Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2021, 06:11 AM   #121
jrk
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allybye View Post
The thread considers the venerable sm58 vs all other condensers being automatically "better". Not easy to make that comparison.
Define "better".
__________________
it's meant to sound like that...
jrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 07:39 AM   #122
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 5,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allybye View Post
ldc condensers (excepting the very cheap crap) tend to be a flatter and wider frequency response? Maybe I am wrong.....
LDCs are certainly not inherently flatter. If you want flat, choose an SDC.

There's also a very big difference in construction between dynamic and condenser: a condenser has it's own pre on board. LDCs usually contain an RLC filter to correct the bump and sometimes some low cut. Dynamics with built-in filters are scarce. SDC might not need filtering to flatten them out.

And even the cheap crap is flat, these days. An NT1 board, populated, is 35$ on TaoBao. A Neewer 800 9.99$. Add a decent capsule, 30$ and you've got a 75$ mic that can rival rebadged China mics costing 500 to 1000$.

There's a lot out there. Both vintage and new.
__________________
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
cyrano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 12:06 PM   #123
Allybye
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 680
Default

True, @jrk, I cannot define "better" in terms of this thread. One can only consider individual characteristics (and the collective effect of them) vs the requirement, whatever that happens to be!. It was the aim of the thread to get the answer to that unanswerable question, was it not, along with automatic? In that I was sort of suggesting the absurdity of trying to answer the question owing to the range and performance of individual mics.

@cyrano I fully agree with your comments on the output of the capsule in a condenser. You too will be aware of the need for the consideration of correct loading and eq in transducer sources that are not purely resistive or are virtually entirely reactive. Hence the different needs of capacitive and inductive capsules or for that matter other tranducers used for Instrumentation such as piezo electric pressure transducers and their required charge ammplifiers or accelerometers.

However surely we only need consider, where we are audio users rather than designers, the manufacturers overall presentation at the output connector of the mic (and the required loading spec) where that transducer loading and correction has been done for us. No such electronic tweaking done in a dynamic, as you wrote, as the norm.

Is it not the case that the LDC mics resulting, designed for studio use, are generally flatter than in general a dynamic designed primarily as a rugged mic for live vocals of certain types? Of course there will be exceptions.

SDC may well be flatter than a LDC but that is hardly relevent in the context of the question posed originally by Peter.
Were you also implying that an ldc with hf bump is less suited in term of feedback to a dynamic with also an hf bump albeit often at a slightly lower frequency? I suggest that a bump at 5k as in the 58 is more difficult to avoid feedback than one at 15k but that is more than compensated for by the better polar diagram rejection at those higher frequencies in the 58.

But I fear we stray from the topic initially raised sm58 vs LDC mics and the premise questioned that the latter are "automatically better...for studio use.
Allybye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 12:35 PM   #124
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Is it not the case that the LDC mics resulting, designed for studio use, are generally flatter than in general a dynamic designed primarily as a rugged mic for live vocals of certain types? Of course there will be exceptions.
A lot of LDCs by default tend to have an HF bump somewhere in the high end IIRC. Enough so I spent some time finding a pair of LDCs that I liked and was actually closer to flat (Warm Audio WA-87). Because everyone of my other LDCs are not flat and have that crispy peak on the high side of the spectrum. I want to think it's the nature of the physical design but don't quote me.

Actually, here's a blurb from SOS that mentions it with that particular capsule style:

Quote:
Warm Audio are hardly the first to copy the one-inch, centre-terminated, dual-backplate capsule Neumann developed for the U67 and related microphones: the design has been a staple of Far Eastern mic manufacture ever since companies like Rode first brought affordable capacitor mics to market in the ’90s. However, what some manufacturers failed to account for was that the frequency response of the capsule itself shows a strong high-frequency pre-emphasis. In Neumann’s own mics, this is tamed electrically to deliver a broadly flat overall frequency response, but many early Chinese-made mics used simpler electronics that failed to equalise the HF lift, and thus gained a reputation for sounding harsh and over-bright.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/warm-audio-wa-87
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 02-22-2021 at 12:48 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 01:36 PM   #125
Allybye
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 680
Default

Well seems like I stand corrected. I had assumed that, in the good LDC mics, the high frequencies were tailored to result in an hf response that was desired rather than a failure to correctly adjust loading/correction.

One lives and learns!

Edit: And I was forgetting resonance effects!

