Opinions on Mics for around $300

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

You know what, this is a very popular perspective...and I get it, but I respectfully disagree. YMMV of course!

If you're willing, please explain your experience.

My point of view is based on using various mics of quite different qualities and not being able to hear much difference between them when recording in my previously untreated room.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

You know what, this is a very popular perspective...and I get it, but I respectfully disagree. YMMV of course!

And the reason it is a very popular view is that far more often than not, it is correct, depending on exactly what someone is talking about. While it is true that depending on the specific room dimensions an untreated may not be all that problematic , but that situation is relative rare ..

Yet to some extent you are both correct

In a general sense, a problematic room (depending on how problematic) can certainly decrease the benefit of a mic upgrade... (particularly true when the upgrade is only a marginal upgrade step , like say a $100 mic to a $300 mic) Where buildup and comb filtering may mask any subtle improvement. Now make that $100 to a $3000 -$5000 dollar mic and you will definitely notice a difference . BUT

Unfortunately that "difference" in a problematic room where say a $3k mic may simply give you a better or more accurate example of the issues that room is causing and (depending on the specific room issues and the mic's response curve and sensitivity ) may in fact highlight the issues even more.

[mondoslug]

Originally Posted by runamuck

If you're willing, please explain your experience.

My point of view is based on using various mics of quite different qualities and not being able to hear much difference between them when recording in my previously untreated room.

It's more of a macro look in general, pet peeve of mine that goes back I guess.
For instance, gearslutz - Somebody trying to get into recording will post...and I paraphrase, "I got 10K to spend on recording gear, what should I get?" Many a response has been, "Spend it on your room treatment first."

I simply disagree, buy some gear & get going. That's just me though, that's how I see it. Get started, learn how to do it. You can make music anywhere. Yes room treatment, great no doubt, not denying it at all.

I've had a 2020 for ever that came with I think a version of Pro Tools, never liked it too much.

Biggest difference for me recording in my crappy room was getting a decent pair of mics and decent pre amp but I also close mic the guitars pretty much.

[mondoslug]

I may or may not have diverted a little bit from the original topic concerning a $100 mic & upgrading to a $300 mic though. Bad habits.

[KevWind]

Well you make a reasonable point about just get some gear and start recording (get your feet wet) before trying to address room issues
But as you noted the thread is about upgrading not starting and it is certainly advisable to consider the room within that context.

Having a construction background I make the analogy -- that the room is like the foundation, if you get it straight, square, level, and plumb, then building the rest of the house is exponentially easier .

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

It's more of a macro look in general, pet peeve of mine that goes back I guess.
For instance, gearslutz - Somebody trying to get into recording will post...and I paraphrase, "I got 10K to spend on recording gear, what should I get?" Many a response has been, "Spend it on your room treatment first."

I simply disagree, buy some gear & get going. That's just me though, that's how I see it. Get started, learn how to do it. You can make music anywhere. Yes room treatment, great no doubt, not denying it at all.

I've had a 2020 for ever that came with I think a version of Pro Tools, never liked it too much.

Biggest difference for me recording in my crappy room was getting a decent pair of mics and decent pre amp but I also close mic the guitars pretty much.

The 2020 is well-respected for what it is, but do take into account that it is not an LDC. The capsule size of the 2020 is 5/8" and that's going to contribute to its particular sonic characteristics. I mention this because so many folks post here that they are using a "2020 LDC".

[mondoslug]

I have never cared for that mic too much.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

It's more of a macro look in general, pet peeve of mine that goes back I guess.
For instance, gearslutz - Somebody trying to get into recording will post...and I paraphrase, "I got 10K to spend on recording gear, what should I get?" Many a response has been, "Spend it on your room treatment first."

I simply disagree, buy some gear & get going. That's just me though, that's how I see it. Get started, learn how to do it. You can make music anywhere. Yes room treatment, great no doubt, not denying it at all.

I've had a 2020 for ever that came with I think a version of Pro Tools, never liked it too much.

Biggest difference for me recording in my crappy room was getting a decent pair of mics and decent pre amp but I also close mic the guitars pretty much.

I'll give you another perspective, as a 30+ year professional recording engineeer: as the mics get better they pick up more of the room, close micing a source or not. This is why a great mic in an untreated room is not an upgrade. In many cases it's worse than a cheaper mic that is less sensitive.

