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

Good posts, everyone.

tomic601, I have made live recordings of my own bands, using a pair of small diaphragm condenser mics straight into the two channels of a Revox A77. I used the same mics into a simple Sony mixer and then into a Teac 3340 4-track to make studio recordings. No EQ, no compression, no electronic reverb or echo, no nuthin’. Those tapes sound more natural (life-like timbres of both instruments---drumset, electric bass and guitar, acoustic piano and guitar, sax---and vocals, the recording itself more transparent) than 99.99% of my Pop (non-Classical. Classical recordings is a completely different matter) LP’s and CD’s, and I have used them to evaluate loudspeakers for years. I monitored on my Stax Lambda Pro ESL Earspeakers.

And that's not even pro tape decks and no high end microphones, I suppose. It says a lot about how bad most commercial recordings are.

I think it's generally accepted that both microphones and loudspeakers (mechanical transducers) are by far the weakest links in the audio chain. 

Both can feature differing technologies and both are still far from a desirable  <1% distortion. But we can measure this distortion and we can hopefully keep  reducing it further.

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.