Last edited by Allybye; 02-22-2021 at 02:53 PM.
Allybye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 02:04 PM   #126
tspring
Human being with feelings
 
tspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eastern shore of Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,484
Default

Nearly as important as frequency response, which is easy to evaluate from looking at frequency response curves, is how a mic deals with transient responses, which is not easy to evaluate without listening to the mic. My understanding is that the way that mics handle transient responses is where they get most of the harsh/smooth/dry/warm characteristics that we talk about so much. I have had mics that had rather flat frequency response curvess that I detested. But I adore the way that the tube condenser mics that we have owned sound, even though they had no better better frequency response. This is probably because I like the smoothing and compression of transients by the tube preamps that are considered to be part of the microphone circuitry. I believe that transient response is the main difference between the sound of SDC and LDC mics, and is responsible for a large part of the difference in the sound between condenser and dynamic mics too. So discussing mics in terms of frequency response alone is only part of the story. As subjective and inexact as it is to do so, I think that it still is necessary to describe mics with terms like harsh, smooth, warm, clean, detailed, sterile, and so on, to convey some idea of transient response handling. And of course, using such terms does not completely separate description of transient response from frequency response.

Shifting topic slightly, I think that some of of our discussion may be somewhat off target in a practical sense, because I believe that OP is actually not interested in a comparison between SM58s and much more expensive mics. I suspect that a comparison to mics nearer to $100 price point would better address his question. Cyrano's suggestion for building an NT1 Franken-mic gets the OP in the ballpark pricewise with an LDC that should not be overly harsh. The OP is recording jazz vocals, so he could conceivably be pleased with a mic that has a colored sound reminiscent of early mics, or alternatively a mic that has the most pristine clean sound possible might suit him. We don't know, and we are really still dealing with the question of what 'better' means in context.

T
tspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 04:53 PM   #127
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
Nearly as important as frequency response, which is easy to evaluate from looking at frequency response curves, is how a mic deals with transient responses, which is not easy to evaluate without listening to the mic. My understanding is that the way that mics handle transient responses is where they get most of the harsh/smooth/dry/warm characteristics that we talk about so much.
Just a side note that the reason condensers usually have faster transient response is due to the lighter mass of the diaphragm... Conversely, the higher mass dynamic mic (reacts slower) which is basically a tiny speaker voice coil in reverse. With a fast transient, the dynamic is going to have a harder time following the shape of it.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 09:39 AM   #128
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allybye View Post
But in light of some comments on the thread considervtwo mic available at a similar price (the 58 at £99 and the Røde nt1a £115 -including accessories at Thomanns uk their no 1 best seller in LDC mics)

Frequency curve sm58 https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...9QEwBXoECAEQCg
Noting the 5dB lift at and near 5kHz and after a dip at 7kHz again a bit higher

Røde nt1a spec sheet http://www.rode.com/download/nt1-a_datasheet.pdf
Much flatter overall (except low mids) till a bump up of again 5dB but at 15kHz the high edge of voice frequencies.

So over the vast majority of the voice frquency range the condenser is flatter...

Sm58 on the rejection basis is a better choice for live PA work but the question is raised by Peter for studio work where conditions ought to be more controlled? The 58 will be a good mic for some voices and genres but the nt1a might suit a wider range of voices. To turn the question on it's head does that make the 58 automatically better than all condenser mics?


Of course those above are two specific mics and not generalisms but is it not the case that ldc condensers (excepting the very cheap crap) tend to be a flatter and wider frequency response? Maybe I am wrong.....



If you were referring to the Rode NT1 being much flatter than an SM58, I would agree. But you reference the NT1-A. I wouldn't call the overall frequency response of the NT1-A "much flatter" than the SM58. Look at that peak at around 13 kHz for the NT1-A. It's at about +6 db and could create hiss and sibilance for a vocal. You could probably use a low pass if necessary, but my point is you still have a characteristic associated with the mic to deal with just like an SM58, only a different frequency.

Above, Karbo mentions SOS article explaining some cheaper LDC mics exhibit high frequency pre-emphasis. That's what it might look like. The SM58 has a frequency rise below that, up to 10 kHz, that gives it characteristic presence, but it's a wider bandwidth starting at about 2 kHz, which may be easier to control with EQ compared to one narrow band. The dip in frequency with the SM58 between about 7 - 8 kHz may be one reason why it doesn't sound like it has as much high frequency detail compared to something like the NT1-A, but is a dip in that range really problematic for a vocal?

Last edited by Peterk312; 02-23-2021 at 09:58 AM.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 11:27 AM   #129
tspring
Human being with feelings
 
tspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eastern shore of Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,484
Default

When people talk about hiss in a digital recording system, they are usually talking about electrical noise generated by the mic (self-noise) and/or c0mponents in the signal chain between the microphone capsule and the ADC converter (and also perhaps including radio frequency interference picked up by circuits/cables and noise from phantom power for condenser mics). It tends to be more of an issue with low output mics because more gain at the preamp to get the level of the signal into the desired range also amplifies the noise from everything in the path. The source of the hiss can be any electical component (e.g. a capacitor or resistor) anywhere in that signal chain. Thus, the frequency response of the mic is not necessarily related to the amount of hiss that makes it onto the recorded track, but the strength of the output signal from the transducer does tend to be inversely correlated. If you are including background sound picked up from the recording room in your definition of hiss, then the microphone's frequency response would obviously effect what is heard. but that is not really hiss. As a side note, systems that are analog from mic to speaker have a much larger set of sources of hiss than we encounter in the typical analog/digital hybrid systems most of us use. Indeed that is one of the traits that makes digital recording easier than analog.

