Actually, I have gone to school for recording arts and had access to all of the top gear. Had a small but well appointed 16 track analog recording studio for awhile. Ran my own sound reinforcement company for mid-sized venues and worked with some major artists after that. Chose every stick of gear that was used and paid for it myself; was considered top notch, and my system was often copied but never duplicated by my competitors. Pink Floyd would have enjoyed it in its day. So, to say that I know my way around a mixing board and outboard gear is fair enough . . .
Ribbon mics are used in the studio. But not the first choice for a number of reasons. Unless there are some brass or some woodwinds to be recorded, or a female voice that is less than traditional, or if David Bowie should show up. It fills a niche at the discretion of the engineer or producer; but does not get the lion's share of the workload. Condensers and dynamics cover that still.
The fact that you don't grasp what I said might be my fault for not explaining in a way that was understood. So, let's try it again. OK?
All pro engineers are very picky about mic choice and EQ; it is their bread and butter. Amateur radios and CB's aren't nearly as unforgiving as the process that puts things down that commercial production requires. The bandwidth is narrower and the equipment is third rate in most cases. Which is still acceptable enough, so long as we keep important principles in play. But there must be a model as to what you want to accomplish. IOW; what is it that you expect? How do you get there? What are the problems that arise to that end? Having said that, a choice for eSSB or AM maul must be chosen first.
To keep it all in focus, those eSSB/maul choices are also beyond the scope and cost this series. Doesn't mean that experimenters won't come away with a far better solution that what the CB world has already provided. If done right, there should be a vast difference for the money and time spent.
The point is, just how much can one accomplish with a 5khz bandwidth? Given that a Cobra 148GTL has been modified to do 5khz, then one must be extra careful to use it wisely and still be on a budget. Compromises must be made; so what can be optimized, and what cannot be compromised?
Microphones that has less than a flat response are not bad in themselves. They often have places in which they are preferred. But that is for full bandwidth recordings; not for a narrow band. Fitting detail in a small space that sounds as natural as possible with just the right color can be interfered with if the EQ, compressor, or the mic gobbles too much of that available space. Kind of a delicate balance to attain; and to keep.
A mic that has a large peak, or even many such peaks, affects the sound product because to tends to pull adjacent frequencies to those peaks out of phase. This creates a dilemma to a real sound - as opposed to an accurate rendition. To correct it takes more EQ resources to correct than to have a mic which does not have the same problem. A D-104 will sound like a D-104 and a EQ can correct some of it; but not all of it. Leaks like a sieve. But a mic chosen that is flat, within a given budget, will allow the user to tailor it without wasting detail and correcting too many glaring peaks.
Nothing wrong with using a dynamic, condenser, or a ribbon. But to say that a ribbon is the best mic for a given situation - read 'cost' - it is not. Many low cost condenser and dynamic mics will work but will add color. All mics do - to some degree or another. But to have the best results, we really want to make the mic as neutral as possible - as cost will allow - so that we can color the finished product as we want to hear and not to be limited by any one factor.
That is all I've been saying, and I hope it is clear enough now . . .
