I own a pair of Rode NT2a mics that sound extremely excellent considering the price.

You can also buy MXT mics on the cheap and get them modded.

A "best value" would naturally be something that performs better than expected. This can be enhanced by better downstream gear if the mic in question happens to be designed fairly well and has some decent parts inside. A perfect example is a Shure SM57. Plug one into something like a GrooveTubes ViPre and go "WTF!!!".$90 over the counter new......what a bargain!

Oktava MK319, MK220

Also based on a post I saw by davedog when researching a mic my studio is buying, the Avantone CR-14 seems to be a pretty awesome mic for the price. Can't wait to hear it when we get it in. $259 from Sweetwater, but we're getting a better deal from Full Compass.

I could list every mic I own as a bargain. But thats how I roll. I have an old U87 I got for cheap. Thats a bargain.

Value SDCs:

Shure SM 81. Distinctive "pop" sound. Classical guys like something flatter. But a solid mic that works great for overheads, acoustic guitar.

Rode NT55 - Omni and cardioid capsules. Pad. Rolloff. It's styled more like a flat classical mic and from what I can see you have to go up to the likes of Scheops, DPA, Earthworks to get a big jump in quality.

Didier has posted some clips in [="http://recording.org/mobile-recording/18117-peluso-vs-schoeps-3.html#post370853"]this thread [/]="http://recording.or…"]this thread [/]comparing a Schoeps CMC-621 and [[url=http://="http://rodemic.com/"]RODE[/]="http://rodemic.com/"]RODE[/] NT5 on piano. The NT5 has the same capsule and body type as the NT55, but no pad (and it doesn't come with the omni capsule). I'll have to listen on better speakers, but it sounded to me as if the Rode did an excellent job, though the Schoeps showed its quality on those high trills.

The NT5s don't come with high pass options either. I would definitely spring for the 55s if I were getting some, which I had been thinking about. Thanks for the links, I'll have to check that out when I get home from work.

I'm a fan of the AT4041's. Honest and full sound.

+1 to the Fathead and SM57. When I bought my Fatheads, they threw in a pair of their SDCs for free. Nothing spectacular, but well worth the cost of $0.
My 421s and 414s are also critical pairs that get used almost always. Pricier, but very versatile.
And like Dave said, some good pres go a long way. I don't have anything special, but my Focusrite ISA and Syteks do a nice job of bringing out the best of each mic, once I learned the mics and the pres.
When I look to upgrade my SDCs, the SM81 and Rodes are at the top of my list, if I can't spring for a pair of Neumanns....

I second the AT4041's but I like the AT4051's even better. Also in the bang for buck category is the AKG C391/92/93/94/98 and good used C460's. I really liked the Royer R101's and SF12 this past recording season.

Nothing comes close to the ADK mics in terms of value. They're still fairly "off-the-radar" compared to AT and Rode, but they'll give you twice as much mic for the money. This review might be helpful for the range that you're looking at...

Prosound Network: ADK Custom Shop Berlin-47Au Cremona 251Au Large-Diaphragm Microphones

Larry is an extremely friendly guy; one of the nicest people I've ever worked with. I recently got the Custom Shop TT-47 (an optimized tube version of the berlin 47- runs about $1,500) from him, and it's blown me away. I've worked with one of those big ol' Charter Oak tube mics as well (in the same price range) and it blew the charter oak out of the water in terms of smooth, detailed sound. I'd highly recommend checking out his company; he charges the honest price I've seen.

Michael Hodecker, post: 373048 wrote: Nothing comes close to the ADK mics in terms of value. They're still fairly "off-the-radar" compared to AT and Rode, but they'll give you twice as much mic for the money. This review might be helpful for the range that you're looking at...

Prosound Network: ADK Custom Shop Berlin-47Au Cremona 251Au Large-Diaphragm Microphones

Larry is an extremely friendly guy; one of the nicest people I've ever worked with. I recently got the Custom Shop TT-47 (an optimized tube version of the berlin 47- runs about $1,500) from him, and it's blown me away. I've worked with one of those big ol' Charter Oak tube mics as well (in the same price range) and it blew the charter oak out of the water in terms of smooth, detailed sound. I'd highly recommend checking out his company; he charges the honest price I've seen.

I own a few of the ADK mics. I love them a lot. I've shilled up and down on these pages and others about them. Larry is a real honest guy and treats all the customers with respect.

