Remember, in the end you get what you pay for. Going low end may invoke the law of unintended consequences. At some point "it is what it is." You can't get a Mercedes for the price of a Kia, I don't care how much lipstick you slap on that pig.

And Kia now has a 10 year warranty.
 
I think a medium priced mic (my medium price) is good enough for what I am doing.
Unless someone wants to give a lot of money, lots of money, then that will be it.
Afterall if everyone used only very good equipment, then people would miss out on hearing lower priced equipment.
And then it would sound different and be refreshing.

 

If Scarlett Johansson is driving, no one is going to care whether it is a Mercedes or a KIA.

Danny, I want to respond to your posts but darnit I can't add to or improve on anything you've said man 
 
I don't think Clapton or Hendix ever really thought in terms of gear, so I totally agree. They just showed up and bought something that they thought they could use. The artist brain isn't usually also the engineer brain, at least,  most have one predominate strength or the other, so these guys needed engineers to steer then in the right direction or work with their stuff. They probably cared less about any of those kinds of things. The most personal thing to them,,,,,their guitars, they adapted to and mastered well. I can imagine Hendrix coming down from that hit, splashing some water on his face grabbing his axe and hitting the stage. The furtherest thing from his thinking was, I wonder if they have my Marshall adjusted correctly? or I need a little boost in the 6khz range. At the most basic it was probably I have this thing to play and I'm going to play it.
 
I have no doubt that Danny could take that old Laguna hanging on my wall and give it a soul (tuned in c :)
 
Someone like Danny who has had experience with all of the high end gear and still says what he does speaks volumes.
 
As a recordist what are you happy with? I think that this is the question we need to ask.
 
Are you happy with the mic you have? Great.  Are you happy with the pre amps in your interface? Have you heard anything else? 
 
If you can't get to a place to test some of this gear then at the least I would try listening with a good system to gear online and reading customer/user report. This can sometimes be misleading because of inexperienced users and maybe someone got a bad apple....usually though, you can start to see a pattern when reading between the lines if you read enough reviews on something, either bad or good. Mostly common sense which most possess.
 
IMO for the home recordist trying to make decent tracks going too high on the gear ladder sees diminishing returns. This isn't to say we record with cheap junk either. Not if we can help it. 
 
I couldn't believe how much difference the AT 4033a made in my vocal recordings. I have only done one small track so far with the new mic and it really was worth it. If anything.... it let me hear really how bad things were before but I didn't know it at the time.
 
For me it boils down to simple math .vs performance averaged.
 
A high ended microphone for 3000.00-5000.00 american samolians. I can buy six really decent mics with different personalities at 500.00 a pop for the same money  if I were inclined or maybe 10 of the same mics in that price range used. That's 10 mics for what I would have spent for one mic. Keep ur friggin Mercedes....if I want to mix and match I can get a few cheapies (with good customer ratings and reliability of course) have a few nicer mics also and have a mic cabinet FULL of ribbons, tubes, FET you name it for that much money. 
 
When I plugged my 4033 into my pre amp it sounds good enough that I'm wondering if I should have ordered my out board pre amp. I have pretty good pre amps in my interface, probably way better than something like an M-audio unit. So maybe I didn't need it. I'll wait to see if the improvemnt is anything to brag about. In testing the 4033 on my acoustic it didn't sound as good as the 35 dollar used Sterling mic I bought. You just never know until you mic something up and try it. It didn't sound bad mind you, just not as good.
 
Here is a track I uploaded on acoustic where I double mic'ed the 4033 with a cheap MXL condenser pencil mic. Nothing exemplary but I'm a little new to this so it should be getting better with better technique. 
 
https://soundcloud.com/starise/acoustic-guitarsroads-unknown
 
Here is a track where I played a VST piano and recorded my voice on the 4033a for something I was supposed to play later. The mic seems to work well with a male tenor voice not that I think mine is anything special. The 4033  seems to bring out more of the voice in the right places compared to my other mics. If you take offense to religious music then don't listen. I only have these up for test purposes so I'll only leave em' up for a little while and then take em' down. Maybe this will help someone else in looking for a mic.
 
https://soundcloud.com/starise/jesus-draw-me-close
 
 
 
 
 
 

While I can certainly see the benefit of having the best of the best and while I realize that money shouldn't be the very first thing we look at in considering a mic. I think that from the perspective of the recordist who is on a budget certain compromises need to be made in order to carry out our objectives. Otherwise some of us wouldn't be able to record.
 
