Have a listen to this...

#1 and #3 are obviously the ones of interest (the A and B mixes).  Just listening casually, I did not hear a night and day difference.  #1 (A) seemed to have a bit more clarity.

 I see where you are going with this, but there are always diminishing returns in audio.  The $100 jam box is tremendously better than the $50 one, but the $10,000 stereo is only a little better than the $5,000 one.  Sony or CBS will use a $15,000 mic because they can and they want every advantage.   That doesn't mean you can't make a hit record with a $500 mic.

My thought: Hype being equal, hit records depend on good song, good feel, and originality.  The audio quality just has to be good enough to sound like it belongs in the pro world.

I'm rambling a bit, but you know why Bob Dylan can get away with singing like he does?  Because he sounds like he means to sing that way.  That's not the same as trying to sing straight and failing.  I think some Nirvana records sound like $h!t, but they sounded like they meant to sound that way and people liked them.  My point is that if you get the sound you're going for, you can make it fly.  If you are trying to get a pro sound but come off like a cheap imitation, people won't like it —even if they don't know why.

By the way, I hope you weren't thinking of Nevermind when you said Nirvana records sound terrible?!!

Totally agree!

In his excellent "Mixing Audio" book, Rohey Izhaki uses several examples from Nevermind throughout to demonstrate different aspects of GOOD mixing techniques

Bristol_Jonesey

By the way, I hope you weren't thinking of Nevermind when you said Nirvana records sound terrible?!!

Totally agree!

In his excellent "Mixing Audio" book, Rohey Izhaki uses several examples from Nevermind throughout to demonstrate different aspects of GOOD mixing techniques

+1 I'm right in the middle of this book again for the second time. Great book. Even tells you that Nevermind was mixed twice by two different people. So for diehard fans there are two copies of this album to enjoy.

I am going to guess that the biggest price difference was in the MICs.  There is no doubt that some of today's el cheapo mics perform quite nice (especially at low SPLs). 

Same issue with the MIC PRE's.  I will say that if there was a big difference in the cost of the PRE's, both appear to have about the same frequency boosts or are both quite neutral (can't tell without hearing the guitar live).  But, at low SPL, this also doesn't surprise me.

But, this just goes to show that you capture a good recording starting with the performance. All the gear in the world can't fix the NO TALENT syndrome.

Jim

Thanks maxpower!

Jim, there were very large price differences between every component used in the test - mics, preamps and converters.

I'll be posting results tomorrow, so make sure you take the survey!

Results are up! http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2351205