The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Some thoughts on microphones... Condenser Microphones
Old 26th March 2018
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Some thoughts on microphones...

i guess this is the right place for this... i can't afford to be high end, so low end it is

i'm not necessarily writing this to ask a question or start a discussion... maybe i'm just trying to work out my own thinking on the subject...

besides budget, part of the reason i'm in the low-end category is because i feel like there is a lot of mysticism in audio, as opposed to engineering, which would be applied science... analog vs digital, bit depth and sample rate, expensive mics vs cheap mics... i never see a lot of scientific reasoning behind some tightly held opinions in the audio world, and personally i think it's a major factor in the overall quality of recordings being made today... as far as i'm concerned, the most important piece of gear in the studio is a good song, and i think too many engineers think it's the board or the mics...

i just saw a youtube video where this swedish kid rented a vintage c12 and compared it to one of those ebay/amazon electret condenser mics that are advertised as LDCs... BM-400 is the most common model number... the C12 was valued at $125,000 i think, and you can get a BM-400 for around $40 i guess... $125,000/$40 = 3125... there's not a human on this planet that could make a compelling science-backed argument that a C12 is 3125 times better than a BM-400... you could, however, probably make the case that a BM-400 is 95% as good as a C12... and that's pretty much what the conclusion of the video was, that the BM-400 really didn't sound bad at all in most cases...

so i always approached my "investment" into microphones as the more money i spend, the less i'm getting in terms of production value... i have a D112 because a former associate of mine had a D112 and when his studio closed down he gave it to me to use and never asked for it back... it's considered a kick mic so i use it on kick... i use 58s on snare and toms because my former associate also gave me three 58s and never asked for them back... i have apex 180s for overheads, because, well, everybody's using SDCs as overheads and the apex 180s were the cheapest SDCs i could find... i never argued with the idea that there is an appropriate TYPE of mic to use, but the idea of spending $2000 on a mic when i can get the same type of mic for $150 seems like a bad business decision... the $2000 mic is NOT 13 1/3 times better than the $150 mic... actually, the $150 mic is probably 95% as good as the $2000 mic...

how do i rationalize such a bold claim?

because i'm not a mystic... i'm not an engineer, as far as being in possession of a piece of paper that says i'm qualified to be one, but i respect science and engineering in audio more than mysticism... take the C12, for example... if there was some mystical quality to it, there would probably only be one magical C12, imbued with mystical powers by a band of wizards... no, actually, they were designed and built by stuffy german engineers, and there are dozens of them and they're all good... i'm not denying that they must be great mics (i wouldn't have the experience to say otherwise), only that the reasons why they are great mics can be measured and expressed in terms we can understand...

what are the measurable properties of a microphone?
frequency response
pickup pattern

stop there... this is an excellent example of where mysticism creeps into the equation... people talk about "off-axis rejection"... off-axis rejection is just a different way of expressing frequency response in terms of the pickup pattern... but a lot of people talk about it like it's some other property... i think part of the problem is that frequency response and pickup pattern are expressed in a way that was made standard long before modern software gave us the ability to graph things properly... frequency response is expressed as a 2D line graph... pickup pattern is expressed as a circular line graph, and sometimes up to 6 arbitrary frequencies are presented on the same graph... i've never seen a pickup pattern graph where the frequencies presented had any relation to significant boosts or cuts in the accompanying frequency response graph... pretty much every graph gives you 1k, even though there's literally nothing going on at 1k for that mic... i think mic manufacturers should update how they express frequency response and pickup pattern using some modern way of graphing the relationship between the two, because with the information they give you, no wonder people think some mics have some magical ability to filter out guitar amp bleed...

continuing...
SPL handling
self-noise
distortion

i find self-noise and distortion funny because people will use expensive mics with low noise and distortion characteristics with analog tape that has, at best, an equivalent signal-to-noise performance of 13 bit digital audio...

