u/guitarist89

Bought an OC818 and M160 off countless glowing reviews on this sub a few months back and have been loving them.

I admittedly infatuated by the Senn 441 and strongly considering one as the next addition to my humble two-mic locker.

Would this be a crazy, nonsensical, addition to make? I mean in the sense of having more money tied up in a dynamic than in either LDC or ribbon.

Of course I'd have various uses for it, that's besides the question- more just wondering whether there's some unspoken rule with mics wherein owning a dynamic more expensive than an LDC is verboten, lol.

Simple as the title, really...

I'm very intrigued by Gefell- to clarify, modern Gefell-, but surprised to observe the lack of discussion about them. Further, on speaking with a very well known studio/pro audio shop here, I was shacked when the salesman told me hadn't sold a single Gefell item in something like more than a year- that straight up baffled me...

A few I'm interested in are the UMT70S, M990, M92.M1S... and then more in the dream-end of things, the CMV563 M7S.

I've seen some older posts where the M990 and M92.1S are lauded, but they're usually very old posts.

I'm very content with my humble two-mic setup (an OC818 and M160) for now, but would love to 'upgrade' and step into one of the aforementioned at some point, just am slightly concerned by the lack of glowing reviews, honestly- I'm sure that will strike many as a stupid gauge of quality, but generally people tend to praise mics they like.

Both as the guitarist, often primary song (not lyric) writer/orchestrator, and backup vocalist of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but also, more-so/especially as a solo artist.

Personally, I've been a massive fan of him in both capacities, even more-so his solo work, for more than half my life, since the early/mid-2000's.

He's nowhere near the most flashy, virtuosic, guitarist, but what good is that when it can't resonate, and his parts are iconic due to their (often) simplicity, but also ability to resonate with the masses. Memorable stuff.

Beyond that, but somewhat related, his stuff, to my ears, has this childlike quality/innocence/naivety to it- hard to articulate, but it's very distinct to him, and isn't limited to just his playing, but even his voice. His work seems the polar opposite of contrived- it's just so effortless.

I super appreciate and give him kudos for being as prolific as he has, from experimental/avant garde to rock to folky to almost progressive and full-on electronica albums, and even within the Chili's, particularly on Stadium Arcadium, commandeering the production as he did, bringing infinite intricate layers and varied instrumentation onboard. Not to mention his various interesting collabs and side-projects.

Of course, being a long-time mega fan, I've strong bias for him.

I'm curious though how folks with less of a vested interest in the bloke feel about his work/abilities. Some more neutral takes.

I know this is subjective and am not sure "quality" is the best word, because in some ways "quality" often improves with time (to a point), i.e. they maybe become more technical, write from a place of wisdom, etc., but also I feel like there countless pretty objective examples where an artists/bands output just seems to decline as they get older, and I want to know why that is.

I don't believe that all music has to come from a place of struggle or a place that shares common ground with all people in order for it to appeal, so I don't think it's as simple as "they get rich and become detached from the subject manner they once sang about".

It's interesting, because in many cases you can see their technical abilities, orchestration, etc. improve over time, but the tracks just begin to lack the staying power, catchiness, x-factor, whatever, of their early work.