3 ms·

That's just not true. In fact, I wouldn't agree with a single statement you just made. An Apogee mic is good but there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000

That's just not true. In fact, I wouldn't agree with a single statement you just made. An Apogee mic is good but there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear. For you to say that a $200 mic would have achieved the same results is just utter crap. If that was the case, no one would use a professional studio and, instead, would buy said $200 MiC and be done with it. And wait - you think that his fans, the ones paying $0.99 for the song, are going to pay $40,000 for his gear? Sheesh - I have to believe that you're just talking to hear yourself talk at that point. The resell value on mics is no different than anything else except in one regard: it's much, much harder to tell fakes in mics, and it's much harder to detect problems in mics than it is with other gear. With a guitar, it's easy - does it play well, stay in tune, feel good, and have no scratchy pots? Then it's good. With an amp, does it sound good? Is it loud? Any scratchy pots? When you tap the tubes, are any microphonic? But with a mic - it's much trickier. You pretty much have to send it to the manufacturer for them to tell you whether it is "right". That being said, buying and selling used microphones is the way to go for most hobbyists. You can buy said Neumann U87 for $2500 used thus potentially saving $1000. As long as it doesn't need to be reconditioned, you've done well.

tomflack 14y ago
He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way I could tell the difference on this thing, ditto to most people.
- ScottWhigham 14y ago
  He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm sorry but I don't really understand the difference between the two. Can you elaborate?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense. This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as. Someone downloads that. Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass. So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?
    - ynniv 14y ago
      And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig. Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.
beedogs 14y ago
It was a lot nicer when the dollar was strong and I got a pair of brand new TLM-170s off musiciansgear for $2500. The $1300 pair of KM-140s was nice, too. Those were the days, I guess.
goostavos 14y ago
>there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear. I agree completely. It's called superstition. : ) The days of needing 20k in outboard gear are gone. They've been gone for a really, really long time. Audio Engineering, an industry of which I've been working professionally in for 5 years now, has by far, one of the most backward, superstitious, and anti-science populations I've ever had the misfortune of working with. The more expensive the gear, and the higher the numbers, the more some poor sap will just NEED it before he can produce good cuts. "Science can't measure what I'm hearing" - 90% of audio engineers when discussing over-priced gear. While I agree that a <$200 microphone probably won't cut it if you're going for a up-front, nuanced vocal, I do firmly believe a 3.5k microphone being overkill. Put someone in a good room, with a decent mic, and a good engineer, and no one will ever know that a U-87 wasn't used. If you opt for the digital, modeled version of the API 2500, rather than the hardware version, what happens? Song ruined? Audiophiles won't buy the record out of spite? Nope. Those tiny, tiny, tiny, details are completely irrelevant. Listen to the shootouts on gearslutz. It's a crap shoot as to whether or not people can distinguish between the true analog recording, or its modeled brethren. Further, it's never a matter of one being better than the other, it just that one is slightly "different." So my point being, I don't necessarily agree with your premise that great gear is needed for good results. 20k single channel compressors are nothing but hog-wash. A simple ABX test would show it.

tomflack 14y ago

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way I could tell the difference on this thing, ditto to most people.

ScottWhigham 14y ago
He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm sorry but I don't really understand the difference between the two. Can you elaborate?
- DanBC 14y ago
  swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense. This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as. Someone downloads that. Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass. So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?
  - ynniv 14y ago
    And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig. Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.

beedogs 14y ago

It was a lot nicer when the dollar was strong and I got a pair of brand new TLM-170s off musiciansgear for $2500. The $1300 pair of KM-140s was nice, too. Those were the days, I guess.

goostavos 14y ago

>there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear. I agree completely. It's called superstition. : ) The days of needing 20k in outboard gear are gone. They've been gone for a really, really long time. Audio Engineering, an industry of which I've been working professionally in for 5 years now, has by far, one of the most backward, superstitious, and anti-science populations I've ever had the misfortune of working with. The more expensive the gear, and the higher the numbers, the more some poor sap will just NEED it before he can produce good cuts. "Science can't measure what I'm hearing" - 90% of audio engineers when discussing over-priced gear. While I agree that a <$200 microphone probably won't cut it if you're going for a up-front, nuanced vocal, I do firmly believe a 3.5k microphone being overkill. Put someone in a good room, with a decent mic, and a good engineer, and no one will ever know that a U-87 wasn't used. If you opt for the digital, modeled version of the API 2500, rather than the hardware version, what happens? Song ruined? Audiophiles won't buy the record out of spite? Nope. Those tiny, tiny, tiny, details are completely irrelevant. Listen to the shootouts on gearslutz. It's a crap shoot as to whether or not people can distinguish between the true analog recording, or its modeled brethren. Further, it's never a matter of one being better than the other, it just that one is slightly "different." So my point being, I don't necessarily agree with your premise that great gear is needed for good results. 20k single channel compressors are nothing but hog-wash. A simple ABX test would show it.