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

So orchestral music requires a more stringent standard?
 
Daniel, are you running multiple stems from a full orchestra? I guess a very small amount of distortion in that case might add up when multiplied by dozens of tracks. When I attended the Philadelphia pops orchestra they were sometimes miked up by section, but there are people blowing their noses and coughing all through the thing. Our recordist here uses a few AKG C414s to record entire orchestras and the recordings sound good. Daniel are you recording a movie sound stage? It sounds like interesting work. I recorded a few small orchestra concerts with  a stereo pair. I never considered that there might be stricter standards. What I could see happening is that a well funded movie studio wouldn't hesitate to have only the best. 
 
I don't claim much experience in that end of things so I guess I'm from the other side of the tracks here.I'll take you guys word for it.I don't really see why the difference is so...well different. I use 24 bit in my recordings and I think there can be plenty of dynamics in a pop recording, although Daniel , I can see why you look at the two differently.Rock music is generally much less dynamic and much less defined compared to orchestra. Jazz and stringed instrument groups need something that will pick up the little minute sounds.
 
 I can tell the difference between a clean rock recording and a dirty one. Some of that has nothing to do with a mic at all and everything to do with the engineer. I have heard some pretty dirty jazz recordings so what I am saying is that I think all genres should be clean and not gritty or noisy unless you want that effect. I hear you Danny on some genres allowing more leeway. If the music stays mainly in only a few areas of the freq. spectrum and is compressed then  signal dynamics aren't nearly as important and any noise is simply overcome by loud.
 
I think one of the most confusing things about mic selection is- Does it work and then does it work for me? I mean, if a mic is simply a tool to capture audio then it should come right down to simple specs and performance from the scientific perspective. If that were only true then any mic capable of 20-20,000 hz would pretty much cover the spectrum as we hear it. If the response and S/N ratio are below the accepted hearing threshold, if the freq. response is fairly flat,  then any mic like that should work ok for all of us. The only other consideration being SPL. It shouldn't be a what works for me or what works for you scenario. If that is true, then most mics in the mid to high end will work.It would be looked at more similar to a recording interface, just a thing to use in order to get audio into a computer. So in the end we get mostly into subtle variations between models and these subtle variations are what give us something to choose between, or you might decide that the variations are so small as not to really mean anything. 

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.
 
@

So orchestral music requires a more stringent standard?
 
Daniel, are you running multiple stems from a full orchestra? I guess a very small amount of distortion in that case might add up when multiplied by dozens of tracks. When I attended the Philadelphia pops orchestra they were sometimes miked up by section, but there are people blowing their noses and coughing all through the thing. Our recordist here uses a few AKG C414s to record entire orchestras and the recordings sound good. Daniel are you recording a movie sound stage? It sounds like interesting work. I recorded a few small orchestra concerts with  a stereo pair. I never considered that there might be stricter standards. What I could see happening is that a well funded movie studio wouldn't hesitate to have only the best. 

 
I would say any purely acoustic music is normally held to a higher standard in the recording phase, including vocals, which is sometimes the only acoustic element in popular music, but especially in classical music.  If the sound is not manufactured in post production, the sound you get is what comes from the performer and the microphone. 
 
I think I as well as many classical engineers think of microphones not simply as tools but fine musical instruments themselves.  Every microphone has a different sound and can be tailored to a certain philosophy.  The same goes with recording techniques.
 
I do multi track orchestras, but usually only with between 6-10 microphones, which includes a main array and carefully planned supporting flanks and spots.  This kind of follows in the tradition of the British Decca engineers.  The musicians create the sound and the balance, the engineers captures that balance in the cleanest, most flattering way.  Phase or "distortion" is not really an issue with large ensemble, the infamous 3 to 1 rule does not apply, and we know how to use it to our advantage.  It is fine to use only 2 mics also, 90% of the sound of multi miked orchestras come from the two main mics anyway. 
 
I record mainly in concert halls, not sound stages, you will typically see dozens of mics in modern film production for the sake of time and flexibility when mixing music to dialog and video.  In fact most of the time, the majority of those mics are either not used or make up less than 5-10% of the sound. 
 
Point being, the main pair should be ridiculously good, almost always small diaphragm condensers, usually spaced omnis, sometimes cardioid but never XY positioning, sometimes Blumlein or even MS.  It should be able to capture the full range of detail without distortion at high volumes, and generate a balanced sound at all frequencies.  Believe it or not, only a handful of microphones are suited to that task, and all of those are somewhere around the price point of $1200-$6000 each.   

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.

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. 

 
I would hate that too.  Compound that by raising the microphone 14 feet high on a stand that weighs about 2 pounds,  AND that person is more likely to sue you than apologize and pay for it.  That is why all my expensive gear is insured against accidental damage and mic stands are weighed down by 35 pound sandbags.  And lets not forget gaffers tape for the chords on the floor.  Lots, and lots of gaffers tape. Safety first.  

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.

The vintage Neuman was the one on the left with the female singing. Roight?

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.  

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.  

 
It is best not to run from trolls, better to ignore them.  I believe the correct answer from your computer generated music and voices is: you don't own a microphone.  oops! broke my own rule.