Most of the sound associated with sibilance occurs around 8 kHz, and there are few vocal sounds above 10 kHz. So most of the frequency bump in the frequency response curve of the NT1_A would not be be a factor in causing sibilance in a vocal recording. So functionally, there is not as much difference between the NT1 and NT1-A as you might think on first glance at the frequency response curves. The SM-58 does have a bump in the range where sibilance occurs, and I think that is intentional. Intelligibility of spoken words depends heavily on sibilant sounds, and I believe that the SM-58 was originally designed to enhance speech intelligibility in a live setting.

Also I suspect that the plot of the NT-1 is a bit overly smoothed. The resolution of frequency response plots that various sources publish is not standardized, and that can be confusing.

T

Last edited by tspring; 02-23-2021 at 12:03 PM.
tspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 08:30 PM   #130
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
When people talk about hiss in a digital recording system, they are usually talking about electrical noise generated by the mic (self-noise) and/or c0mponents in the signal chain between the microphone capsule and the ADC converter (and also perhaps including radio frequency interference picked up by circuits/cables and noise from phantom power for condenser mics)...Thus, the frequency response of the mic is not necessarily related to the amount of hiss that makes it onto the recorded track...

T
I was referring to a hissy sound for vocals, not the high pitched white noise that some gear makes. It's the bump in high frequency that will cause a harsh bright tone to appear not only in the form of sibilance (I think the term HF pre-emphasis captures it). And yes, as I said it can be rolled off, but the way a Rode NT1-A has +6db at about 13 kHz will be audible with a vocal. It might only sound like air, or it might sound worse depending on the vocalist. I was just trying to say I don't think the plotted NT1-A frequency response is a reason to think it's a better choice to use for a vocal over an SM58. I do think the NT1 would be a better choice, if considering a flat mic would be less prone to produce odd coloration of a vocalist's tone, but I can't find price info on it. It seems to have been discontinued?

Last edited by Peterk312; 02-23-2021 at 08:37 PM.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 08:45 PM   #131
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
I do think the NT1 would be a better choice, if considering a flat mic would be less prone to produce odd coloration of a vocalist's tone, but I can't find price info on it. It seems to have been discontinued?
One man's dull is another man's natural, another man's harshness, another man's clarity. I would not be surprised if the update to the NT1-A IS the high-end bump. It likely sold a lot more mics because many who would buy one will consider it as clarity and defined because it's hyped a little.

Or they could have just missed that "fix the bump" mentioned earlier on about 1" condenser clones but I still lean towards the hype sold more mics to bedroom producers that use it for all sort of things beyond just vocals like acoustic guitars etc.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 10:23 PM   #132
tspring
Human being with feelings
 
tspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eastern shore of Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,484
Default

What Karbo said.

It will be clearer to people what you mean if you use the term 'air' to refer to the characteristics of the sound above 10K. Hiss means another thing to most people. Sibilance is below the range associated with 'air', all the way down to maybe 6 kHz. Harshness may have to do with bumps on the frequency response curve, but the perception of harshness can also be related to transient responses, which is another thing altogether.

It is also informative to examine the frequency response curve for a Neumann U47 microphone, one of the most sought after mics in existence:



This suggests to me that the high frequency emphasis you are seeing in these curves is not necessarily a bad property. I think that in the price range that is really of interest, the idea is to avoid mics with gigantic non-linearities. It is going to be very hard to use the frequency response curves for most mics to judge how your voice will record with them.

I am starting to form am opinion of what you might be looking for as you articulate what you *don't* like, and the opposite of what you don't like is a smooth, warm sound. I certainly don't think that you have a crisp, highly detailed, sound in mind. Yes, this is mushy, subjective, terminology (and possibly leading to the kind of ambiguities noted above), but it is better than nothing . Am I on the right track?

T

Last edited by tspring; 02-23-2021 at 11:04 PM.
tspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 10:29 PM   #133
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Here's a great video of Chris Liepe demonstrating a SM57 vrs an expensive condenser mic. Chris is a great singer and demonstrates this well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0F...ature=youtu.be
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 04:21 AM   #134
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
I was referring to a hissy sound for vocals, not the high pitched white noise that some gear makes. It's the bump in high frequency that will cause a harsh bright tone to appear not only in the form of sibilance (I think the term HF pre-emphasis captures it). And yes, as I said it can be rolled off, but the way a Rode NT1-A has +6db at about 13 kHz will be audible with a vocal. It might only sound like air, or it might sound worse depending on the vocalist. I was just trying to say I don't think the plotted NT1-A frequency response is a reason to think it's a better choice to use for a vocal over an SM58. I do think the NT1 would be a better choice, if considering a flat mic would be less prone to produce odd coloration of a vocalist's tone, but I can't find price info on it. It seems to have been discontinued?
Hi Peter. Karbo said a lot along these lines already but try not to fixate too much on whether a mic has a flat response or not - ‘flat’ might be accurate but can also be considered dull, boring, or lifeless in some circumstances. Mics are sometimes chosen for accuracy but often simply because the idiosyncrasies they have in their response makes them sound subjectively ‘nice’. Having a little added presence or high end in the capture isn’t objectively a problem because it can be controlled with EQ if necessary OR mean that less EQ is needed because the presence bump actually negated the need for an an adjustment to that area. With vocals (and other things) I’ve actually found often I needed more EQ work to get a ‘flat’ mic signal sounding how I need it compared to choosing a microphone that already had desirable properties.

