My frustration with gear

[Scali]

Originally Posted by damigu

ummmmmm...WHAT??
i take exception to your use of the word "accurately" here. yes, any mic (even the mic element from a telephone) can capture those frequencies.
but *ACCURATELY*? no, you need a good mic if you want to capture anything accurately.

I dunno, here's what my 39 euro Chinese-made dynamic mic did:


Or here for an mp3 version, might sound a bit better than Youtube: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...songID=7112925

[JJ Rodriguez]

As for the support for the Axe FX, it's pretty god damn amazing. Any issues and you usually ship them your Axe and they fix it. I got them to ship me a part and I soldered it into my Axe's motherboard and fixed it right up. The issue was something from the first run of the Ultra's for the scroll wheel, nothing major. They also release new firmware all the time too, for free, and add models, new parameters for effects, etc. Head over to the Fractal forums and check it out, there's a shit ton of info. If you want to go the cheap route you could always just grab a Toneport or Pod (as much as I hate Line 6 shit) just to see if you can get the tones you're looking for direct.

[Andii]

Originally Posted by JJ Rodriguez

As for the support for the Axe FX, it's pretty god damn amazing. Any issues and you usually ship them your Axe and they fix it. I got them to ship me a part and I soldered it into my Axe's motherboard and fixed it right up. The issue was something from the first run of the Ultra's for the scroll wheel, nothing major. They also release new firmware all the time too, for free, and add models, new parameters for effects, etc. Head over to the Fractal forums and check it out, there's a shit ton of info. If you want to go the cheap route you could always just grab a Toneport or Pod (as much as I hate Line 6 shit) just to see if you can get the tones you're looking for direct.

I have been reading the axefx forums. I only saw one instance of someone's unit dying and they got it repaired quick. I'm pretty sure I'm going to pass on the line6. Even though I really like some of the tones from the line6 I'm going to be playing death metal on higher tunings and I've seen the axefx excel at that.

[Ckackley]

Just a quick reply for ya .. I run all of my sounds digital to a direct box where I split the signal to a powered PA speaker that is my "amp" and another cable direct to the house PA. I set my sounds up while listening through the powered PA and it sounds damn near identical through all but the shittiest sound system. If it sounds that bad crank the powered cab. As a bonus, if we're playing at a place that's got a decent PA with good monitors I don't even bring the powered cab. Two guitar cases and a pedal board. Travelin' light, and I know I'm gonna sound exactly the same as I do any other day.

[Andii]

Originally Posted by Ckackley

Just a quick reply for ya .. I run all of my sounds digital to a direct box where I split the signal to a powered PA speaker that is my "amp" and another cable direct to the house PA. I set my sounds up while listening through the powered PA and it sounds damn near identical through all but the shittiest sound system. If it sounds that bad crank the powered cab. As a bonus, if we're playing at a place that's got a decent PA with good monitors I don't even bring the powered cab. Two guitar cases and a pedal board. Travelin' light, and I know I'm gonna sound exactly the same as I do any other day.

That is exactly what I had in mind.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Scali

I dunno, here's what my 39 euro Chinese-made dynamic mic did:

you're kind of making my point for me. as a webcam recording, that's definitely good quality.
but i'd be very unhappy if that was the best "studio" recording my gear was capable of. it was muted in the upper registers and too mid-bassy.

but you get +rep for an awesome cover of an awesome solo.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by damigu

you're kind of making my point for me. as a webcam recording, that's definitely good quality.
but i'd be very unhappy if that was the best "studio" recording my gear was capable of. it was muted in the upper registers and too mid-bassy.

but you get +rep for an awesome cover of an awesome solo.

