I certainly don't hear anything that justifies an extra $3,000 dollars.

I would not be surprised at all, nor would I put any stock in it, it is YouTube. There are no rules or regulations regarding the validity of testing methods or posting results. Not to mention compressed audio. And a biggie is any test that is not the actually same performance at the same time, is questionable at best. Did you notice the volume drop on the U87 ? Humm?

We really want to be in the studio, not on the computer, if we are going to audition mic's. Otherwise like Kansas said "All we are is dust in the wind

Well I have a MXL 4000 coming this Tuesday. I'll compare it to my Neumann TLM 102's at my place....sometime in the next week or so...

Okay, and that's a good reason why you shouldn't buy one. But what about those people who hear a BIG difference between an MXL 4000 and whatever $3000 mic they're considering?

I hear a pretty big difference here, especially in the low end pops and plosions on Mic B. but who knows if that is the mic, or the testing methodology. It is extremely hard to do a fair A/B test, and harder to know what to attribute any differences to. In general, differences between mics of the same basic characteristics are less than people often think, in my limited experience. And even where there are obvious differences, the choice between "good" and "bad" is subjective. Like here, maybe you want those low pops, maybe you don't? With mics, small placements can matter, what you're using them for matters, off-axis response may (or may not, depending on your application) matter, proximity effect can make a big difference, etc. I often find that the same mic (or guitar, or reverb, or... for that matter) sounds good to me on Monday and not so good on Tuesday, so there's that to contend with, too :-)

Horses for courses. Horses for courses.

Even in its modified and aged form, the U-47 has a certain characteristic that it shares with the U-67: That upper-midrange bulge that makes a voice stand out from a combo or orchestra naturally. The same bulge also makes a female voice sound incredibly intimate. But in the early days of low-headroom analog satellite transponders (think Westar I) I found out the hard way that the U-47 bulge distorted the transponder signal. We had to go to other mics for that application. And that's the deal. There are things that it does extremely well and extremely characteristically and thus it becomes a shorthand for the professional engineer/producer who doesn't have as much time to muck around to find a sound as an amateur does - the pro who knows the mic has it as part of his palette of colors. Being under time pressure because time is money, he can grab a particular mic when he is presented with a situation and is looking for a particular solution. The pro studio that is leased to pros has a need to present those pros their known pallet of colors so that they aren't required to transport any other than their absolutely essential or favorite mics.

Mics and choice are all a marvelous trade-off. An amateur has time as his most valuable asset - he can try multiple mics or techniques to get the sound he is looking for. For him, a good mic, rather than a particular mic, may be all that is needed because he can experiment with that mic PRN to find a useful application. I'm dying to grab a Rode NT1 (new version) for home because I like their neutral sound. We've got one at work that sounds pretty darned good. Am I going to claim that it is just as good as a Neumann U-47 or TLM170? It isn't a matter of "as good as." It is a matter of usability, affordability, and viability. At work I won't take our U-47 on the road for outdoor festivals. I won't risk an accident from rough handling. The Rodes or Mojaves sound great there, though. I can't afford a U-47 for home.

I find myself with a foot in both worlds. At work, someone is paying for every minute of my time and is expecting me to get a working setup quickly. At home I can fiddle around until it works.

Bob

Well then SPEND that $3,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's in my plans. This summer at the latest.

How much does a Martin D-35 cost ? My Takamine Dread cost only $250 and when I played my buddies D28 I certainly didn't hear anything that justified an extra $ 2250 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/i...psbbcdiekj.png

Out the door a new d-35 costs about $3,600-4,000....I got mine for $2,000.

Is it worth it ?? you bet !! Some people would say I'm nuts for spending so much on a guitar....but after hearing the recordings I get with it....it's definitely worth it. Same can be said for my Neuman TLM 102 mics.

We shall see how the MXL 4000 stacks up against them next week.

There ya go that's why people spend big bucks on mics or any other piece of the puzzle.... Happy Holidays

Maybe so but I'm not going to spend $3,000 on a mic. I've got my Neumanns 102's and they are plenty good enough for me. The MXL 4000 is just for fun and for when were having jam sessions and need a few extra mics.

It's the same reason I'm not running out and buying a BMW this week.

What makes you think somebody suggested you should spend $3k on a mic ?
The point was people do spend different $ amounts on recording gear for more or less the that same reasons. And not only is the particular price or price difference irrelevant.... it also irrelevant whether it is a guitar, a mic, an interface, a set of monitors, etc. the value is subjective.

The guys buying the $3,000 mics and pre-amps are also writing this stuff off their taxes. I'm not in that position.

Some probably do,, some don't, I don't write it off, and that is also irrelevant to the point being made. The point is, it's not a difference in situation. You spent $2k on one guitar , somebody else might spend $2k on one mic .... The only difference is priorities , plain and simple.