EDIT: I see now that tspring had already said all this. My fault for skim reading, apologies

Last edited by Stu; 02-24-2021 at 04:34 AM.
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 10:22 AM   #135
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu View Post
Hi Peter. Karbo said a lot along these lines already but try not to fixate too much on whether a mic has a flat response or not - ‘flat’ might be accurate but can also be considered dull, boring, or lifeless in some circumstances...
I'm not the one who brought it up or focused on the need for a flat frequency response in a mic for a vocalist:

https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=120

Moreover, the SM58 was designed to be a vocal mic, does not have a flat frequency response, nor does it need to. In fact, if the mic had more low end roll off most recordings would likely sound better before EQ. But the frequency plot doesn't matter UNLESS when you use the mic you perceive odd coloration that is not present in the vocalists voice and makes it sound unmusical or harsh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
I am starting to form am opinion of what you might be looking for as you articulate what you *don't* like, and the opposite of what you don't like is a smooth, warm sound. I certainly don't think that you have a crisp, highly detailed, sound in mind. Yes, this is mushy, subjective, terminology (and possibly leading to the kind of ambiguities noted above), but it is better than nothing . Am I on the right track?

T
You can derive my preferences from what I was concerned about in my initial topic post where I posted a sample vocal recording using an SM58 https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=249349

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
1. Can you hear any frequencies that are coloring the vocal in an odd way?

2. Can you hear an unacceptable level of hiss or sibilance?

3. Does the vocal sound too "thin" to you for a male voice?

4. Does the vocal sound natural or does it sound under or over-compressed?
1. No Odd Coloration I have been plagued by problems recording my voice without there being a periodic odd coloration. Could be many different factors, but it would be great to be sure it's not the microphone. I already said I may have a defective or fake SM58, so who knows what the actual frequency response of the mic is (I have a new SM58 arriving today so will compare the two mics)? I have an Alesis AM52 LDC mic that may be broken. However, I know the last time I used it a couple years ago in a recording when I had an ART Pro Channel mic preamp the thing sounded great, and that's likely because I applied a high shelf cut and compression going in. No exaggerated sibilance or air. Apart from the mic itself, I realize I have been overly harsh and too focused on what may actually be harmonics or other artifacts in the recording that aren't actually problematic for the vocal within the context of the mix.

2. Not Harshly Bright or Enhancing High Frequencies Excessive high frequencies are subjective based on you ability to hear them. Sibilance is not so difficult to clean up in a vocal track, but it does appear the mic choice can make a difference, even if you know how to sing to consciously control it. But there's no mic on the planet that will prevent sibilance, so not really a factor for me. However, there does appear to be some truth in the claim that cheaper LDC mics can have a harsh bright tone.

3. A mic that does not make the vocal instantly sound thin What is a "thin" sound? For a male vocalist it's when you start to sound more feminine. It's when you start losing the warmer sounding parts of your voice because a mic either has a high presence peak in upper midrange, much like an SM58 if you go too far cutting out the low frequencies (as I erroneously did on the sample linked above and then changed it). But again, post processing even an SM58 can make the difference between a thin sound vs something much more natural sounding. I may prefer the raw sound of the SM58 over the raw sound of an LDC for this reason. The opposite of a thin sound is not a "thick" sound. For me, it's a more natural sound. And no I don't exactly believe there's a male or female voice. There are only norms.

4. Natural Sound As far as the mic is concerned, likely is about the frequency response. The AM52 I have, with no bass roll-off or high end shelf cut, sounds ridiculously unnatural. The specs say it's 20Hz to 18 kHz @ +/- 1.5 db. But if it's not broken and working to spec, it adds far too much sibilance and low end to my voice. it ADDS something that sounds very unnatural to me. The SM58 that I have, if genuine, adds low frequency that is not there, but not much else. Of course, it's common to use a high pass or low shelf EQ on all vocals regardless of what mic was used.



And last but not least, like all good producers, I'm looking for a microphone that will make a vocalist sound like a star.

[comic relief]


But seriously, remember at this point, I'm not so interested in finding a microphone that can do any of the above as much as I'm concerned using an SM58 will prevent achieving any of the above. It appears I managed to get good results, even if I'm using a fake or defective SM58, which I don't understand but may have only gotten away with because of post-processing.

