Brian, I'd definitely like to hear your MMW comp. Certainly it'll likely be a better-sounding show.
So.. results..
Mic 1 was my DPA 4021s
Mic 2 is hi and lo's Mk5s into my CMC6 bodies
To me this result isn't all that surprising, and I'm not surprised that folks preferred Mic 2. If you look at the frequency response plots of the mics, the mk5 is less flat and has that much more pronounced HF emphasis that the 4021 does not have. I also feel like the mk5 has a slight bit of bass rolloff, but that may just be my ears being tricked by the HF emphasis.
As has been amply debated in the thread, this is not a great recording because it is not a very good PA mix, very strong PA, or ideal spot in the room. But I do think this comp says a lot about the choice of mic one might have for recording PA systems. A lot of us spend a lot of our time recording PA systems that are less than ideal, so if you do, you might consider a mic that is more suited to less ideal conditions (of course, I'd also call that mic "hypers" in a lot of cases). While I won't claim this recording is excellent, I do think it is a very accurate representation of the difference in results that you get in these types of conditions with these types of mics. If this were a comp of say, an orchestra, or an onstage recording, or a studio recording, I suspect the results would be different.
It's true that the 402x mics are notoriously accurate mics - to their detriment when they're recording a bad room. With 402x mics especially, I think you cannot be afraid of the EQ. After applying an EQ curve to the 4021 source that looked more like the Schoeps, the source sounds quite good with them. But again, if you record a lot of PA systems and don't like the idea of doing a bunch of EQ, you might consider a mic that didn't require as much of it.
Now let's hear that MMW comp!