Did you also bother to listen to the version on Soundclick? You'll find it has even more detail, and doesn't suffer some of the audio compression that Youtube throws over it.
I, and various others think it sounds pretty damn good (and regardless of whether you think it's muted in the upper registers and too mid-bassy, that's just how my amp and guitar sounded at the time. All comes down to personal taste, and nothing you can't change with a bit of post-processing eq/compression, which I didn't. You won't do better with a more expensive mic at any rate. If you listen to my "80s rock ballad" video, that's recorded direct, with a modeler... still pretty much the same basic tone, that's just how I like the sound, it's just less detailed than a mic). I'd like to hear you do better before I even take your claim seriously that you should be "unhappy" (you would have no right to be unhappy about this recording if you can't do better yourself, see. If your recording is worse, then you should be happy if you could do this). Ofcourse you would be saying that, because otherwise I'd prove your point wrong (which really isn't in your hands, because everyone can judge for themselves). Problem is, if you can't back it up, you lose.
So, grab the backing from Guitarbt.com, set up your mic and start recording!

[damigu]

your logic makes no sense.
my abilities (or lack thereof) in recording have no bearing on the capability of cheap mics versus higher end mics to capture sounds accurately.
you can't "fix" a bad mic sound with post-processing EQ. you can make it better, yes, but it won't be the same as if you just used a better mic to begin with.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by damigu

your logic makes no sense.
my abilities (or lack thereof) in recording have no bearing on the capability of cheap mics versus higher end mics to capture sounds accurately.
you can't "fix" a bad mic sound with post-processing EQ. you can make it better, yes, but it won't be the same as if you just used a better mic to begin with.

There's nothing to 'fix', since the microphone captured all the detail of my amp just fine. Hence YOUR logic makes no sense.
There's little point in using a better microphone, since the microphone isn't the limiting factor here. Guitar amps just have limited frequency range and limited dynamic range.

And, yes, your abilities do come into play. You're making claims that my recording could be improved with different microphones. I'm saying they can't. Now I've actually recorded with this and various other microphones over the years. So when I say a better microphone doesn't really make a difference, it's based on years of personal experience. I've tried it, it didn't work for me. If you say it can be done better, the least you can do is provide some proof. Else I'm obviously not going to just take your word for it. I need to hear your recordings first, if you want to convince me. You've already heard mine, and had the chance to cricitize them. Now it's my turn.

[yacker]

I hate to join in on the argument here, but I have to say the quality of the microphone does make a difference. Whether or not it is a drastic one or even preferable one is highly subjective though, we do all have different ears after all. Generally speaking though even if most mics pick up the entire frequency range of a guitar amplifier it doesn't necessarily mean that all microphones are created equal. Some will paint a much more accurate picture of what is actually going on....the question that needs to be asked though is whether the source material even needs to be accurate. That will vary from amp to amp. It has everything to do with what sounds good with what.

I have to say that there would be little incentive for any recording studio to stock anything more then a closet full of radio shack mics if there would be no difference between those and the others that cost them thousands of dollars. So it's a kind of subjective argument but certainly not all microphones are created equal.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by yacker

I hate to join in on the argument here, but I have to say the quality of the microphone does make a difference. Whether or not it is a drastic one or even preferable one is highly subjective though, we do all have different ears after all. Generally speaking though even if most mics pick up the entire frequency range of a guitar amplifier it doesn't necessarily mean that all microphones are created equal. Some will paint a much more accurate picture of what is actually going on....the question that needs to be asked though is whether the source material even needs to be accurate. That will vary from amp to amp. It has everything to do with what sounds good with what.

Well, as I said, for a guitar amp, the positioning is more important than the actual mic, for the end-result.
A well-positioned cheap mic can sound much better than a poorly positioned high-end mic.
And if you position both properly, the difference will be very small. And it's just that: a difference. It's not going to be better or worse per se, just down to personal preference.

Originally Posted by yacker

I have to say that there would be little incentive for any recording studio to stock anything more then a closet full of radio shack mics if there would be no difference between those and the others that cost them thousands of dollars. So it's a kind of subjective argument but certainly not all microphones are created equal.

