... and therein lies its simultaneous blessing and curse. We are using English words to convey subjective concepts. What may be "muddy" to one could easily be "deep and rich" to another. Then comes the perception angle, to wit: A bolt of thin, cheap fabric is "thin and cheap." A bolt of thin, expensive fabric is "sheer."

I guess I've become this way ever since I saw what happened when a naughty engineer friend of mine installed the dynamic element from a 635A microphone into the case assembly of a Neumann U47. It was, at once, sad and funny ... watching the same people -- some with ears that, ostensibly, "should've been able to tell the difference," diss a real 635A microphone ... and continue to genuflect to that "U47," praising its "warm vintage tube richness." Of course, it was appropriately EQed ... and I am not saying it fooled everyone -- just more than you would logically expect.

The potential muddiness of a Tube MP, for instance, when combined with the output of a condenser microphone known for having an exaggerated top end ... could result in a completely pleasant conbination. You'll never know until you combine those two elements. I do know of several VO professionals who are using a Tube MP ... and are elated with it.

Medication77? They're your ears, your projects, your budget. Take what you've read here and do some experimenting.

Yup - very sage advice!
_________________
Bruce Valeriani - Mix Engineer

Thanks everyone for taking the time out to advise me.
you've also reminded me to view recording how I view guitars, it doesnt always have to be the best one just the best one for the job at hand (with some tweaking).

cheers!