That being said, they are really great sounding and for the price I would put them in the upper tier of bang-for-buck product. I'm not so sure there arent other products and manufacturers that "come close in terms of value" . There are a lot of fine builders of mic out there these days. Many of them are quite in tune with the needs and desires of the budget conscious and are more than willing to place a high value on their customer service. Much like ADK.

The real difference I hear is the ADK mics having a very signature sound. And they have an aged sound. Like an old European mic might have after years of use. Only theres no unstable components ready to bip it in the middle of an important session.

Like I said, I have several of these mics as well as one of the AP-2 mic pres which is an amazing piece all on its own.

ADK is high value and even though a little more pricey than the real budget gear, it delivers a first-class sound. I have a pair of the original TT tube mics, a pair of hot-rodded A-51's, a Chi System SDC, an SC-T body and two Chi System cardioid caps. My band still has a pair of SC-1's we use as drum overheads live and have for 10 years now.

Great stuff, great service.

Dave, you may be right. Some may come close, but I haven't found any as of yet. Charteroak SA538B, Lauten Oceanus, Miktek CV4, Mojave 200, and on and on... I've either worked with or heard files from all of these recently, and the TT came out pretty far above the others for my taste. It doesn't have as dated of a sound as the J-Mod series, but that's good because it offers more detail in the higher frequencies. That's just my experience though, sounds like you've had alot with ADK! Their pre's are awesome. I'd like to try some more transformers and op-amps in mine... that's all i have for budget mics though. may God bless you all.

In response to Bob and Dave's SDC posts, other alternatives are the Peluso CEM-6 and the Charter Oak M900s. Around the same price as the SM81's but they give much higher quality than you'd expect. The Pelusos seem to be about as Schoepsy as you can get without spending a couple thousand per pair. the 4041s are also good.

I have 4041's. I'm very much into exactly what the source is all about. The 4041's deliver that every time. If I want a little color in the SDC's I put up the ADK Chi System mics.

Michael. The plethora of great combinations of Op-amps and trannys for the ADK pre make it one of the best bang-for-buck pieces. I have a bunch of different stuff for mine. John Hardy, Forssell, Jensen, Neve, Lundahl, Sowter, all of the ADK stock Op-amps...THIS is what they had in mind when they built it. ALL of the combinations make it possible to really tailor the sound for any particular source. And massive amounts of clear gain means you can get right down into those ribbon mics' beauty. Mine is attached to a server room pullout desktop with double sided tape so changing anything out is a breeze.

I echo the praise of ADK mics. I've owned many, tried just about all of them and currently own a complete stereo set of 3 Zigma CHI mics (6 mic bodies and 16 capsules). ADK mics (and their 3 Zigma CHI cousins) are good value, well built and offer a large variety of models, capsules, behaviors and sounds.

Other mics that I like are the Schoeps Collette Series, the Microtech Gefell M29x Series, the Josephson Series 6 models (including the discontinued modular system), among some others.

I also have an ADK AP2, with 5 tranny pairs and 5 op amp pairs. We AP2 owners seem to be few and far between.

Where do you guys get your transformers and op-amps? I'm looking forward to adding a bunch of these to my array for some different flavors. When Larry shipped me the CHI's, i took them to the top studio around here and the engineer advised me not to return them... great stuff, huh? May God bless you guys :)

I think Larry has a few Op-amps and trannys left. There are no more AP-2's. I got the last one. It was a demo. And it sounds great. So give Larry a call or Donnie at Superdigital. He had a list and may still have it. I'm really hoping all you Northwest guys are getting all these toys from my peeps down there. Super digital is the last Pro Palace of sound we have.

Michael Hodecker, post: 373152 wrote: Where do you guys get your transformers and op-amps? I'm looking forward to adding a bunch of these to my array for some different flavors. When Larry shipped me the CHI's, i took them to the top studio around here and the engineer advised me not to return them... great stuff, huh? May God bless you guys :)

As Davedog said, Larry V. probably has a stash. Greg at ProAudioToys should have some (he's got a demo AP2 for sale too).

Yes, the 3 Zigma CHI mics are quite nice. I just record solo fingerstyle and classical guitar. The CHI mics offer immense variety, provide predictable behavior and sound very good.