Now if there's a microphone that can get me a starting point closer to the above parameters, then yes it would likely be a better choice than an SM58 as a vocal mic. But is such a microphone really out there? Or, does the orientation a vocalist has to finding the "right" mic more often going to lead one down a never-ending road to dissatisfaction (which is what Liepe says in his video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0Fvig32lQ about using the SM57 for vocals )?

Last edited by Peterk312; 02-24-2021 at 11:23 AM.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 10:36 AM   #136
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu View Post
With vocals (and other things) I’ve actually found often I needed more EQ work to get a ‘flat’ mic signal sounding how I need it compared to choosing a microphone that already had desirable properties.
That sounds obvious.

But in regard specifically to recording a vocal, what is NOT obvious is "a microphone that already had desirable properties."

And isn't that because all microphones have a mixture of desirable/undesirable qualities? If so, then unless you've selected the worst choice of mic for the task of recording vocals you most likely can work with whatever mic you selected, but it will take post-processing effort to get results worth using. Again, it's Liepe's basic premise.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 11:12 AM   #137
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
That sounds obvious.

But in regard specifically to recording a vocal, what is NOT obvious is "a microphone that already had desirable properties."

And isn't that because all microphones have a mixture of desirable/undesirable qualities? If so, then unless you've selected the worst choice of mic for the task of recording vocals you most likely can work with whatever mic you selected, but it will take post-processing effort to get results worth using. Again, it's Liepe's basic premise.
Desirable properties in a microphone are usually defined by the context of the recording and the source. Any given mic could exhibit both desirable and undesirable properties when considering what you are about to record with it.

As an example, my singing voice is not good but I can hold a tune. My voice sounds a little nasal and thin when singing, but sibilance is rarely an issue. Because my voice is on the thin side I would choose something with either proximity effect and work close to the capsule OR something with a less pronounced low end roll off and move a little further back, and because I know sibilance won’t be too much of an issue I know I can choose a mic with a bump in the high end without it causing any issues and this will save me having to add that later. I’ll be recording using a reflection filter which does a good enough job in my space to reduce room sound to negligible levels. So in this particular context, ‘desirable properties’ would simply mean good low end extension and a presence bump. I’d choose an LDC probably, because in my experience they usually give me better results with my own voice, but I’d also be happy with any number of dynamic mics too, including a 58 or 57.
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 11:33 AM   #138
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

So then Stu, you're suggesting again the microphone choice is only one part of a chain of elements that will interact with each other in desirable/undesirable ways, and no microphone is going to make up for the person making the recording who knows various ways of dealing with these elements.

Then a rule of thumb might be to exclude certain obvious microphone choices for recording a vocal. Should an SM58 be one of those mics to obviously exclude? I don't think so, you don't think so, but others apparently do.

The notion that you would go into a high quality recording studio wanting to record a vocal, and the engineer hands you an SM58 to sing into, is just so far off the norm that most singers would say, "Seriously?" But in the home recording environment it's a different story. And one important difference is that given the bedroom producer is not being charged by the hour, there's a long time that can be spent trying to get better than expected results with something like an SM58 (or even a broken one).
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 12:01 PM   #139
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,007
Default

Absolutely, mic choice is just one piece of the puzzle. Whenever I’ve recorded in bigger studios, or indeed when I had my own studio, the ‘big impressive’ LDC is often set up as a first choice for a lead singer usually because it sets a certain mood, fulfilling that preconceived notion that artists sometimes have of what ‘pro gear’ looks like. Maybe 50 or 60% of the time that mic is a good choice, other times the engineer might pull some others out of the locker and see what works - that might include a 58 or other choices that people sometimes think aren’t quite ‘pro enough’ for recording duties, along with other ‘known’ good choices for vocals but it depends entirely on the voice, (hopefully) the engineer will have been listening closely and thinking about what is going to serve this voice/instrument best for a given song/album/whatever.

There is more to mic choice than that, someone mentioned transient response earlier in the thread which is a big one, and although I would agree that as long as we have reached some kind of basic acceptable level of quality of equipment that you kind of can work with whatever you have and twist it into shape with EQ. But - a big BUT - there are reasons that this is not an ideal approach a lot of the time, and not just for time/money reasons. EQ will only get you so far to capturing the character of a microphone, and although you might be able to rectify some of the perceived flaws in the sound it could be a lot more difficult to impart the ‘nice’ qualities a different mic choice might have provided. These days if I was shopping for a mic I’d buy into the Slate Digital VMS - blind testing has proved that people can’t reliably tell the difference between the emulations and the real thing better than around 50% of the time and as that’s no better than a coin toss or guess, it would be good enough for me certainly.
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 12:50 PM   #140
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Stu covered most of it so I can't add much but... Peter, is the '58 the only mic you have? If so, a couple thoughts.

If you think you'll be building on what you have, then you might consider acquiring what I call the basic 3-mic set:

1. A decent dynamic mic (covered by the 58 if it isn't defective/fake)
2. A decent multi-pattern condenser.
3. A decent ribbon mic.