Obviously recording studios record many other things than just guitar amps. Different instruments require different microphones. And different people prefer different microphones and sounds (one advantage of dynamic mics is that they can withstand high pressure very well, so you can put them close to the speaker, even when the amp is very loud. One could easily argue that tonewise it's more important that the amp is playing loud).
I was just saying that you can get very good results from a mic'ed up guitar amp, even with a low-end dynamic mic. Guitars aren't very critical that way. It's not so much about what mic you use, it's how you use it.
One of the all-time most popular microphones among guitarists is the Shure SM57... which is pretty much "Radio Shack" quality on paper. It can just be used to great effect in the right hands.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Scali

There's nothing to 'fix', since the microphone captured all the detail of my amp just fine. Hence YOUR logic makes no sense.
There's little point in using a better microphone, since the microphone isn't the limiting factor here. Guitar amps just have limited frequency range and limited dynamic range.

there is more to capturing sound than merely encompassing the range.
that's like saying "using any film in a camera is the same." but it isn't, because some films have better blue response, some stronger in red, some monochromatic, some are grainy, etc.
microphones have similar differences. in practice, all of the frequencies being recorded are constantly shifting volume, and the microphone has its own volume response curve that gets superimposed on top of the sound's own volume curves. cheap mics have significantly less consistent/controlled response curves. and *THAT* is what needs to be "fixed" with a lot of EQing if you want to make a cheap mic approximate what you'd hear from a studio recording.

Originally Posted by Scali

If you say it can be done better, the least you can do is provide some proof.

the proof is on most of the albums you own, i would say. pop one into your CD player if you doubt me.

you might dismiss that statement with "they fix it in post" but that generally isn't true. most recording engineers try to tease the best out of the sound up front so that there will only be a minimum amount of fixing in post.
that is why bands like "tool" (who, i think we all agree, have a pretty hi-fi guitar sound) have been using mics like the heil PR-30 for their last few albums (*VERY* flat response across the whole range).

[Pyramid Gallery]

Having spent a great deal of time and money on recording guitars, it's interesting to see the differing opinions on this. I'm glad I've found my ideal tone with mics before I gave up. Don't you just love it when guys who have it don't really say much, and the guys that do have blah clips? Or the guys that have the good clips have the sm57 standard, but you can't get anywhere near what they're getting or what's on cds?

[Andii]

I spent a lot of time in my studio today. I've got to say that my sound is a lot better now. I'm getting about the results I want. I may stick with what I have and carry a mic with me for shows.

I posted the recording in this thread:
New mix feedback wanted(Peavey 6505+real drums)

[Scali]

Originally Posted by damigu

there is more to capturing sound than merely encompassing the range.
that's like saying "using any film in a camera is the same." but it isn't, because some films have better blue response, some stronger in red, some monochromatic, some are grainy, etc.
microphones have similar differences. in practice, all of the frequencies being recorded are constantly shifting volume, and the microphone has its own volume response curve that gets superimposed on top of the sound's own volume curves. cheap mics have significantly less consistent/controlled response curves. and *THAT* is what needs to be "fixed" with a lot of EQing if you want to make a cheap mic approximate what you'd hear from a studio recording.

Blahblahblah. As I say, positioning is most important, it has a huge effect on the frequency response and how controlled your sound comes into the mixing desk. If you know how to position your microphone right, you don't need much EQing, if any at all. The recording I presented was done with virtually no post-processing.

Originally Posted by damigu

the proof is on most of the albums you own, i would say. pop one into your CD player if you doubt me.

I disagree. I don't think my tone sounds worse than most albums, on the contrary. If I wasn't convinced that my recordings are good, I would never have bothered to post one. Tons of people have gone absolutely mad about my tone, so I must be doing something right.
You may not like it, but you're the first. I'm not even sure if you're being honest, or just reluctant to admit that it's a good recoring, to be honest. You have to realize that I didn't just start playing and recording guitar yesterday. I've been playing for ages, and after a few years, when I got the hang of it, people started praising my tone. So after years of praise, I'm not particularly impressed if some random guy comes out and says I should be 'unhappy' about my tone, especially since it mainly seems to suit his flawed argument.

And as I already said, there's tons of albums with legendary tone recorded with a Shure SM57, a microphone that is pretty much identical to the one I used, in terms of frequency response, sensitivity and all that.
So that proves my point: you don't need a fancy mic to record great guitar tone. The SM57 is a great mic, but it's not fancy in the sense that it has a very good frequency response or anything. It's a great mic because you can get great results when you put it in front of a guitar amp, those are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by damigu

You might dismiss that statement with "they fix it in post" but that generally isn't true. most recording engineers try to tease the best out of the sound up front so that there will only be a minimum amount of fixing in post.