transient response/slew rate

this is kind of where i am now... i know this is not a new thing but i recently bought a Senheiser e901, a boundary mic designed for kick... when i first started reading about using boundary mics in a kick drum i thought "well, isn't that the last thing in the world i would use to mic a kick drum?" but it makes sense now... even if you have a dynamic mic with an almost perfectly flat frequency response, say an Electro Voice RE20, the frequency response given doesn't take into account amplitude let alone signal energy... signal energy is like the slope of the wave... at the same amplitude, a high frequency signal will have more energy than a lower frequency signal... if you need a simple demonstration, take your hand and wave it up and down at a regular amplitude at a rather low frequency... then while maintaining the same amplitude, start waving it at a much higher frequency... your hand has to move faster to maintain that same amplitude... you could reduce the distance your hand has to travel to maintain the speed your hand has to move at the higher frequency, but to maintain that distance you have to move your hand faster... so slew rate is the limit to how fast the diaphragm of a microphone can travel regardless of frequency... so at low amplitudes, yes, an RE20 has a rather flat response, but at high amplitudes there is a roll-off of high frequencies because the diaphragm itself is physically not able to travel that fast through space... that is just inherent to moving-coil dynamic capsule design, and there's another case to be made that modern software probably offers a way to communicate that more clearly... anyway, that's where the boundary mic comes in... boundary mics are condensers, usually electrets... condensers generally have a higher slew rate and thus a better transient response... however, LDCs and SDCs often don't have the SPL handling to deal with a kick drum, but electrets do? that's my understanding of it anyway... but other than their ability to capture the transient that dynamics inherently cannot, boundary mics are actually terrible kick mics... when i solo mine, it's just garbage, but when given the right phase relationship with my D112, it's absolutely like pulling a wet blanket off the kick drum... it's kind of like how the bottom snare mic always sounds terrible but if it's not there it doesn't sound like a snare drum anymore...

aha!! bottom snare... who doesn't use a 57 or some other jack-of-all trade dynamic mic on the bottom snare?! well i do... not a 57 because i don't have one... i use literally the worst mic i own... i don't even know what it is... it has a switch on it, and the windscreen (because wind) is held on with a hair tie... i'm sure it's a really terrible home karaoke mic... i use that mic because no matter what other dynamic mic i put on it, it doesn't really sound any better, but it needs to be there... but i've never tried a condenser mic on the bottom snare because 1) i have more important things to mic with condensers, like other things, and 2) i always assumed they wouldn't handle the SPL... so in the interest of experimentation, i just ordered 6 cheap lav mics off of ebay... i'm gonna start using them on all my drums because, well, i want to see if i can improve transient response on all my drums...

which brings me to cymbals... are we using condenser mics on cymbals because dynamics typically roll off high frequencies, or is it transient response? is it because we typically don't consider cymbal mics to be cymbal mics, rather we consider them to be "overheads" and we are attempting to capture the entire drum kit? are we doing that because we're trying to compensate for the lack of transient response in the dynamic drum mics? because to my understanding, compared to drums, cymbals have relatively low transient energy... so consider the RE20 again... a dynamic mic with a very flat frequency response and a greatly extended frequency range compared to your typical dynamic...
Electro-Voice RE20 | RecordingHacks.com
but because it's a dynamic, it likely doesn't have the same high slew rate and therefore transient response of a condenser... but cymbals (again, this is just my personal understanding) are less transient anyway... an RE20 would probably work just fine as a "cymbal" mic... maybe not as an "overhead" mic, with the goal to capture the transients missing from the dynamics on the drums, but probably ok for a cymbal mic... and if you were to use something directly on the drums to capture those transients (say, cheap chinese ebay lav mics?!?), you wouldn't need to use condensers as overheads...

this is all just speculative thought... of course, there is something to be said about using overheads to present the stereo image of the drumkit as being one instrument, not a collection of separate instruments... i get that... i'm not suggesting to not use overheads in that regard... it's just really the first time that i really considered how transients manifest themselves in a drumkit and how maybe there is a better way with more appropriate mic types to capture the kit...

my next purchase, in fact my next several purchases are going to be RE20s... they are not cheap, but i have yet to find a dynamic mic that exhibits such a flat and extended frequency response at a lower price... i'm assuming that these cheap lav mics aren't going to do the job of providing a way of capturing transients that compliment a dynamic mic's ability to capture everything else, but i'm going to investigate this also... maybe i'm not investigating SDCs designed for drums enough... maybe that's a better solution than a dynamic and a condenser on a tom... maybe just a condenser that can handle the SPL and has an extended/flat response...

maybe those things cost more money than just using whatever crap i have around... maybe transient response is more important than frequency response... you can always use an EQ to deal with frequency response... you can't really create transients that aren't captured... they don't really state transient response though... it's just kind of a general rule that condensers are better than dynamics... are they really? are some better than others? are there some dynamics that are comparable or even better than some condensers?

are they cheap?!
Old 27th March 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Sounds to me like you're trying to justify the fact you cant afford high quality gear.
There's nothing shameful in that we all been there make due with what you got until you can afford better.
When you can afford better you put that money where you get the biggest bang for the buck and then push it to its limits to get the most form it.
That's the key, getting the most from it.