I don't see you being condescending at all Daniel. I do think that you and I have a different view on what equates good. I don't think that the comparison of the Steinway .vs the upright piano is a good one when looking at something like microphones but you have every right to your opinion and I'm sure it was based on what you feel are good reasons.
 
I happen to work at a place where we have dozens of Steinway pianos for educational purposes and I have played some good grand pianos and I have been able to duplicate that sound pretty well with my VST collection. I don't need a heavy piano in my space taking up room. I don't need to get it tuned or watch the humidity in in my room because Steinways are finicky with respect to humidity. Some would say the Steinway is way better than a good Vst instrument but once it's recorded how many people can tell the difference? Now there is no comparison to an upright piano..no way they are even similar in sound. If I were to try and find an equivalent in the mic world it would need to be something pretty terrible and what I'm trying to say is that in order to find a mic that terrible in the current offerings you would be looking at the bottom end of the consumer market. Most mics in the middle part of the market are pretty good but they are far less expensive.
 
So I never condoned using junk, I suggested reading reviews and listening to recordings using the mics you might be interested in.If we all had high ended mics there would be no reason to look at anything else, but since the vast majority of us don't and can't afford it then we are left with alternatives that surprisingly sound as good in many cases. To be honest I CAN afford a U87. I have the money, but I don't think it would be a good use of my money. I can't justify the cost weighed against other mics that sound similar so I opt not to spend that much money on a microphone.
 
We have covered some of the things that make a mic responsive to material. You covered briefly Phantom power which is a very important thing. Then we looked at a few mics that use a 2 micron .vs a 6 micron diaphragm. There is a big leap in performance, cost not withstanding, between a mic that uses the thicker diaphragm as compared to mics using thinner diaphragms.Diaphragm thickness and size seem to be big influences in a mic no matter who makes it. Sensitivity is also a factor.
 
One thought Daniel. I admire your quest for quality and you being in a position to make good use of good talent with good gear. Nothing wrong with any of that. I am getting the feeling that the things you refer to as "cheapo mics" might not be half as bad as you think. If you have no reason to step down then maybe you have never really heard any of these other mics. I'm curious what you have tried that was so bad.

Hahah Tim, you're too good to me...thanks! I do agree with you on the other stuff. But I think that's what we're seeing here....people telling you how happy they are with their current rigs.
 
Now see Tim, in Daniel's situation where he handles loads of orchestral instruments, quality is of the utmost importance because in THAT realm, this is where bit and sample rates can even make a difference as well. He wouldn't want to use the cheaper gear in live orchestra situations but for us that do light rock, heavy rock, blues, pop etc, we can get away with pieces that aren't so great they become unforgiving. Trust me...some of this really pricey stuff can go against a band or artist if they aren't skilled at their instrument. I'll never forget the first time my band recorded in digital...lmao....we nearly threw up because you heard every little thing and it wasn't a good representation of us at all. Daniel would rather mic a real piano where I personally don't mind using Alicia's Keys or something from East/West. If I had a Steinway, I'd use it but so far no one has complained about using our 88 key weighted board along with the sampling module of their choice. Ok, it's not as real as a real piano, but it works really well too and the cost was more than fair.
 
The same as you, Tim...I'm not condoning junk gear either so hopefully people don't take us as meaning "go buy crap, it will work!" I'm saying...when you get an artist or performer that knows how to play/perform, the capture will be "different" not necessarily "better" all the time no matter what gear you use. but see, this depends on the style. An old 3 piece Jazz band may want to be super pristine...or they may want a little dirt under the nails. This dictates what mic's and pre's you use on them.
 
With mics and pre's, we're dealing with textures...most of which can be manipulated non-destructively with the right stuff. Other times, a mic or pre IS contributing to the sound which will be something you may not be able to achieve unless they are used. But it depends on the situation. We really do have some nice plugs from UAD that can nail saturation quite well. Not exact, but with a little care, no one will notice but you. So some may refer to them as junk as opposed to the real hardware units. But if the differences are not super noticeable, what would the correct answer be? For me, the UAD gear. Not just because of the price....because it does work and is close enough to the hardware units. Add in the new Apollo and you can use the stuff in real time, so you can literally print with it going in.
 
