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.

.....but do you need a Mercedes to go the grocery store if a Kia gets you to the same place just fine?

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.

 

.....but do you need a Mercedes to go the grocery store if a Kia gets you to the same place just fine?

 
A Kia may get you from point A to point B, but no one is going to notice you doing it.

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

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

Haha...well said Mike! That's always been my way of thinking too. Sure, super good stuff can give you a "different" flavor...but when someone is talented, it doesn't matter *as much*. The other side of the coin...the worse someone is, the more unforgiving really good gear can be.
 
But talent....the performance will always set the tone for me. Look at Eddie Van Halen...Hendrix.....they innovated with sounds that will be around for another 100 years most likely. Their Marshall's weren't really great. Did you ever play through a plexi? I think it sounds like absolute dog crap UNLESS you bring it to a volume that would make a bird explode if it flew in front of your cab. The SM-57 isn't anything special...but it sure did help to create the sound of rock guitar.
 
It's really a catch 22 though...sometimes the sound can make a band/artist that doesn't have much or any talent, other times the band/artist showing talent is what makes them. To me, the key is finding that happy medium. Thankfully for me, money isn't much of an issue with my gear purchases. HOWEVER....buying into hype and wasting money is not something I'm too fond of.
 
I sold a real massive passive when I heard the UAD plug version....and I got both a regular MP and a mastering MP from UAD all included in the price and I can run as many instances as my card can handle. They sound as good as the hardware units to me...proof that my little Kia (who actually has some pretty cool looking cars now!) did the trick just fine. :) I've heard guys with 10k to 20k in gear obliterate guys with studio's costing 100k. It's how you use it that matters really.
 
Sure, some gear is just garbage...and when they say "garbage in, garbage out" they aren't lying. But with the stuff that is middle of the road today, 7 times out of 10 you won't notice huge difference that justify the enormous price you pay for the other stuff. Trust a guy who's used both or better yet, swing on over to recordingreview.com and check out some of their extensive high end gear vs low end gear blind tests. I guarantee during a blind test, anyone with a good set of ears on our forum here will pick the cheapo piece of gear as sounding better at least 5 times or more in their tests.
 
Could they be testing wrong? Maybe...but in my world, if you listen to something 3 times and can't tell the difference, what's the point of going further? You either hear an immediate difference or you don't. If it's that close to where you keep listening over and over trying to make yourself hear a difference, it's best to move on really. The more scientific we get....the more we compare...the more we get taken out of our realm, the less we get done. "If it sounds good it is good" is the only science/theory/proof I need to know...but that's just my personal belief and what has worked for me. :) For anyone else having great results with whatever they use, that's awesome...whatever works and a person can afford is what that person should use at all times. :)
 
-Danny

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
 
 
 
 
 
 

I can buy 40 upright pianos for the cost of one Steinway D, but I would rather have the Steinway.  I guess I am in a unique position where the musicians demand the highest quality.  When you record professionals with decades of experience and advanced degrees in performance, you will notice the little things that make cheapo mikes fall flat.  The differences between setting up $1500 worth of midrange recording equipment or $15,000 worth of high end gear are not subtle.  I am not talking about compressors or plugins used to trash the sound in whatever popular dynamic-less form is popular now-a-days.  I talking about where the pure sound really comes from, the musicians, and the microphones.  Great microphones are not intended to make mediocre musicians sound better, they are intended to capture the best musicians in the best possible way.  
 
I suppose in some music styles a wide array of microphones not able to capture fine detail are appropriate, especially rock and heavily distorted genres, but if you start recording professional jazz, folk, or classical musicians/singers,  clarity, transient response, off axis response, etc becomes critical.  There is a reason a $200 mic costs $200 and why a $2000 mic costs $2000.  It is all in the details.  And it is the reason I no longer consider cheap microphones, the differences are obvious not only to me, but to my clients.
 
I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying an affordable microphone for their personal or hobby use.  And yes a handful of SM57's are found in every pro studio because they are great on guitar cabinets. But a claim that cheapo gear can compete on a professional level with the high end equipment doesn't really come from knowledge or experience.  
 
I hope I am not coming across as condescending, I just want to state a disagreement with what I consider a fallacy of modern audio production.  
 
A good recording comes from 1) Good musicians, 2) Good Instruments, 3) A good room, 4) Good equipment, and 5) A good engineer.   If any of those are lacking, the entire recording will suffer.  
 

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.

I've started out in the budget category just like everyone else.  I have owned and used mics from Behringer, MXL, Rode, Samson, Shure, Audio-Technica, AKG, Octava etc.  These microphone range from $100-$600 each and while they are perfectly usable, but the sound just does not compare to say, Neumann high end LDC or KM130 series, Sennheiser MKH 80x0 series, DPA, Schoeps or equivalent.  By comparison, the cheaper mics are harsh, thin, and grainy compared to smooth, detailed, and dynamic.  This is almost without fail, but unfortunately many playback systems, and sound sources in online shootouts are not up to the task of doing these microphones justice.  I am speaking from a position of results from my own work and experiences with these microphones.  
 
I don't think affordable mics are bad, and as the saying goes you pay a lot for a little bit more.  I am extremely picky about these sorts of things, also scrutinize my possible purchases for sometimes years before committing and ask myself: What possible uses will I have for this? what sources will this microphone be relevant on? what holes am I trying to fill in my current setup? how well will this microphone "play" with the rest of my equipment? what other options and competitors should I be considering? and most importantly, will buying this microphone increase my earning potential?  
 
I also categorize certain products as main microphones and utility microphones.  I don't feel I should spend a fortune on microphones if their use is not contributing to the primary pickup of sound.  I still keep around my Rode NT5's and Shure SDC's because they sound very good and don't get in the way of the main workhorses.  
 
I have an overview of certain microphone companies here if you are interested on where my thoughts lie: 
http://rumleymusic.com/mgtar/Microphones.html