That's exactly what I've been saying, but you don't seem to understand that. I kept saying that if you know how to position your microphone properly, you can get great recordings with a simple dynamic microphone. Which people have been doing for decades.

Originally Posted by damigu

that is why bands like "tool" (who, i think we all agree, have a pretty hi-fi guitar sound) have been using mics like the heil PR-30 for their last few albums (*VERY* flat response across the whole range).

But were you trying to compare my recording to Tool? Obviously I wasn't aiming at that sort of sound, and it can in no way be compared to it. Try comparing it to David Gilmour's original recording, and I think I've done a pretty good job. Not in the sense that it sounds exactly like it (that was never my goal, I don't even like Pink Floyd, and I have completely different guitars, amps, effects and all that, I just played like me, with my tone), but in the sense that my sound has very similar characteristics and fits into the mix in a very similar way to the original.

I've never listened to Tool, but while I'm sure they have a great recorded sound, obviously there are more guitar sounds than just theirs, and more ways to record a guitar sound than the way they did it.

I think you just didn't get my point at all. What I see here is someone who seems overly focused on how a certain band records something, and when someone else says it could also be done in a different way, he gets all confused.
I never said that you NEED to use a cheap dynamic mic, or that other microphones won't work. I merely said that even with a cheap dynamic mic you can get pretty good results if you know how to use it.
There are endless combinations of gear you can use for recording, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses (I often record direct with a modeler aswell).
My point was just that mic'ing up an amp isn't necessarily a problem, not even with a simple dynamic microphone.

Originally Posted by Pyramid Gallery

Having spent a great deal of time and money on recording guitars, it's interesting to see the differing opinions on this. I'm glad I've found my ideal tone with mics before I gave up. Don't you just love it when guys who have it don't really say much, and the guys that do have blah clips? Or the guys that have the good clips have the sm57 standard, but you can't get anywhere near what they're getting or what's on cds?

Yea, I guess that's what I'm saying. The SM57 isn't a very impressive mic on paper... but there are people who know how to use it to devastating effect.
People who go on about how you need a fancy condenser mic with a full flat response sound like they don't know what they're talking about AT ALL. I think if you bothered to position a mic just ONCE, you know what a huge difference it makes. But if you haven't... well you can still try to act tough and piss on other people, after all, it's the internet.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Scali

Blahblahblah. As I say, positioning is most important, it has a huge effect on the frequency response and how controlled your sound comes into the mixing desk. If you know how to position your microphone right, you don't need much EQing, if any at all. The recording I presented was done with virtually no post-processing.

you're side-stepping the issue. positioning has nothing to do with whether an bargain mic can get the same quality of recording as a better mic. it is just as critical for all mics.

i never even said that you *HAVE* to have a great mic to get great results--just that better results are easier with better mics. that's why, as was pointed out by someone else, studios often have a significant stock of high end mics (in addition to a bunch of "normal" quality mics).

Originally Posted by Scali

I disagree. I don't think my tone sounds worse than most albums, on the contrary. If I wasn't convinced that my recordings are good, I would never have bothered to post one. Tons of people have gone absolutely mad about my tone, so I must be doing something right.

what crawled up your ass? seriously. if you plan on doing anything in music then you had better get a thicker skin and learn to take some constructive criticism. this isn't the first time i've seen you start bitching and moaning when someone questions your *opinion* about recording. trust me, some of us have way more experience with recording than you do.

and if you actually read my post again, you'll see that i said it was a good recording--just not studio quality good (and i gave very specific reasons why: muted higher registers and the mid-bass becomes overly dominant when you palm mute or hit those lower notes). how are you taking that as an insult when you admitted yourself that it was never meant to be a studio quality recording?

i even gave you a compliment on your playing and video and gave you +rep for it.

try reading what i'm actually writing instead of jumping to conclusions, and stop being a dick.
either that or just stop talking to/at me.