The thing you have to realize as you go up in quality the differences you hear become smaller and smaller. Its like a pyramid the differences keep getting smaller as you reach the top of the pack and then its merely things like personal preference or whatever comfort the gear provides when using it.

Can you get high quality sound from low cost gear? Some of it if you work hard enough to get the best form it. Like you said its the music that accounts for many poor recordings but putting that aside there are differences in gear. The question is do you want to work twice as hard all the time trying to match the results someone gets just taking it easy using higher quality gear? If you don't mind the hard work then stick with the budget gear. It will at least keep you working efficiently and producing quality music.

The question is what would you get from high quality gear working just as hard pushing high quality gear to its limits?
If you don't think you can produce "Great Works" with quality gear then maybe you aren't ready for those tools.
Its like why waste spending $300 on a hammer as a gift when the person receiving it has a $10 skill level? If you know that person is ready to use that tool as an artist can then give them $100 hammer. If all they plan to do is drive nails then $10 should do the job perfectly. They have no plans on becoming a great carpenter so why bother giving them the best tools money can buy, its not like they are going to earn back enough profit to pay it off and given their low skill levels they'd likely wind up damaging the tool or the work they do with it.

If the person has real talent then no too is too good or too expensive. People with that kind of talent will not only pay for the tools by the profits made but they will be pushing it beyond its limits very quickly.

The moral here is, you can find the maximum potential of any tools you own and get the best from it. That's the ability that's important because you'll wind up doing the same thing over and over again as you upgrade your tools and it "is" what gives your recordings and edge over the next guy.
Old 27th March 2018
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zappazapper View Post
i... actually, the $150 mic is probably 95% as good as the $2000 mic...

how do i rationalize such a bold claim?
I don't think you can rationalize it, let alone defend it. At this point, you're just starting to learn how to hear.
Old 30th March 2018
  #4
Here for the gear
I completely agree with the OP. There seems to be a fetish for expensive gear in the world of music, especially nowadays when we have amazing tools which yield incredible results and don't cost an arm and a leg.

I've heard recordings made with a simple AT2020 which would astound the most proficient engineer.
Old 30th March 2018
  #5
Deleted User
Guest
I think one of the biggest improvements in the last ten years has been with DAWS and digital recorders. The Shure SM 57 & 58s still cost $99.00. IMHO quality audio will always come down to four areas.

1. Proper mic choice. Dynamic or condenser.
2. Proper recording environment.
3. Proper mic placement.
4. Proper input levels.

Once you can achieve these requirements, everything else seems to fall into place. I like to sound of my sm57 better then my 7b for narration, so which was is the best? It depends on who you are trying to satisfy. Just my 2 cents.

Last edited by Dana_T.; 30th March 2018 at 03:52 PM.. Reason: Added number 4.
Old 30th March 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
IME, there's truth to all the above. The old adage, “you get what you pay for” still stands to this day, BUT the quality to value ratio is much better today than it was in years past. In addition, the laws of diminishing returns still apply as well. Most home recording and indie artists can’t afford nor justify the cost of high end boutique gear, and there are certain price point sweet spots that meet their needs for whatever piece of gear they need. This isn’t exclusive to microphones, as it’s true with all areas of music production.

My goal as an artist is to make art/music with the tools I have. A good artist knows how to use his tools and use limitations/parameters to his/her advantage. Most of my gear is budget or prosumer level gear, but I’ve never felt like it was keeping me from writing or recording good songs. A good song and a good performance are just that (i.e., a good song and good performance). Generally, the end consumer or listener could care less what microphone, preamp, DAW, compressor, etc. was used to produce it.

And keep in mind, everyone—no matter how limitless thei budget or awesome the studio space—has obstacles to work around. My biggest one is time, not gear. The quality and amount of tools the average home recording enthusiast has at his/her disposal today is incredible and far superior to that of many professional studios operating thirty years ago. Sol, let’s keep that in perspective.