I haven't been here long, how do we feel about Behringer? Would you hurt me much if I said I'm loving the B2 Pros I got for £72 each new? Nice and deep sounding without the presence bump I'm used to on the C1000s I've been using. Not to mention three pickup patterns, a -10db pad and a HP filter. :p

Personally I wouldn't read too many sales brochures. If you can spot the difference between brands, you must have K9 hearing.

I did a demo for a guy a while back in my studio, we lined up all my large diaphragm condensor mics and some hand held dynamic mics, then recorded vocals and guitar though them - and do you think we could blind test tell the difference? Nope. Even using frequency analysis tools on my DAW, the tonal differences between brands was pretty much zero.
We used a U87, a Rode NT1, CAD 1200, JoeMeek and SeGemini. They all ran flat though my D&R Triton console into the PC, and the source was at the same distance from each mic. There was some ever so slight amplitude differences, but that was about it. The Rode mic did have a brittle top end when we boosted about 10k on the EQ, but that could be its age, its about 15 years old now.
The dynamics were a Shure SM57, Wharfedale and CAD generic hand held mics. Pretty much the same results.

All these mics had similar design and response frequencies. Of course there would be noticeable differences if I used my ribbon mics vs the condensers or dynamics, but Im talking similar mics here.

Im sure I'll get flamed about this, but try it for yourself if you like. I think on some source material, one brand of mic might have a slightly different tone characteristics over another mic, but it would be very hard to pick audibly, and certainly not enough to justify the massive difference in price (my CAD mic was about $120, the U87 about $4k). And in any case, the tonal difference you might perceive wouldn't necessarily be bad, just different. You are going to get 99% more tone improvements by correct mic placement, room treatment and quality source instruments then you will ever get from buying a flashy mic that comes in a fancy wooden case.
I'd be willing to put money down that if you lined up 10 studio engineers in a room and got them to blind test 10 mics, they couldn't tell you what brands they were or even pick out which one was the most expensive mic.

So unless you're just trying to keep up with all the cool kids, buy something that matches the work you need to do with it, is built well and at a reasonable price.

Really? I used to have a couple of CAD Equitek 300's and an M179 multi-pattern in my locker. They were OK, but the build quality of the M179 was so-so (flimsy selector switches) and the E-300's were real noisey in humid conditions (here in Florida that's a concern). I got rid of my CAD mics. I like my mike collection (now up to 30). My fave LCD's are my U87 and AT4047. There are lots of differences in sound between mics, they are my "paintbrushes", so to speak.
I can't believe that someone in this field can take a Chinese-built CAD 1200 and compare it to a U87, but, hey, to each his (or her) own...Cheers(y)

I also notice the difference between microphones. Especially in the live classical recording. While I have used Chinese mic's it isn't something that makes the job easier. Better to use a higher quality mic for the most part and get the quality recording right up front. YMMV.

fun topic,

What converters are you using?

Something has to be seriously effecting your chain to make things all sound similar. I notice big differences between mics. Some almost feel like they are part of your throat, so connected to the tone coming from the singer or source, others are just plain irritating and wrong and others are noticeably close but no cigar.

audiokid, post: 375541 wrote: .... Some almost feel like they are part of your throat, so connected to the tone coming from the singer or source, others are just plain irritating and wrong and others are noticeably close but no cigar.

Thats something you'd need to be more specific about. I agree 'mics' do sound radically different from each other, the point Im making is 'brands' dont.
Take 3 simular mics if you have them. Dosnt matter what type, condensor or dynamics. Make sure their response pattern is about the same. Plug each in and posistion the same distance from your source. Set the gain on your console so they're unity and then randomly mix up the cables so you dont know what mic is coming in on what channel.
Thats a blind test.

Presuming the mics work well, arnt hissy or noisey, if you can not only spot the correct mics, or even notice a defined differance between them, you've got magic ears.

OK, I want to make SURE that I'm understanding your position here...
So you're saying that if I take 3 different brands of mikes that are all the same "type"- in this case we'll say 3 LDC's - and set them up in front of a reasonably talented singer - that I - err, YOU -won't hear a difference?
Here's an example of what I went through last week when I was tracking a friend's blues/"jam" band in a nice large living room on his Victorian house...the singer hands me his "personal favorite" mic, a POS AKG Perception 400, custom-made in China to exacting tolerances demanded by the Austrian engineers who were held at gunpoint whilst designing said "tool".
It looked OK (no smoke or beer smells, no dings or dents), it was set to cardioid pattern. He tells me how great these AKG's are, the Austrian heritage, blah,blah,blah. Fine, let him blow smoke...
I put that mic up next to 2 more multi-pattern LDC's - a U87 and an AT4050 - both also in cardioid. Cut 3 different takes, 1 per mic, and let him choose. He laughed at me and said it was hands-down the 2nd track I played back, he was sure that was his mic...he loved it. That was the 4050 ! Maybe it was the ADC's in their old Digi02 box?