Originally Posted by Scali

I think you just didn't get my point at all. What I see here is someone who seems overly focused on how a certain band records something, and when someone else says it could also be done in a different way, he gets all confused.

just so you know, straw man arguments (ie. making claims about me with no evidence to support it) only show insecurity on your part. they don't actually say anything about me.

that said, what i see is someone who didn't read what i wrote and started arguing something completely different (and it's not the first time i've seen him do that in a recording/production related thread)
then he got into a tizzy after i complimented him--trust me, i won't make that mistake again.

good day, sir.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by damigu

you're side-stepping the issue. positioning has nothing to do with whether an bargain mic can get the same quality of recording as a better mic. it is just as critical for all mics.

I've said two things:
1) A guitar amp doesn't have a wide frequency range or large dynamic range, so you don't need a fancy microphone. Good is good enough. Who cares if your mic can do 10 Hz - 20 KHz and has a 80 db sensitivity when your amp only does 80 Hz - 5 KHz and 25 db dynamic range? How will a better mic get you a better result?
2) The positioning has a huge effect on what the microphone actually picks up from the speaker. Which is rather obvious when you have a 12 inch speaker, while you can only aim a small mic at a certain point of that speaker, you can never capture it the way your ear does, because as I said, your brain does a lot of filtering and processing, which your mic can't. Every part of the speaker sounds different, giving your more highs, more mids, more lows etc... then there's the angle at which you set it, etc. Anyone who's ever done it will know. Position and angle are all important for your frequency response, no matter how good the mic. There is no 'ideal' position of the speaker to aim to, you can never get a totally 'flat' response. Hence, you don't really need that from a mic either. QED

These two combined mean that the quality of the mic isn't that important, but the way you use it, is. As I said, different mics just sound different, not necessarily better or worse. It's just like pickups... Eg, DiMarzio makes tons of pickups, which generally are of equal quality (and none of them with a flat response). Not better or worse, just different. Good results can be had with pretty much all of them, just depends on what you're doing.

Originally Posted by damigu

i never even said that you *HAVE* to have a great mic to get great results--just that better results are easier with better mics. that's why, as was pointed out by someone else, studios often have a significant stock of high end mics (in addition to a bunch of "normal" quality mics).

That's nonsense, as the positioning of a mic is far more difficult than any other part of the recording process. If you can't position a mic correctly, you won't get good results from any mic.
The catch-22 is that if you DO know how to position a mic correctly, you really don't need a high-end one, because a guitar amp simply isn't that critical.
So no, a better mic doesn't make it any easier in the slightest.

Originally Posted by damigu

what crawled up your ass? seriously. if you plan on doing anything in music then you had better get a thicker skin and learn to take some constructive criticism. this isn't the first time i've seen you start bitching and moaning when someone questions your *opinion* about recording. trust me, some of us have way more experience with recording than you do.

Perhaps you should think before you tell people they should be unhappy with their tone. I don't need lectures from you.
Sure, SOME people may have more experience with recording than I do, but YOU obviously don't, so I suggest you get off your high horse. What you're saying applies mostly to you. You seem to have no experience with recording microphones, judging from your own statements. Yet you are questioning other people's *experience* (not just an opinion, what I say works, and the majority of recordings are done this way, so it's not like it's just MY experience, I didn't invent it, I just learnt it from others).
Your constant personal digs don't exactly make you come off sympathetic either. You're acting like a ... well you know.

Originally Posted by damigu

and if you actually read my post again, you'll see that i said it was a good recording--just not studio quality good (and i gave very specific reasons why: muted higher registers and the mid-bass becomes overly dominant when you palm mute or hit those lower notes). how are you taking that as an insult when you admitted yourself that it was never meant to be a studio quality recording?

You are mistaking personal preferences with objective quality.
We may have different tastes, so you may have recorded differently.
Sadly we will never know, because you are too insecure to post your recording.

Originally Posted by damigu

i even gave you a compliment on your playing and video and gave you +rep for it.

You think I'm proud of some pentatonic blues wanking? Lol. I suggest you look at my other videos. This video is not exactly representative of my work, it's just fooling around. If you think this is good playing, it says more about you than about me

Originally Posted by damigu

just so you know, straw man arguments (ie. making claims about me with no evidence to support it) only show insecurity on your part. they don't actually say anything about me.