With that said, a $40 mic isn’t going to sound anywhere close to the quality of a well maintained C12--not in any real musical context of any real production…HOWEVER, if you bump that budget up to somewhere between $500 to $1,000 now you’ve got a shootout party on your hands. There are mic manufacturing companies like Warm, Vanguard, Studio Projects, Aston, Lauten, GZ, 3-U, GAP, et al that are seriously revolutionizing the price points and closing the price gaps between boutique and prosumer quality mics. I think for most of us that should probably be the target. In the meantime, there’s nothing wrong with MXLs, Blues, Rhodes, etc. All of these companies make very usable microphones at a fair price. I could easily make a full record these days with just a Studio Projects B3 and a couple sm57s. Would it take a little more work? …yes…. would it still sound good?….as long as I obey the general principles of mic placement, room conditioning and control, gain staging, etc. it would sound good to great…..How do I know?....because many other artists for decades have made fantastic records with nothing more than 57s and/or 58s, and there are plenty of modern examples of artists using nothing more than either just 57s or other budget gear making pro level recordings. I don't know that I'd consider some of the older stuff I recorded with nothing more than a 57 and an MXL v67 or a SP B1 to be "pro level" (circa 2000-2002), but when I go back and listen to those recordings they sound good because I put the appropriate time and effort into production. Those recordings easily compete with others I've done with much higher end gear.

Once you learn your craft, the tools are important, but they’re secondary. I know my craft fairly well, and I’ve learned to use most of my tools. I know their limitations, and I’m able to work around them and even at times use them as a barometer to produce my art. That’s what a good artist does IME.
Old 30th March 2018
  #7
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
I think one of the biggest improvements in the last ten years has been with DAWS and digital recorders.
Another sea change came a bit earlier with the introduction of the first SSL's. Up to that point I never heard anyone, even hugely successful engineer/produers, talk about preamps. But the first SSL's had pre's that sounded so bad that it suddenly became a huge topic, and the general awareness of how much preamps matter skyrocketed. We should all thank SSL for that.
Old 30th March 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
Quote:
i just saw a youtube video where this swedish kid rented a vintage C12 and compared it to one of those ebay/amazon electret condenser mics that are advertised as LDCs... BM-400 is the most common model number... the C12 was valued at $125,000 i think, and you can get a BM-400 for around $40 i guess... $125,000/$40 = 3125... there's not a human on this planet that could make a compelling science-backed argument that a C12 is 3125 times better than a BM-400... you could, however, probably make the case that a BM-400 is 95% as good as a C12... and that's pretty much what the conclusion of the video was, that the BM-400 really didn't sound bad at all in most cases...
It not about number of X better or percentages of "as good as"

People pay top dollar for pro audio gear to have those iconic sounds at their finer tips and that costs money.

There'as something about a C12 that just isn't captured in a BM-400.

Like the difference between booking your favorite band or artist for your birthday party or booking that local tribute band that sounds "just like the real thing" but only costs $350 for the night.

Authenticity costs - if your want iconic classic sounds in your tool kit then it unfortunately doesn't come cheap.
Old 30th March 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
I think one of the biggest improvements in the last ten years has been with DAWS and digital recorders. The Shure SM 57 & 58s still cost $99.00. IMHO quality audio will always come down to three areas.

1. Proper mic choice. Dynamic or condenser.
2. Proper recording environment.
3. Proper mic placement.

Once you can achieve these requirements, everything else seems to fall into place. I like to sound of my sm57 better then my 7b for narration, so which was is the best? It depends on who you are trying to satisfy. Just my 2 cents.

Bingo!......I think the biggest mistake many home recording or budget studio artists make is assuming they A) need a LDC and B) neglect proper mic placement and room treatment. Of course, a good dynamic mic will eliminate some of the immediate need for tons of room treatment, which is one additional benefit. Also, the better the LDC the more shortcomings it’s going to reveal about the space. This is why it’s absolutely nuts that someone recording in an untreated bedroom or garage would go out and spend 4k or more on a U87 or the like. It’s analogous to putting 5k rims on a 1k car. It just doesn’t make any sense, but this is not an issue that’s evident with most dynamic mics or even ribbons, to varying degree IME.