Yeah, I'm with Moonbaby. Different mics sound as different as different brand/style guitars. Sure a Tele and a Strat or a Les Paul and an L5 have similarities but you (or at least I ) can tell the difference. If your point is analogous to the idea that if you take a good guitarist and have him/her play the same song on a Tele and a Strat and a Les Paul that the biggest factor is the player and not the guitar I don't think many people will disagree. But most people can hear the differences even if they are a bit subtle. I agree that we exaggerate the differences between mics because .... the purpose of this board is to discuss the differences in mics.

Yeap, Ive heard a million stories like that too. Do the blind test yourself. If you can in your heart of hearts tell me you notice a $4k differance, Ill admit then maybe my standards arnt high enough.

In a recording chain, the amount of money you spent on the mic is worth about 1% of the overall results. A good singer, great room, decent placement, correct choice of mic, good cables, nice preamp, nice desk, good software plugins, skillfull mixing, decent mastering....thats where the other 99% is.

There is NEVER going to be a "$4K" difference in single parts. Or solo'd up parts. In ten years theres going to be a "$4K" difference. The better built mic is going to age in a way that the cheap components of the budget mic simply will not allow. And in a busy mix of many varieties of sources theres going to be a "$4K" difference.

With your recording chain I'm really really surprised you cant tell the difference in a U87 and something else, regardless of what it is. In my rather modest room theres no doubt which mics are the 'expensive' ones. I use the term 'expensive' in a loose way. Certainly a $200 dollar LDC has aspects to it that you can hear compared to the Neumann.

Your point is about price and yet I dont think anyone here is really trying to relate to mics in a price-wise way. I'm pretty sure its all about the sound. Which, according to your dissertation is point #4 under the heading "correct choice of mic". With this choice, a good engineer, several of which have answered you, will also make this decision based on personal experience. This is something you simply cannot sway a person from easily. To have a personal contact history with a piece of gear that makes you want to reach for something else is simply good business for the engineer. Is a "$4K" decision? Yeah, sometimes it is.

As you have said, this is an old discussion and has been hashed out to the point of anger and fisticuffs on many a forum. Again, I do not think anyone here is talking about the price difference making the difference in mics but more the overall sound characteristics and the longevity of the build quality. The fact that you have a U87 at your disposal tells me that there must be something in that for you too. I have a U87. Its my favorite mic. I dont use it very often because most of the time I have something that works as well in certain situations. But when it works the best out of my locker, it is something to behold. And the chain becomes secondary.

I am a person who seeks the source. The mic is a tool to capture the beautiful sounds of that source as is everything downstream. But the price of the source capture doesnt enter my calculations about placement or what anyone else has at their disposal. If you are looking for a place where everyone is continually measuring things by their price then you are in the wrong place.

As Bob said, this forum is about mics and their differences, including price, but not exclusive to it.

If you are going to pull a number out of your butt 99 is a bad choice. Lots of sharp points. Try 88 it's nice and smooth.

The fact is that everyone with more than one mic does this kind of test (no, it's not double blind and sometimes not single blind) every time a new singer comes in. And yes some times the expensive mic sounds the best and some times it's the cheaper mic. I've never done a double blind ABX test but no one really wants to because everyone sitting there can hear a difference. Some like one track. Some like another. But there is no question that they are different.

Now putting a price on the difference is very hard. Especially because the expensive mic doesn't always win. How do you put a price on the sound difference between any musical instruments? Look at the range of prices of guitars, pianos, saxaphones,..... How do you justify it? Well, it's justified because people pay without a gun to their head. If people pay 40 times as much for mic A than mic B then mic A is worth 40 times as much.

Im thinking perhaps you're missing my point. Bobs guitar analogy is akin to me taking 3 completly differant mic designs and saying theres no differance.

I dont own a U87, it was my clients. I do however own a couple of very expensive mics, but they have very specific rolls in my studio. I dont have many of the same type. Just a couple of each, just enough to do what I need.