The thing with some of the cheaper gear is....it allows a little dirt under the fingernails. You can't allow that in orchestration type situations, but you sure can in rock, pop, some gospel, blues, rap etc. It doesn't have to be so pristine and precise for certain styles of music. When I mention "dirt" that is a bit of an exaggeration, but most times the cheaper stuff isn't as pristine and is MORE forgiving. You want that for certain styles of music in my opinion. Ever hear a rock band sound so clean and clear, it's stagnant and lifeless? Nothing growls and it just sounds stale to me. Uggh...that's the worst!
 
My whole point in even posting in this thread was to merely say to everyone....don't ever allow price or hype alone to win you over or because so and so uses it. If and when it's possible, try out some gear and see for yourself. Make an arrangement to return the piece if it doesn't work right for you....or work out a deal to where you leave something as collateral and you can try the piece for 2-4 hours or a day. I've done that my whole life with music stores. They'd let me sign something out, I'd leave collateral or they would take me at my word if I spent a bunch of money there already, and bang...you try whatever you want and see if it's right for you. Sometimes it takes time to build that sort of trust. Then again, all the big online stores like Sweetwater and Musicians Friend or AMS have return policies. I return stuff all the time.
 
That said, I like tube mics and tube pre's for some things...but not all. I sometimes don't even use a mic pre at all for some things and other times I have no problems enjoying the light  amount of pre I use in my Tascam DM 4800 or my Manley or my Joe Meek, Focusrite, or heck...I've even had great results with the pre in my Mackie console. I don't need to drive the pre...I just need to get to the input level I feel is best for me. Using different gear makes for a different sound, not always a better sound. What constitutes better? Drive? Warmth? Coloration? At the end of the day, very few things on the market allow you to gain sound size.THAT'S the stuff *I* listen for.
 
Sound size meaning, the actual print of the instrument being larger in size. That means, all the other stuff is going to be subjective and of the opinion of a person. What else would be left....this sounds better because it has more low end in it or more high end sizzle? EQ differences NEVER win me over because 98% of the time, this stuff can be manipulated non-destructively. Some like analog and are turned off by the high end sizzle we get from digital. Some are no longer crazy about the duller/warmer sound of analog or tube mics/pre's. It all really just becomes a debate for the sake of a debate really. This is one of the problems with music and production. It's so subjective, at times it's not even worth talking about at great lengths other than to say...
 
If you're doing music like Daniel, you may want to consider this that this and that..
 
If you're doing music like batsbrew, you may want to consider using this that this and this..
 
If you're doing music like Mike Mccue, you may want to consider this that this and this..
 
If you're doing stuff like Danny, you may want to consider this that this and this..
 
And even there....you STILL want to try all the stuff for yourself to see what really fits in your realm. Though lots of this gear can be used in loads of different scenarios, I really think some of it is over-kill for the home recordist and "better" will always be in the ears of the individual beholder. :)
 
-Danny

Starise,
 
it is not really mic selection as much as chain selection.  What mic and preamp and comp/EQ works on which source.  And maybe not works best (tho that is something to strive for).  But once you learn how hardware sounds (granted, that is usually a lot smaller than some others boast about) you can mix and match to add up those little differences to get a slightly different sound which helps separate different instruments when you start mixing.  Much of it is learning to hear the subtle difference between preamps or the larger one between mics.  Part of it is having a monitoring system that let's you hear it.  You don't need a 10-grand Barefoot monitoring system, but it will speed up the learning experience if you aren't mixing on computer speakers.  They are a good test when checking out mixes, but you ain't gonna hear the subtleties while working. Once you have a system that makes the subtleties easier to hear, you can learn what to listen for.  Once you can do that reliably, you can start thinking ahead about how you plan to use the differences. 
 
