its hard to say if you haven't heard all the units but i think Dan has a real good set of ears . :evil:
from what gear i have the charts seem pretty close..at least the charts give you the direction to go in...

It can be accurate as humanly possible but it doesn't really mean squat in end. All that can be gathered from those tests is a basic reference. If they did that same test on another day in another location with different people, it would have different results.

All they have done is to capture a moment in time with some detailed specifics. Any one or more of at least a hundred variables will give someone else different results. I sure would would not make a purchase decision based soley or even mainly based on those results.

yea Gaff you are right but its nice to have the charts as a basic visual tool

Am I missing something? ( I could be, I'm sometimes a tad stupid.)

Charts, results??

Where are these located?

All I see are sample recordings - something I find to be quite helpful if taken at face value - all things can be changed via placement, etc.

J.

The chart links were posted in another thread:

http://

http://

The audio clips are okay if you take them with a BIG dose of salt, but I think the charts are oversimplified and misleading. A relative beginner to recording would get the impression that tube "color" is the same as Neve/transformer type "color" from that simplified presentation. And if the DACS pre is hyper transparent, then what is a Gordon Instruments pre? Ultra-super-hyper transparent? It just gets silly, especially when there are probably a lot of people out there who wouldn't consider "clean" and "transparent" to be two different qualities.

The mic chart is also very subjective. This is the first time I've heard the KM-184 described as a highly colored mic! A bit bright yes, but "colored"? Well, my ears are obviously different.

I just don't think an overly simplistic visual presentation like this is very useful. It's a bit too much "dancing about architecture" for my personal taste.

Ahhh... Thanks.

Well, in that case - nah, I don't find it to be very helpful. This may be one man's opinion of what he/she hears, but I hear a great deal of the stuff on these charts differently.

J.

WELL HE IS STILL WORKING on them so maybe he''ll make them better as he developes it.. 8)

http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/MicPreampEval.pdf

nice article and so true--I do alot of the things he suggest and try to stay out of pach bays and run direct as possible good cables ect;;little by little the sound does improve.

I don't think that the purpose of the sessions is necessarily accuracy as much as it is comparison. If you listen to the mics (which was what I was interested in) in an A/B like this (with the same pre, of course), you can get a feel for the differences between them at least. I don't have a monster equipment store to A/B close by and I find the idea of the sessions great. You are talking accuracy when the files are MP3s! That alone will not sound good. You can compare them if you take this into account. It's not perfect, but for some of us, it's all there is.
The next round of sessions will hopefully be a male & female vocalist on all mics as well as accoustic & electric guitar on all mics, all with the same pres. That would be a fair A/B, eh?
Kudos to TLS.