That's a perspective I've come to from years of experience, and having recorded in some of the best studios in the world. The appeal of a "real" studio isn't just the mic locker and experienced staff, it's also the great sounding live room that makes everything sound better.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I'll give you another perspective, as a 30+ year professional recording engineeer: as the mics get better they pick up more of the room, close micing a source or not. This is why a great mic in an untreated room is not an upgrade. In many cases it's worse than a cheaper mic that is less sensitive.

That's a perspective I've come to from years of experience, and having recorded in some of the best studios in the world. The appeal of a "real" studio isn't just the mic locker and experienced staff, it's also the great sounding live room that makes everything sound better.

Maybe there should be a sticky thread titled "Room Treatment" and this could be the opening statement

The appeal of a "real" studio isn't just the mic locker and experienced staff, it's also the great sounding live room that makes everything sound better.

[mondoslug]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I'll give you another perspective, as a 30+ year professional recording engineeer: as the mics get better they pick up more of the room, close micing a source or not. This is why a great mic in an untreated room is not an upgrade. In many cases it's worse than a cheaper mic that is less sensitive.

That's a perspective I've come to from years of experience, and having recorded in some of the best studios in the world. The appeal of a "real" studio isn't just the mic locker and experienced staff, it's also the great sounding live room that makes everything sound better.

I Like it! I am certainly not denying the appeal of a "real" studio, that is for sure.

However, a decent pair of mics and pre was an upgrade for me where I record and overdub some things which is my little basement studio which isn't absolutely horrible, subjective as that is...if I had to record in a closet I may opt for some help room-wise first.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

You know what, this is a very popular perspective...and I get it, but I respectfully disagree. YMMV of course!

On what are you basing your disagreement?

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by KevWind

And the reason it is a very popular view is that far more often than not, it is correct, depending on exactly what someone is talking about. While it is true that depending on the specific room dimensions an untreated may not be all that problematic , but that situation is relative rare ..

Yet to some extent you are both correct

In a general sense, a problematic room (depending on how problematic) can certainly decrease the benefit of a mic upgrade... (particularly true when the upgrade is only a marginal upgrade step , like say a $100 mic to a $300 mic) Where buildup and comb filtering may mask any subtle improvement. Now make that $100 to a $3000 -$5000 dollar mic and you will definitely notice a difference . BUT

Unfortunately that "difference" in a problematic room where say a $3k mic may simply give you a better or more accurate example of the issues that room is causing and (depending on the specific room issues and the mic's response curve and sensitivity ) may in fact highlight the issues even more.

Well I totally disagree with the room statement, as I've done a lot of on site recording in rooms that were less than stellar, and I can say without a doubt, there is a huge difference between microphones even in those rooms. There maybe not a lot of difference between a $100 to a $300 microphone, but throw a really good mic into the mix and you'll hear the money spent.

[mondoslug]

Originally Posted by jim1960

On what are you basing your disagreement?

Personal experience?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

Well I totally disagree with the room statement, as I've done a lot of on site recording in rooms that were less than stellar, and I can say without a doubt, there is a huge difference between microphones even in those rooms. There maybe not a lot of difference between a $100 to a $300 microphone, but throw a really good mic into the mix and you'll hear the money spent.

Not sure what "room statement" you are totally disagreeing with ???
Of course a great mic is going to sound different, good room or bad, and I never indicated otherwise. You did read all the qualifiers I stated, yes ?

Also I don't know what "less than stellar" actually means., But what size and type were those "on site recording" rooms.? And I could be way off , bit I am speculating they were not a 10" X 12" spare bedroom with sheetrock walls and ceiling, carpet, and a make shift table as a recording desk " loaded with nulls , buildups, and comb filter, issues ''

And note I qualified my "room statement" with the term "problematic" And I further qualified that it depends on how problematic the specific room actually is .. And simply pointed out that in a "problematic room", the more a better mic can reflect that problem, and that any benefit could start to become be offset buy the problems. And that in untreated home recording rooms that more often than not a better mic may not be the best answer at first ---

Now you may disagree with that. But I think it is safe to say if a room is problematic then throwing a $3K mic at it, may not be the best way to spend ones money.
Not to mention the fact is the we were specifically talking about a $100 to $300 mic upgrade.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by mondoslug

Personal experience?

I've had the experience that a great mic can sometimes sound worse in a bad room than a cheap mic, maybe because it is more sensitive and "hears" more.