Ok, dumb question. Why would you seek out a mic that has the flatest response you can find, only to have the sound "modified" through the preamp?
If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction, but at the same time we are using devices that alter that reproduction...
it's called "coloration" or "colouration" for you Canucks & Europeans
coloration can be a negative OR a positive attribute. just as many guitarists choose the fat sound of a tube amp over solid state ones. that good "fat" tube sound is a potpouri of measurable harmonic distortion, coloration and God knows what other sonic ingredients.
>>If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
i'm sure you could approximate it with sophisticated softwares that are available today, but why not capture it during the recording from the start. you can have a controlled recording on the master; therefore, you don't need to add it artificially in post prod. also, with all the great technology that exist today, it's impossible to add/remove certain order harmonics into the recording. you can't recreate nature on a computer, no matter how powerful it may be.
no loudspeaker, no computer will ever perfectly reproduce a chord sounded by a piano. however, with high quality mics, pres, etc. we can come up with a pretty good approximation.
>>It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction...
i understand what you're saying. but, let me add that "best" is open to a VERY wide range of interpretation especially in music.
hope that i've shed a different light on the subject.
marc