But if you’re going to buy and use a LDC then for the love of Pete, learn basic mic placement and deaden your room with some adequate room treatment. At the very least, put some acoustic treatment in a corner or turn a small closet into a vocal booth of sorts with foam panels. Also, forget the $40 mics. I’ve heard them in plenty of shootouts. If you have to go super cheap either wait for a STUPID DEAL at musiciansfriend for something decent arouind $100 or push your budget up to $150-$200 because there are tons of good options in that price range. If you can stretch to $300 that’s even better.

Also, I highly recommend the book “Mixing with Your Mind” because it has the most invaluable information on mic placement, drum placement, and everything else. After reading music engineering test books and countless music production forums online I finally broke down, bought, and digested the information in that book way back in 2004. I’ve read it many times since, and still reference it for just about everything. But the illustrations and explanations on mic placement are simply tops. That book helped me learn mic placement in very short time, which otherwise would have taken me years of trial and error to figure out, assuming I ever would have.
Old 30th March 2018
  #10
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gretsch 6120 View Post
Also, I highly recommend the book “Mixing with Your Mind” because it has the most invaluable information on mic placement, drum placement, and everything else. After reading music engineering test books and countless music production forums online I finally broke down, bought, and digested the information in that book way back in 2004. I’ve read it many times since, and still reference it for just about everything. But the illustrations and explanations on mic placement are simply tops. That book helped me learn mic placement in very short time, which otherwise would have taken me years of trial and error to figure out, assuming I ever would have.
Thanks for the tip on the book. I will look it up later this evening. . Here is the link to the book.

Last edited by Dana_T.; 30th March 2018 at 06:07 PM.. Reason: Added link.
Old 30th March 2018
  #11
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
Authenticity costs - if your want iconic classic sounds in your tool kit then it unfortunately doesn't come cheap.
But if I did that, I'd have nothing left to blame but my own inadequacy.
Old 30th March 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
:-)
Old 31st March 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zappazapper View Post
i never see a lot of scientific reasoning behind some tightly held opinions in the audio world,
Because often there is none. This is not a science project; it's music. Tons of subjectivity and imagined diffs where there are little to none and so forth. But if it "helps" (if only psychologically) and one is able and willing to spend the money, to each their own. But diffs in gear very frequently are exaggerated and Gretsch nailed it in saying while sure there are generally diffs in lower vs higher priced gear, it all varies and they're diminishing returns. You do not need high-priced gear to make very good, very professional recordings.

Quote:
it's just kind of a general rule that condensers are better than dynamics
No it's not.

Quote:
are some better than others?
Yes.

Quote:
are there some dynamics that are comparable or even better than some condensers?
Of course. But it all depends on what you're trying to do and they have pros and cons.

Quote:
are they cheap?!
Define "cheap."
Old 31st March 2018
  #14
ccg
Gear Maniac
 

I don't even want to get into these...yet here I am typing.

1. A YouTube video made by a "kid" doesn't sound like an ideal way to judge the difference between two microphones of any caliber or price point.
2. Peace of mind matters in complicated recording situations. Here's an example: I've got a session horn player standing around warming up. He's getting paid for his work. Should I spend time messing with a handful of "affordable mics" and budget preamps hoping to stumble onto the combination that MIGHT work, or should I should plug an RCA 44 into a Shadow Hills/Hardy/Neve/whatever pre and let the pro do his thing?
3. High-end gear is for high-end work. You don't always need it to make a good recording. But in the example above it actually makes the process more cost-effective. That peace of mind comes back into play again.
4. Professional studios need professional equipment. Nobody is telling you to buy a C12 if you're recording your first demo. If you want to use that type of gear you should be working in a studio. At least until you've got the money and the aspirations that include owning this high-end gear yourself.
5. Mid-range gear still exists. The AT-4050 is one of many examples of mics that people find very usable for all types of recording. I can buy a brand new one on the internet for $699 today.
6. Others have said this already, but that top-tier gear, and even some of the items that are within reach like high-end preamps, do not provide a 50% improvement over stock ones. I can use an Apogee preamp in something like an Ensemble next to any outboard piece without losing my mind. I might like the outboard 15% better, but I probably paid 400% more per channel. I'm okay with that.
7. Many people who wonder if having the best gear matters do not have the ability to hear the differences yet. I'm not saying it's all night and day. In fact, I'm saying it's often subtle. That may or may not be worth it to you -- even if you could afford the good stuff. That's also not a knock on your skills. It just takes time and a lot of work.