So yes, differnent mic deisgns sound and behave different from each other. No arguments there. Im saying is simular mic designs from different manufacturers have little or no audible characteristics that define it as being notably differant or more expensive sounding.

If you dont believe me, go line up some mics and test it yourself. If I get time this evening Ill post some test results using what Ive got here.

hehe, I like how our new member from Down Under is shaking it up around here ( is New Zealand considered down under?).
I'm looking at an MXL 2001-P ( http://www.pcrecording.com/2001p.htm ) that was given to me as promo 13 years ago. I've never used it so its brand new, yes. hmmm maybe I shouldn't use it for Char fishing after all. I think I will try and do this comparison for fun this weekend.

But there is light~!(Dead Link Removed)
And Dave Royer had a kit at one time for this mic.
And Dave Thomas from Summerland BC Canada does them too. cool!

I never thought about a mod for it. I already have a U87, I wonder how this 2001 would turn out and what other options I have or should ask about. I knew there was a good reason for this thread! Has anyone here done a mod for the MXL 2001? But mod or no mod, maybe after I compare it to my U87 I will change my mind and start using it.

BrotherLove, post: 375560 wrote: Im thinking perhaps you're missing my point. Bobs guitar analogy is akin to me taking 3 completly differant mic designs and saying theres no differance.

I dont own a U87, it was my clients. I do however own a couple of very expensive mics, but they have very specific rolls in my studio. I dont have many of the same type. Just a couple of each, just enough to do what I need.

So yes, differnent mic deisgns sound and behave different from each other. No arguments there. Im saying is simular mic designs from different manufacturers have little or no audible characteristics that define it as being notably differant or more expensive sounding.

If you dont believe me, go line up some mics and test it yourself. If I get time this evening Ill post some test results using what Ive got here.

I think I see what you are saying now, but I think you are stacking the deck a bit. I'd agree that there are probably U87 knock offs out there that can pass an AB test with a given U87. You're saying that they can all pass the test but you give yourself the loophole of being able to say that the mics have a "different design" if you can clearly hear the difference. (This is known as the "[[url=http://[/URL]="http://en.wikipedia…"]no true Scotsman[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]no true Scotsman[/]" argument.) To go back to my guitar analogy - suppose you listen to a Fender Custom Shop Tele, an American Standard Tele, a Mexican made Tele, a Squire Tele and a G&L ASAT. I think you can hear some (small) differences between some of them, but there would probably be some that you really could not tell apart. Your argument (in the microphone world) is that they would all sound identical and could not be distinguished in an ABX test. Note that your argument would imply that no one should bother buying a matched pair of mics. Differences between the same brand and model should be inaudible. Do you want to go that far?

Blind tests are flawed. They always will be. They might work in person but to put up files on a host site that is going to be squashed isnt going to tell the whole story. The Listening Sessions were close because they were in a wav file format.

If your point is to say that the same work can be done with cheaper gear then I will agree. Of course it can. You can make a whole record with only a bag of SM57's and some engineering skills. At least I can. But to charge someone with something like "K9 hearing" or "golden ears" simply because they hear some difference in the qualities of particular mics over others seems mean-spirited. Why does this make their advice a poor choice for someone who wants to learn? And why does this make YOUR advice much more relevant? We only bring what we know to the table here and give of ourselves for free. As I said before, no one is making predilictions based solely on price point. I have some budget mics in my locker that I cant gush enough about. But they are somewhat limited in what I would use them on, but what they do get used on is very well tended.

BTW. I'm not missing your point, neither is anyone else. You might be missing the point of the original discussion. However, continue in this discussion but open yourself to others experiences. It might not be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. One thing that might be noted about a blind test......most times there will a preference between the contenders and although it might not be the most expensive it might be that its the right "mic choice" for the source being used in the demonstration. That doesnt make it a better value in the whole scope of capturing sound, it just means its better right at that moment for that source.

Thats why a lot of us have 30 mics in our locker (MOON!) {or 25 or so.....heheheh}

As to your "brand" differences, I agree to disagree. Several "brands" do have a distinctive sheen to their sound. I cant explain it completely since talking about sound is like dancing about architecture, but it is there. Several other "brands" have such a upper mid bump that its almost a signature sound itself.

You would have to have a lot of personal experience with these "brands" to sort it out but those that do, can.

