_fu]

IMHO the discussion is abit pointless without some (individual) definition of where to draw the line between "good gear" and "not so good gear". Clearly no one is advocating selling one's collection to buy lots of cheap chinese mics for upcoming high-profile CD productions. I guess jnorman was referring to "good" vs. "esoteric"...
Excellent recordings can be made without mics that cost several thousands a piece (DPA 4041, Neumann 150, Brauners, Manley, what not...).

Despite their age, my old Beyer 700 series cardioid mics never fail to please me when I use them as choir spots. I have also never found my AKG 460s or 480s to provide anything but good results when used as spots for vocal soloists. A pair of older AKG 414 B-TL (not TLII) was just wonderful as woodwind spots in a BAch oratorio. This is a class of competent "studio mics" that reliably performs well. A DPA or Schoeps in the same position, at a certain distance from the source and as part of a multichannel mix may just not make a significant difference. In an isolated setup close to an individual source, these differences may show up, but the distance from and presence of other sources will certainly even out somewhat esoteric factors like "dimension" or so to an extent.

Of course, buying "good gear" for reasons of reliability etc. certainly is not a matter of elitism.

[RichS]

Originally Posted by chris319

Get yourself a pair of Shep's mics today!

Perhaps you can call them "Shemps" and attract Three Stooges aficionados who prefer the finely tuned and nuanced performances of Shemp over Curly's high-quality, but somewhat broader range slap-stick interpretations.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by d_fu

IMHO the discussion is abit pointless without some (individual) definition of where to draw the line between "good gear" and "not so good gear". Clearly no one is advocating selling one's collection to buy lots of cheap chinese mics for upcoming high-profile CD productions. I guess jnorman was referring to "good" vs. "esoteric"...
Excellent recordings can be made without mics that cost several thousands a piece (DPA 4041, Neumann 150, Brauners, Manley, what not...).

Despite their age, my old Beyer 700 series cardioid mics never fail to please me when I use them as choir spots. I have also never found my AKG 460s or 480s to provide anything but good results when used as spots for vocal soloists. A pair of older AKG 414 B-TL (not TLII) was just wonderful as woodwind spots in a BAch oratorio. This is a class of competent "studio mics" that reliably performs well. A DPA or Schoeps in the same position, at a certain distance from the source and as part of a multichannel mix may just not make a significant difference. In an isolated setup close to an individual source, these differences may show up, but the distance from and presence of other sources will certainly even out somewhat esoteric factors like "dimension" or so to an extent.

Of course, buying "good gear" for reasons of reliability etc. certainly is not a matter of elitism.

but the mic's you are citing are not exactly "budget" Chinese capsule jobs. The 414's the Beyers etc all have certain reputations, IMHO that's not the same as many of the "new" range £1.00 capsule condensors that the market is so rife with these days. As to your other point, I think as general pick-up mics, the quality definitely needs to be higher. "Head" mic's are where I believe that the DPA's Schoeps, Neumann's etc really make the difference, probably down to the fact they are better/more consistantly engineered with better/smoother off axis responses, lower distortion.

Of course you then make the really important point about reliability, that's an equally important issue.

Regards


Roland

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Roland

but the mic's you are citing are not exactly "budget" Chinese capsule jobs.

That's my point - I don't think this thread was ever meant to be about DPA vs. el-cheapo chinese. It was about AKG vs. DPA or so.

As to your other point, I think as general pick-up mics, the quality definitely needs to be higher.

Sorry - higher than what? What are you referring to?

[lakeshorephatty]

In response to the OP.

I hear and understand your bewilderment. Think of it this way:

- Some people buy a large home/car/whatever to utalize the features of it
- some people would buy similar things because its the best and they will settle for nothing less regardless of what it does for them
- some would buy similar things to attract certain clientele (lawyers/real estate etc)
- some would buy similar things for image

the list could go on and on. Are some reasons for owning the equipment frivolous? Yes of course they are.

In reality, it doesn't matter what the reason, people can do what they want with their money.

I personally care greatly about the recording quality of music that I listen to and that I create. I do truely use my ears and have no problems admitting that the right mic with the right source isn't always expensive. I have mics that cost me less than 100 that are the perfect mic for the job. That said there are many mics sub 1000 that are terrible on any and all sources.

My advice is to do what comes natural. Believe the opinions of those you truely believe, ignore or question the rest, and make music.

And keep trusting your ears, if you can't hear a difference then go with what seems right to you or what is cheaper.

That said I will say that sometimes our equipment can lead our ears. It can take time to really "hear" the benefits of something, and part of that comes from using the device correctly, even something as simple as a preamp. Only when you really start using it correctly can you often go back and see a world of difference to where you once were.

Russell