Notwithstanding recording in stereo, you can cover a LOT of ground with those three. Another thing that comes to mind from getting to know you here is that I'm tempted to say you might enjoy a ribbon for your voice more than the others. It's the most natural/non-hyped choice - so much so that those who like the hype might call them muddy but I'd lean more towards real.

Lastly, I've collected decent mics for a number of years now. I think I have about 40. If I toss the ones that might be closer to junk, it's more like 30. You don't need that many but what I wanted to get across is that if I use one for something (let's say my vocal) and I don't like something I hear and think it could be the mic. I'll just grab another or another. It doesn't even matter to me if the mic that ended up sounding better was the response, something in the chain, some oversight or just in my head.

This is just a long-winded way to say this might work out great for you once you try a handful of different mics, or your '58 is just bad/fake and that's all it is. But I have always enjoyed having more than one mic because it allows me to take that part of the puzzle out of the picture if questions arise.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 01:15 PM   #141
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Stu covered most of it so I can't add much but... Peter, is the '58 the only mic you have? If so, a couple thoughts.

If you think you'll be building on what you have, then you might consider acquiring what I call the basic 3-mic set:

1. A decent dynamic mic (covered by the 58 if it isn't defective/fake)
2. A decent multi-pattern condenser.
3. A decent ribbon mic.
^This is excellent advice
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 02:40 PM   #142
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Ok...

This is going to sound a bit impolite, but it is totally well meaning.

Between this and that wacky eq thing that you mentioned?

This sounds a whole lot like one of those "Tail Chasing..." expeditions that Dork Lard describes.

In two lines or less -

What's the exact issue you are attempting to address?
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 04:06 PM   #143
Allybye
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 680
Default

Well I too agree with what Stu and Karbo just wrote above.

It comes down to selecting the right mic for the situation or as I have writ "horses for courses"

You cannot do that selection if you just have a single mic irrespective of brand, style, functions and cost. Nor guarantee a new asset will necessarily improve anything!

Maybe I didn't write that post you referenced very well (not my forté) but when you wrote in response to Stu

"I'm not the one who brought it up or focused on the need for a flat frequency response in a mic for a vocalist:

https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=120"

either I did not make my point very well or it has been misunderstood. [probably me as it's not the first time!]

I never claimed you need a flat frequency response. Indeed some of the most respected mics (and examples of what people on this thread use, getting good results) are definitely not flat. They are chosen to suit the budget (maybe very high or low) and giving satisfactory results.....in the specific circumstance(s) of use (voice and sex and range, genre, location, desires, interactions, acoustics, time, avilability, compromises etc.).

You get satisfactory results with your mic for your voice? Others do too with a 58 but also many select different mics (examples in the thread of those who do reportedly, not many reports of popular pros those who chose others but certainly posters write of othe mics in preference).

The reason I brought up the frequency comparison was to demonstrate that there are LDCs that are satisfactory for voice recording (in specific circumstances) in the same price range as the 58 with similar frequency characteristics. [I still maintain the Rode is flatter over the main voice range but no matter ]. The NT1A is not the only such mic.

The suggestion I implied is there is more than a 58 to choose from or, as I wrote, suggesting would anyone think the 58 is automatically "better" than all an LDC and if not why limit to that single choice if you can try alternatives?

You raised the comparison between a dynamic and other LDCs and seem to have missed there are others to choose from - as ably mentioned by Cyrano, Karbo and problably others if only I could remember!

Numberthirty obviously feels, probably correctly, the thread appears to be going nowhere and asks a pertinent question.

I have taken note of many responses that say there is nothing automatic about it. Your results are good for your voice with your 58. If you are happy stick with it. No doubt an experienced good engineer would try other mics etc. and maybe get an improved sound...but not automatically..... and possibly not make any improvement at all!

Sadly (for me) it would not be me these days as it was long ago I worked in that environment and my ears/brain are no longer up to it owing to well known age and damage effects! (When did they stop putting tweeters in speakers? Dont answer that one please!)
Allybye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 06:58 PM   #144
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
Ok...

In two lines or less -

What's the exact issue you are attempting to address?
If you really want to gt in on this and understand what I personally am looking for in a mic, you need to see my other post:

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=249349

And pay attention to what I'm asking to be evaluated in my first post.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 07:01 PM   #145
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
If you think you'll be building on what you have, then you might consider acquiring what I call the basic 3-mic set:

1. A decent dynamic mic (covered by the 58 if it isn't defective/fake)
2. A decent multi-pattern condenser.
3. A decent ribbon mic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu View Post
^This is excellent advice
Only if the term "decent" could be described discretely!

I have an SM58 and a Alesis AM52 LDC microphone. That's two out of three.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 07:28 PM   #146
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
Only if the term "decent" could be described discretely!
Yea, I kind of chose that word so people could fill in their own meaning.