I can make any claim I want, because you fail to produce any evidence to the contrary. It shows YOUR insecurity. I'm perfectly secure with myself, which is why I don't let punks like you talk shit about my work. Put up or shut up, mate.

Originally Posted by damigu

that said, what i see is someone who didn't read what i wrote and started arguing something completely different (and it's not the first time i've seen him do that in a recording/production related thread)

Look who's talking. You don't know the first thing about mic positioning and recording, and seem to be completely oblivious to what it is I'm trying to explain here. I've told you numerous times, but you just don't get it.
Your problem is that you get all arrogant and condescending, trying to act like some kind of authority on recording, while in reality you're just talking nonsense and don't even seem to realize it. You're all talk. Go ahead, post some recordings, prove me wrong, if you dare.

[damigu]

i said, "good day, sir."

[Scali]

Good day indeed. If you didn't notice, the guy actually tried mic'ing again, and had more success now. If my input gave him that small nudge to try mic'ing again rather than just give up, then well, mission accomplished.

[widdlywhaa]

all right I have had enough i've been watching this thread for like 2 days now on and off and Scali dude, Your being an unnecessarily painful twat about this all.

for one he got results this time, yes, but who's to say he won't wake up tommorrow and hate it all over again I do it every day, the fact of the matter is that you do need a good mic to pick up accurate and clear tone.... Maybe you're not after super tight articulate metal tone but he is. in fact the example of tone that you posted isn't anywhere near what he was looking for.

and maybe you don't need super expensive mics to capture a "Good" tone but "good" is subjective because i found your recording way too muffled sounding and not nearly clear enough to be as great as you seem to think it is, especially when compared to the backing track.

so to put an end to all this
1. Your oppinion is not law get over it

2. when you post an example post one relative to what the OP is looking for evry type of music requires a different and unique approach just becuase it worked for that tone does not mean it will achive the best results for another.

[yacker]

At what point did this thread turn into, "Don't insult my recording unless you can post a better one!"? Give it a rest man, that has virtually nothing to do with what this thread was about. Neither is the pissing match of who knows more or is better at recording. Everyone has an opinion and both of yours happen to differ. So do the opinions of several professional engineers. It's not like a sound judgment on that matter can be made on a forum, regardless of whether clips are posted. It's pretty highly subjective stuff.

[Scali]

Look man, I was only trying to help by trying to explain that even with a pretty tacky microphone you can still get good results, it's more about figuring out how to do it.
I think I was perfectly on-topic trying to help the guy with some mic'ing up issues.

I think considering the circumstances (single-take, 39 euro mic, no post-processing), it's a pretty good recording, and I think it demonstrates the point that you can get good mic'ed up tones with very modest means. Which I think is very helpful considering the original topic.
I didn't ask for Damigu to attack me, I was just trying to help the topicstarter. Not with an opinion, but with facts, like a video and an mp3 recording. So don't give me the "difference of opinion" when I'm posting facts.
As I say, I also record direct with modeling, so don't mistake this recording for my opinion that this is THE way to record. It's just a fact that I have recorded with a cheap dynamic microphone at some point in time, nothing more.

[yacker]

I mean that's cool and respectable man, but he hardly attacked you. He actually complimented you in the majority of the comment and gave you positive rep. He simply said he would be unhappy if that was the "best" that his gear could do. That's highly subjective. His ears told him he wanted something different and yours told you otherwise. That's a difference in opinion...period. This then turned into two pages of arguments for no reason.

Other then the facts of what gear you used and how you positioned the mic etc., there are really no facts going here, just opinions. You have an opinion on mic positioning vs mic quality, he has an opinion too. No matter how hard either of you feel you are correct neither is going to be a fact.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by yacker

He simply said he would be unhappy if that was the "best" that his gear could do.

Well, I think that was completely uncalled for.
It also begs the question what his gear can do. I mean, if you'd be unhappy with a recording like this, you must have some pretty kickass recordings yourself.
For me it may not be the best recording I've ever made, but I think it's one of the best I've made with a cheap dynamic mic. "Unhappy" is certainly not a word I would use. "Pleased" or "satisfied" more likely.