An example - my dual mic'ing of a certain female singer.  A modded Oktava 319 that sounds good and mid-forward.  Unmodded 319s are often described as dark, but the mod seems to lighten the sound, tho not like a modern transformerless mic (even the good ones).  It goes through a RND Portico II channel strip.  The Portico itself is a bit pronounced in the mids.  Sure, it does deep and the highs are clear.  Nothing sounds hyped but the mids come forward - that is where a lot of the volume (as opposed to energy) comes from.   I've used the combo before and it cuts through a mix without getting strident.  I mixed that sound with a ribbon through a warm WA12 preamp.  The ribbon rolls off the highs.  The WA12 sounds thick.  It too captures highs fine, but the lower mids are accentuated.  Not much, but a little.  The ribbon/WA12 combo captures a thicker, darker more vintage sound.  I know words are to music like dancing to architecture, but that is how it is commonly referred to.  It is very confusing until you can hear it, and then you wonder if the engineer next to you is describing the same thing.  It is like talking about color when looking at shades of gray swatches - and no pointing.
 
For our next song, I'm thinking of switching the mic to preamp combo.  Balance out the thick WA12 w/ the 319, and get the clearest, biggest sound from the rolled off ribbon.  The way I hear the hardware it ought to work just a bit better.  Maybe 1%?  Who knows?  But you do start to wonder about this stuff, and most professionals do too.  They come up w/ their combinations they like, like chef's w/ spices, that they are pretty sure will smooth together in the end for the song.
 
You can absolutely make a great recording on a basic interface w/ preamps, esp. if a lot is produced in the box (just remember most of the loops and samples you are using are produced by pros on better equipment).  But the more acoustic recording you do, the more that better hardware helps.
 
@

That sure sounds like a big undertaking. Better you than me :)
 
I would hate to be the guy who accidentally got his foot caught in the mic cord and brought down one of those 6000 dollar mics. Especially if I picked it up and there were things jangling around inside it.

On my latest post in the songs forum, I used a couple of different mics for vocals. See if you can pick out the vintage Neumann tube U47, the Shure SM58, or the AKG D5.

Sorry, I am afraid not. Maybe some of the self proclaimed experts can tell. I love how they run away when put to a challenge.  

Well I got another one...I'm starting to wonder if I might have some sort of a weakness for microphones...and compressors...and pre-amps.
 
I'll show pics if the delivery driver gets it here ok.

Here it is Pistol, what do you think? The important part is yet to come...how does she sound? I never got away from the idea that I'd like to have one of these. Batsbrew  turned me onto this. Thanks Bat!
I'm interested to try the proximity effect with tenor voice and acoustic guitars. 
 

Good choice. That's a very nice microphone, you should get very results with it. As with all new equipment, you may need to experiment a bit with the various settings and placement.
 

No pop filter. The KSM44 has a built in pop filter I think.

 
It doesn't have a pop filter built in, the basket design can eliminate some pops but you should use a filter if you plan on getting close.  The sound is very even and natural.  KSM44's are great mics.  

Pete-, I have been playing withe the mic a little more. So far I like what I'm getting from it. Daniel, if I'm careful I can pull off recording without a pop filter. One plosive though, and it has to be fixed in post, so I need to use it more. I read this last SOS( I think, it might have been another publication) and there was an article regarding misconceptions of recording. One of those was that you must always use a pop filter. For me at least, I need one most of the time.
 
Mike, thanks....I couldn't pass this up. There was a typo in the description. It was a small typo but it meant that only two people bid on it and one of those was me. I feel bad for the guy that lost, but I lost it the last time.We can't win em' all.
 
I did a hurried acoustic guitar recording so you could hear what it sounds like on acoustic guitar. Don't mind the string noises. I used three tracks for this. One was from the KSM44 in omni mode placed about 18" from the hole of the guitar. The other mic was an EV cobalt dynamic. I picked it up one time in one of those MF stupid deal of the day things. I put it about 10" away from the sound hole on the other side. I panned those two tracks left and right and also have a track that is direct from the guitar to my interface....that track is in the center of the mix. I played with the EQ on L/R channels so that the two tracks are tonally a little different.I made the mono middle track a little less in volume that the other two. I added a T-racks CS Inverse plate set to "nice Guitar" as a send...I threw Alloy on the master and tweaked it some for guitar. Here are the results.
 
https://dl.dropboxusercon...63/Martin%20Guitar.mp3