Quote:
I have an SM58 and a Alesis AM52 LDC microphone. That's two out of three.
Nice!

On a side note I got a Warm Audio WA273-EQ today. I wanted a preamp with EQ on it, well I wanted the EQ the most. Anyway, just started unboxing and playing around with it tonight.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 07:35 PM   #147
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
Only if the term "decent" could be described discretely!

I have an SM58 and a Alesis AM52 LDC microphone. That's two out of three.
Not if the Alesis could be compromised.

That's kind of what I'm talking about. It's another tangent in a thread where I'm not even sure what the "Elevator Pitch..." start would constitute.
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 07:47 PM   #148
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

And, honestly?

There is a similar undercurrent in the other thread that you linked to.

Take that most recent post about the new 58...

Are you still in some sort of a spot where you have whatever the issue you seemed to have with the 58?

If so, what is that issue(in the simplest terms...)?

Looking that post over, it's kind of tough to get a feel for where you believe you are versus where you started.
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 08:56 PM   #149
Strange Ways
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago-ish, IL USA
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Here's a great video of Chris Liepe demonstrating a SM57 vrs an expensive condenser mic. Chris is a great singer and demonstrates this well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0F...ature=youtu.be
That was a great video, thanks for that link. I always had the disease of thinking "Well I can't do this until I get that piece of gear". I'm happy to say I've been wrong this entire time!
Strange Ways is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2021, 09:10 AM   #150
tspring
Human being with feelings
 
tspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eastern shore of Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,484
Default

Peterk312, between reading this thread and the other thread on the forum where you posted your recording, it appears to me that you have come to the conclusion that the SM-58 you have is sufficient for you to make good recordings of your vocals. I would agree with that. But I am also left with the impression you would still like suggestions for alternatives to use in the future, which would be 'warm and smooth' (my words paraphrasing and simplifying what you have written). And I also assume that you are budget conscious. Taking Karbo's suggestion of aiming toward having one dynamic, one condenser, and one ribbon mic on board, my son (who runs Sweetfoot studios) and I discussed the 40 or so types of mics that we are familiar with to pick three affordable alternatives that we think might suit your taste.

Dynamic: SM-7 /SM-7B. Perhaps a bit smoother and warmer than SM58, but Shea (my son) finds them to be more 'boomy and dark'. This might be the ticket for your voice and taste. Unfortunately a new SM-7B cost around $350-400. An Electrovoice RE-20 is another alternative, but it is even more expensive. I was actually surprised that we really couldn't think of lower priced dynamic mic to suggest. Perhaps this is why Sm-58/57 mics continue to be so popular. Perhaps there are deals on used Sm-7s, I haven't looked into this.

Condenser: Used Rode NT-2A. Very smooth, warm, and sweet. This is a large diaphragm mic that allows for selection of response pattern (cardoid, omni, or figure 8) and built in 3 position high-pass filter (0, 40 and 80 Hz). They are a super deal on the used market, where you can find them for as little as $150. In Shea's studio, his NT2-A gets used right along side his hand built V47's and Neumann U87. This is the clear choice for a smooth and warm mic in the lower price range. It is also a good mic for recording acoustic instruments.

Ribbon: Cascade Fathead. We don't have a lot of experience with different models of ribbon mics, but we do have a Royer R-121 to compare to, and the fathead is not too different from it. In our experience, for vocals the Fathead is mainly useful when the singer has a raspy voice with lots of air, which it tends to tame. Some might describe it as having a somewhat dark sound, but there is not a clear distinction between dark and warm IMHO. There is a ton of proximity effect, and the singer needs to stay at least a foot away from the mic, so you tend to pick up a lot of room noise. A Fathead can be obtained for $160 new, and it is a good value at that price.

I am not proposing any of these mics as 'best' in any general sense. They are the best fit that my son and I can come up with to what we think would suit your tastes from among the models of mics that we have used. Hopefully, this will be helpful.

T

Last edited by tspring; 02-25-2021 at 06:44 PM.
tspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2021, 08:55 PM   #151
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
Peterk312, between reading this thread and the other thread on the forum where you posted your recording, it appears to me that you have come to the conclusion that the SM-58 you have is sufficient for you to make good recordings of your vocals. I would agree with that. But I am also left with the impression you would still like suggestions for alternatives to use in the future, which would be 'warm and smooth' (my words paraphrasing and simplifying what you have written). And I also assume that you are budget conscious. Taking Karbo's suggestion of aiming toward having one dynamic, one condenser, and one ribbon mic on board, my son (who runs Sweetfoot studios) and I discussed the 40 or so types of mics that we are familiar with to pick three affordable alternatives that we think might suit your taste.

Dynamic: SM-7 /SM-7B. Perhaps a bit smoother and warmer than SM58, but Shea (my son) finds them to be more 'boomy and dark'. This might be the ticket for your voice and taste. Unfortunately a new SM-7B cost around $350-400. An Electrovoice RE-20 is another alternative, but it is even more expensive. I was actually surprised that we really couldn't think of lower priced dynamic mic to suggest. Perhaps this is why Sm-58/57 mics continue to be so popular. Perhaps there are deals on used Sm-7s, I haven't looked into this.