Originally Posted by yacker

That's highly subjective. His ears told him he wanted something different and yours told you otherwise. That's a difference in opinion...period.

He didn't just say it like that though. I only found out at the end of the discussion that he prefers the sounds of Tool, which I obviously wasn't going for in this recording. His choice of words made it pretty clear that he considered it to be a poor recording in general, rather than a good recording of a tone that just wasn't his taste. I would be willing to accept the latter (I tried to steer the discussion into that direction, but he steered it right back), but I think the former is just a misrepresentation bordering on insult. Then he added personal attacks to the mix.

Originally Posted by yacker

Other then the facts of what gear you used and how you positioned the mic etc., there are really no facts going here, just opinions. You have an opinion on mic positioning vs mic quality, he has an opinion too. No matter how hard either of you feel you are correct neither is going to be a fact.

Mic positioning and mic quality aren't opinions, they're objective quantities. You can easily measure how mic positioning and mic quality affect the overall frequency response, dynamic range and all that. So yes, it is pure scientific fact.
Also, the discussion wasn't so much about that, but rather about using microphones vs using direct recording. The OP made the claim that any mic'ed setup would sound like 'telephone quality'... I think that's just wrong, because direct recording generally tries to mimic mic'ed up rigs because they defined guitar tone. Up to about 10-15 years ago, people barely recorded direct AT ALL, it was virtually all mic'ed up recordings.
And it's not like direct recording automatically sounded better... Nope, direct recording has problems all of its own, because of the artifacts caused by the limitations of amp/speaker/mic simulation. It takes a lot of effort and experience to mask those out of your recordings aswell.

My opinion on the matter is this: Modeling will give you a good/acceptable tone more easily... pretty much out-of-the-box. Bad mic'ing can sound disastrous... However, pushing modeling from good/acceptable to great tone is incredibly difficult (getting rid of the aforementioned artifacts), while a good mic'ed setup will sound great simply because it's the real thing and doesn't suffer from artifacts. I think the most tell-tale sign of direct recording is when you listen on headphones... it will have a boxy/plastic edge to it. A mic'ed recording never has that.

[yacker]

Originally Posted by Scali

Mic positioning and mic quality aren't opinions, they're objective quantities. You can easily measure how mic positioning and mic quality affect the overall frequency response, dynamic range and all that. So yes, it is pure scientific fact.
Also, the discussion wasn't so much about that, but rather about using microphones vs using direct recording. The OP made the claim that any mic'ed setup would sound like 'telephone quality'... I think that's just wrong, because direct recording generally tries to mimic mic'ed up rigs because they defined guitar tone. Up to about 10-15 years ago, people barely recorded direct AT ALL, it was virtually all mic'ed up recordings.
And it's not like direct recording automatically sounded better... Nope, direct recording has problems all of its own, because of the artifacts caused by the limitations of amp/speaker/mic simulation. It takes a lot of effort and experience to mask those out of your recordings aswell.

My opinion on the matter is this: Modeling will give you a good/acceptable tone more easily... pretty much out-of-the-box. Bad mic'ing can sound disastrous... However, pushing modeling from good/acceptable to great tone is incredibly difficult (getting rid of the aforementioned artifacts), while a good mic'ed setup will sound great simply because it's the real thing and doesn't suffer from artifacts. I think the most tell-tale sign of direct recording is when you listen on headphones... it will have a boxy/plastic edge to it. A mic'ed recording never has that.

I pretty much agree with all of that. That just wasn't the argument I was referring to though. The argument that ensued thereafter was about mic quality. While scientifically you can measure microphone accuracy and dynamic range and how positioning effects that and the like you can't really measure one persons preference over the other. Personally, I think that's where the argument came from, each person had a different preference on what sounded good.

As for all the other stuff I think both parties had some statements that could be labeled as uncalled for. That said, I really think the initial comment was partially a compliment, partially constructive criticism, and partially a difference of opinion. But overall nothing to get bent out of shape about. I'd hate to see your response to somebody who genuinely didn't like your recording.