Okay I'm done now.
Old 2nd April 2018
  #15
Lives for gear
 
jdier's Avatar
 

Without being a jerk, great expensive gear exists because it is great gear.

Top engineers and producers do not choose to buy/use expensive gear for some type of bragging rights. They use it because it works. Some of them use SM57's, not because they are cheap, but because they believe them be the best for their application.

Justify your cheaper gear anyway you like. We all do it. We find a spot where we achieve a comfortable EXPENSE:RESULTS ratio.

It seems it is only on internet chat boards that people want to fight about their gear and why they are using what they are using. At real studios, they are just recording and making music.
Old 2nd April 2018
  #16
Deleted User
Guest
@JDider, very well put. Happy anniversary! I love the panning on the guitar for "Hypocrite". Also, your Bass Player is WALKING THE DAWG!!!!!!!!!! Very well done. May I ask what role you are with the group?
Old 2nd April 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
I'd like to point out that op has found they already stated their preference for mic a over mic b in different usage. So taking as given that different mics sound different on the same source material it stands to reason that for a particular recordist , artist, etc. there will be a mic that fits best. Not 95 % but 100%. If it takes an expensive mic to get to 100% and the client is paying for that , then the expensive mic is the one to use.
Old 2nd April 2018
  #18
you're right on some level... the high end stuff is not always exponentially better than the cheap stuff (although many times it is)

BUT

it's all a game of inches. there's a small difference between michael jordan and clyde drexler... but that small difference makes ALL the difference in the world.

and then that difference is compounded on every recorded track...

mic is a little better, pres are a little better, room is a little better, converters are a little better x 30 tracks = a huge difference

i know everytime i went a step up... the difference was far from negligible

that being said... there are big records made on very cheap equipment (the headphone masterpiece immediately comes to mind)

you just need to ask yourself what equipment allows you to best present the idea/emotion of the song

.02
Old 2nd April 2018
  #19
m03
Gear Maniac
 
m03's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zappazapper View Post
i just saw a youtube video where this swedish kid rented a vintage c12 and compared it to one of those ebay/amazon electret condenser mics that are advertised as LDCs... BM-400 is the most common model number... the C12 was valued at $125,000 i think, and you can get a BM-400 for around $40 i guess... $125,000/$40 = 3125... there's not a human on this planet that could make a compelling science-backed argument that a C12 is 3125 times better than a BM-400... you could, however, probably make the case that a BM-400 is 95% as good as a C12... and that's pretty much what the conclusion of the video was, that the BM-400 really didn't sound bad at all in most cases...
First, it was $12,500 (according to the video) so you're overstating the value by quite a lot. And yes, the C12 could be 312 times better considering that the cheaper mic entered heavy unpleasant distortion as soon as it encountered a modest amount of volume.

Application/versatility is a factor...a vocalist who's buying only for their own usage and will only ever be recording light breathy quiet vocal parts for Youtube videos (ultimately a very narrow set of demands) might be able to get away with that cheap mic, but if you need a mic that will reliably capture detail across a variety of vocalists and instruments at varying levels, the more expensive mic is probably going to save you time, money, and grief over the long term.
Old 2nd April 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
jdier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
@JDider, very well put. Happy anniversary! I love the panning on the guitar for "Hypocrite". Also, your Bass Player is WALKING THE DAWG!!!!!!!!!! Very well done. May I ask what role you are with the group?
Thank you! I play bass, sing lead and wrote the lyric. I was also the engineer for that record, but it was produced and mixed by someone else. I was not involved in the mixing.
Old 2nd April 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zappazapper View Post
i
the C12 was valued at $125,000 i think, and you can get a BM-400 for around $40 i guess... $125,000/$40 = 3125... there's not a human on this planet that could make a compelling science-backed argument that a C12 is 3125 times better than a BM-400...
That is entirely true, but not really relevant IMO.

in most non-digital equipment the increase in performance for a given increase in cost starts off fairly high, but drops substantially as you approach the high end of performance.

If you define the maximum possible performance of a component as, say, 100%, and it costs $100 to get to 90% performance , it may cost $1,000 to get to 95 % $10,000 to get to 98% and $100,000 to get to 100% performance.

The $100,000 component is not 1,000 times as good as the $100 component, its only 10% better, but those last few percent of performance are important to some.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump