Dynamic or Condenser - Experts, Idiots or Liars?

[FetMe?FetU!]

We've all heard the saying, "Opinions are like a##holes. Everybody has one." When I go on YouTube, forums, sub-Stack, Discord, or whatever your choice of information consumption is, I expect you will find differing opinions on this question. I also understand that a lot of this is personal preference. What sounds best with my voice may not sound good with your voice.

I find it interesting that when you start to hone in on a more specific aspect of this question, "What works better in an untreated space, a dynamic or condenser microphone?" the answers from experts are still far apart. Before you begin type-sniping at me with comments like, "There are already threads that talk about Dynamic vs. Condenser on this forum, so why are you creating a new post?" "Don't you know how to search the forum?" etc. Understand I'm not asking for opinions on which is better in an untreated space. I want to know why YOU think so many "experts" who should know the answer to this question publically disagree.

I just watched videos from two different microphone companies, Heil and Lewitt, and surprise, Heil says, "Dynamics don't pick up as much ambient noise (in an untreated room), and Lewitt says, "Background noise (in both untreated and treated spaces) is not a deal breaker for any of the microphones we tested." That would be an SM7B, LCT440, and an MTP550. These are just two examples of a ridiculous number of articles and videos where people who should know the answer say the exact opposite of each other.

I've seen videos demonstrating that it is all about gain and proximity and that with some easily adjusted settings and getting closer to the microphone, a dynamic and condenser microphone can perform similarly in the same untreated space.

I've seen other "experts" say, "No, it's not about gain and proximity." "It's about adjusting frequency response." then demonstrate that with a little bit of EQ matching, a condenser will perform in a very similar fashion to a dynamic microphone.

To be clear, I'm not asking anyone in the forum to give me their opinion on what is better in an untreated space, a dynamic or condenser microphone. I know the answer, and it's not complicated. 42.

I want to know why so many "experts" don't know the answer. Are they experts, idiots, or liars? What do you think?

Spoiler... I think the answer is all of the above.

 

[emrr]

Simple. A lot of “experts” are trying to sell something.

 

[rock soderstrom]

Simple. A lot of “experts” are trying to sell something.

+1
To be honest, I don't understand why "expert" opinions are so important to the TO. Try it out, use the corresponding microphones and see what comes out. Then you'll see what's right and relevant for you. Simple thing - no reason for high blood pressure.

 

[k brown]

When I first heard this idea, I thought 'why on earth would either type pick up more room than the other; all that matters is pattern - if two mics have the exact same pattern, and one's a condenser and the other a dynamic, they'll pick up the same amount of the room?.'

But there in lies the answer I think. Most such comaparisons are made in the context of studio recording where the two dominant mic types are dynamics (which are pretty much all 'small diaphragm') and LDC condensers. So there you are comparing apples and oranges because a typical cardioid dynamic has quite consistent patern vs frequency, but the majority of LDCs when in cardioid have increasingly wiider patterns with decreasing frequency, so will sound 'roomier' when compared to a dynamic.

It's not really a dynamic vs condenser comparison because few, if any, dynamics have the kind of frequency-dependent polar pattern like the most commonly-used studio condensers do. You'd probably get similar results comparing an SDC card with an LDC card (especially a vari-pattern one in cardioid mode).