In the “old days” it was a lot easier to design a microphone or preamp because there were fewer of each around. R&D departments only had to test a few different mics with different preamps. But today, the astounding number of mics and preamps in the market (especially with many new cheap mics being so inconsistent from piece to piece) make that any sort of comprehensive comparison impossible. Have we have jumped the tracks into audio anarchy? Whatever can we do?

Neumann TLM 103

Allen Sides’ Mic CD and Lynn Fuston’s Mic Pre CD, as good as they are, cannot offer definitive comparisons because of limitations inherent in their methods. Setting each mic at exactly the same distance from a sound source doesn’t always work because, among other things, different mics have different hot spots and off-axis responses. We don’t use mics that way. Also, they are 16-bit/44.1kHz CDs, which means some subtleties of what you might hear straight from the mic/pre combo might not be reproduced accurately on the CD playback. Although some new lower cost preamps and mics do sound quite good, in general, better engineered equipment costs more but usually offers more features and a better sound.But what’s “better?” Is clearer and more accurate better, or do you want something UNreal that hypes the sound in some way? Some say that “real” can be pretty boring unless the reality itself is exciting.

The first distinction between the “good” and “not good” should be about distortion. And that opens up a very large gray area. By definition, distortion is any difference between the input and output. That means coloration is distortion. Coloration may be altered with EQ. For the sake of discussion, I’m not as concerned about coloration as I am the edgey types of distortion that cannot be removed by EQ or any other process.

Even if we choose the right mics and external preamps, we can lose it where it hits the mixer. During a comparison of the Neumann M 147 and TLM 103 mics a few years back through GML preamps to a Mackie 1604 VLZ/XDR, the M 147 sounded slightly smeared. In a subsequent conversation I had with Mackie, I learned that the input circuitry of the 1604 (and of their smaller mixers) was missing a part or two that were in their larger format mixers and that this was the likely culprit. I’m sure you wouldn’t have to look very far to find similar abnormalities in other mixers. But think of it. You can plunk down some hard-earned money for good mics and preamps with the best intentions, and still end up sounding no better, and maybe worse.

Email this story to a friend