Why should we think of "what microphones heard " as a standard

Studios spend thousands of dollar on good microphones to capture the real sound and hundreds of thousands on gear to alter the sound to the producer's taste.  Ask anyone who actually worked in recording studios.  There are exceptions of course - MA recordings, Water Lily, Reference Recordings.  But those are really exceptions. 

Microphones certainly are transducers, the recording equivalent of the phono cartridge in playback. They therefore are more inherently prone to distortion than are electronics, but the way in which outboard processing is used by the vast majority of recording engineers (aside from guys like Kav Alexander of Water Lily), the electronics are actually more responsible for the lack of audiophile-quality sound found on most of our LP's and CD's than are the microphones used. Ask Ralph Karsen (atmasphere) if you don't believe me ;-) .

Yeah, microphones and speakers - the beginning and the end. As important as everything else in between is, I would get it right first.

Oops, Karsten.

I live in the Boston area and I have attended many concerts. In trashy night clubs and at the symphony hall.
Back when I was obsessively trying to remember what I heard to compare it from records. (while going home and my ears still ringing). I finally remembered an article in TAS where the mics were hung from the ceiling for a classical recording and thinking to myself, What am I doing? I can never afford those tickets besides, they wouldn't let me hang from the ceiling anyway.  hmmmm