inre:
" I ran 483's and I think in an A/B comp 99% of listeners would prefer his. "
oh, come on now.
I'm not sure the statement you quote actually says anything about the quality of the mics. Think about what the "average" listener prefers: "enhanced" (i.e. bloated) bass & "hyped" treble, heavy compression / near total lack of dynamics, low-to-mid bitrate MP3s, cruddy earbud headphones, etc. Also, cards v. hypers + potential configuration differences may have had a big impact on the recordings. No matter what percentage of people prefer the Pulsars, I don't think it would mean much with respect to their quality relative to AKG 48x. I've heard plenty of recordings where less expensive / lower quality mic X produced a better recording than mic Y. Doesn't mean it's a better mic, really. Lots more recording, listening, testing, etc. to do before anyone can make a reasonable claim about the Pulsar's quality relative to other, well established, well known mics, IMO.