> Good mics, medium mics, the best mics - what's the difference on a scale =
of 1-10 between them; is there really THAT much difference, that most peopl=
e would or would not notice?
It's like any hobby, particularly photography. It's what you do with a mic=
or lens that really counts. However, with netter quality gear, you can push=
it harder and are less limited.
The biggest benefit I find with expensive mics is low hiss. Mic hiss is
limiting in quiet natural locations, and to my mind comes higher than
frequency response and directivity, but all three qualities get better with=
higher cost, but - importantly - not is proportion to cost. Doubling the
cost gives roughly an equal drop in hiss say, each time, but this is
logarithmic, not proportional to the cost.
If you can afford three zeroes on the end of a mic price, go ahead, but loo=
for second hand ones. I've bought some interesting stuff on eBay. My
Sennheiser MKH mics cost a few hundred each but have retained their quality=
and they are tough and cope well with damp.
The frequency response of most affordable mics is flatter than the real
world, and the main function of frequency curves is sales hype. I would pay=
more for a unidirecional mic like a gunmic, but most cardioids are good
You can't rate a mic on a 1-10 scale. I've had good recordings on a pair of=
=A310 mics, so I'd approach the question another way. If you are recording=
outside, you will need a good basket windshield, dead cat, and mic mount
which can cost into three figures. Starting with that, would you put into i=
a prime recording device that cost less?