Chris, the MXL 2001 was probably the best of the MXL line until recently. I say until recently because I haven't heard any of the current crop of MXL's Neumann knockoffs and ribbon motorscooters. The 604 was usable but was easy to overuse or overbear. The 2003 was a slightly modified version of the 2001 that I don't like as well. I haven't used any of the above since 2005 however when I began rebuilding my collection post Corps post divorce. I do intend to send a pair of MXL 2010's off to Michael Joly this fall because I "need" another usable pair of mic's. Don't laugh.

Hi Guys, the CV14 is the exact same microphone as the APEX 215 both are made in the same factory in Shanghai... the Avant is just painted a champagne red. The APEX 215 is half the price.

There CV14 can be upgraded with a better transformer but so can the 215. There is a some speculation that the CV14 has some tweaks but there is nothing much to tweak in a ribbon microphone.

The ribbon element (motor) is connected directly to a 30:1 ratio transformer and out to the XLR.

Cheers, Dave

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.aamicrop…"]Advanced Audio Microphones[/]="http://www.aamicrop…"]Advanced Audio Microphones[/]

Hi Guys, interestingly the MXL 2001 circuit is superior to the U87.

However, the early MXL microphones used inferior 2-3 micron diaphragms before John Peluso and Verner Ruvalds a retired physicist for Neumann worked with Shanghai to improve their capsule quality.

These 2-3 micron diaphragms generally have an unruly peak in the 4khz range while the K67 response is flat to 5khz where it gently starts to rise and is up 4-5db at 12khz in Cardiod.

The U87 consists of a FET directly driving a 10:1 output transformer. The MXL 2001 uses a emitter follower circuit where the fet is in series with a single discrete transistor that drives the transformer.

This is the same circuit used in the AKG 414 which I always found during my tenure at Ocean Sound in Vancouver to have more headroom than the U87.

There are two advantages to using the emitter follower circuit. In the U87 the fet is run from 21 volts dc and as the 48 volt phantom power is dropped down by a zener diode.

The fet Neumann used in the early runs could only run on a maximum of 21 volts dc. This means the maximum output the circuit can generate before distortion is 7.25 v rms or +19dbu.

However, this voltage is divided by the turns ratio of the output transformer so we end up with .725 volts or a maximum output of .5dbu.

This means the Neumann circuit must have more gain to make up for the loss of the transformer.

In the MXL2001 and our CM47fet, CM87 and CM414 we use the two stage class "A" circuit with a more modern 2sk170 fet.

The fet and transistor in the two stage circuit are running on 40 v (phantom less dropping resistors).

This means the maximum output before distortion in front of the transformer is 14 volts rms or +25dbu which is 6db more than the U87 circuit.

Now, the advantage of driving the output transformer from the emitter of the silicon transistor is the output impedance is 25 times lower. This means a 2:1 output transformer can be used instead of a 10:1.

The circuit in the MXL has less gain in the front end so there is more headroom.

We upgrade MXL2001 and you have the option of getting it back with our AK67 (U87 response), AK47 (U47fet response) or AK12 (414 response).

We usually change audio coupling capacitors and optimize the gain structure of the MXL circuit. I found that I an increase the headroom another 3db with a resistor change.

Cheers, Dave Thomas
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.aamicrop…"]Advanced Audio Microphones[/]="http://www.aamicrop…"]Advanced Audio Microphones[/]

Hey guys, sorry I havnt had a chance to record some A/Bs for you, I will today though once I clean up the studio after the last session.

Dave - yeap, my point is completely off subject now. But I think my advice is solid for the original poster - don't read too much into marketing brochures, get a mic that you can afford and is reliable - because they all sound the same.

Bob - still not feeling the guitar analogy. Guitars pretty much never sound the same, even two similar models. There are so many variables with an musical instrument. A better choice would be perhaps a microphone cable. Its something we can measure and test, and typically behaves in a predicable manner. Get 5 microphone cables of similar design and specifications, and no matter how much money you spent on one or the other, how fancy the mahogany box it came in, how flashy the manufacturers website is - they will perform exactly the same.
A mic is a measured and precise tool. It comes with specs that you can reproduce using analyzing instruments. And at the end of the day, its just a transducer. It does a fairly simple job of converting sound waves into electrical pulses. Theres no wood, or strings or any number of components involved in a guitar to alters the tone.

So anyways, Im stuffed - need to sleep. Ill chat more tomorrows.