>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 g

>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.