Condenser: Used Rode NT-2A. Very smooth, warm, and sweet. This is a large diaphragm mic that allows for selection of response pattern (cardoid, omni, or figure 8) and built in 3 position high-pass filter (0, 40 and 80 Hz). They are a super deal on the used market, where you can find them for as little as $150. In Shea's studio, his NT2-A gets used right along side his hand built V47's and Neumann U87. This is the clear choice for a smooth and warm mic in the lower price range. It is also a good mic for recording acoustic instruments.

Ribbon: Cascade Fathead. We don't have a lot of experience with different models of ribbon mics, but we do have a Royer R-121 to compare to, and the fathead is not too different from it. In our experience, for vocals the Fathead is mainly useful when the singer has a raspy voice with lots of air, which it tends to tame. Some might describe it as having a somewhat dark sound, but there is not a clear distinction between dark and warm IMHO. There is a ton of proximity effect, and the singer needs to stay at least a foot away from the mic, so you tend to pick up a lot of room noise. A Fathead can be obtained for $160 new, and it is a good value at that price.

I am not proposing any of these mics as 'best' in any general sense. They are the best fit that my son and I can come up with to what we think would suit your tastes from among the models of mics that we have used. Hopefully, this will be helpful.

T
Thank you for those specific suggestions.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2021, 09:21 PM   #152
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
And, honestly?

There is a similar undercurrent in the other thread that you linked to.

Take that most recent post about the new 58...

Are you still in some sort of a spot where you have whatever the issue you seemed to have with the 58?

If so, what is that issue(in the simplest terms...)?

Looking that post over, it's kind of tough to get a feel for where you believe you are versus where you started.

(1.) I have resolved the issue I thought existed with my SM58. It is not defective nor does it appear to be a fake, though fake SM58 mics are indeed out there. I have found through another forum it appears there's a lot of misinformation out there about what exactly indicates your SM58 is not genuine. Many people are assuming design changes that Shure made to improve the mic indicate the older versions are fake. There are at least two videos on Youtube that are making false claims about how to spot a fake SM58, and given that's the mic I'm using for vocals on a major project I became understandably concerned that my SM58 was either a fake or defective, which may have explained why when I posted the EQ I was typically using for it I created a huge cut in low frequencies. The mic is not broken, as compared directly to the sound of a new one, and my use of an EQ was too severe because I was given the wrong impression about how much bass cut you need in a vocal in order to get it to sound clean and sit well in the mix.

I posted a clip of project made specifically to demonstrate what kind of results I was getting when tracking with an SM58 and then applying post-processing: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=249349 I was hoping for more comments about the recording quality (not the performance; everyone's got an opinion about the "right" way to sing), but REAPER forum members who were kind enough to address my concerns helped me to understand (2) the vocal recording quality is not bad, (3) the vocal recording quality may sound like an SM58, but that's not necessarily bad, (4) post-processing shouldn't require such a steep cut in low frequencies, (5) I need to be more mindful that the vocal does not jump in and out in level (the amount of compression was too modest), and with the help of another thread about how far to go when you process a vocal https://forum.cockos.com/showthread....37#post2401337 (6) I learned that notch filters on a vocal should not be used unless you hear a particular frequency repeatedly jumping out within the context of the whole mix, not merely when you solo the vocal. Otherwise, you're on your way to creating a thin vocal that potentially has phasing issues.

That's 6 issues above that I started out with, each particularly problematic for me, that are mostly resolved.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 08:53 AM   #153
Peterk312
Human being with feelings
 
Peterk312's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 477
Default

I am not posting this because I agree with the author. In fact, after many thread contributions I'm posting it because I find his claims to be misleading and overgeneralized.

6 Mistakes to Avoid When Recording Vocals
https://ask.audio/articles/6-mistake...cording-vocals

Quote:
1. Don’t use a stage mic in the studio

Now, recording lore is full of stories of how this-or-that famous singer always records with his trusty SM58 (the classic $99 hand-held standard club mic), and still manages to sound great. And it’s probably true, at times—certainly many live mixes have vocal tracks that were taken in with this (or another equivalent) workhorse dynamic mic—I’ve mixed quite a few myself, and I thought they came out fine. But despite this, the SM58 and its ilk won’t really provide the best sound quality for a studio recording, up against other carefully-recorded instrument tracks. While stage dynamics sound ok in a busy mix, if the vocal is more isolated, or accompanied (even in parts) by a more minimal arrangement (solo acoustic guitar or piano, for example), the dynamic’s lack of clarity and air (openness) will be a limitation, and their often-slightly nasal quality will be more apparent. You can EQ for tone, but you can’t add clarity and air after the fact. That’s why most recordists use a studio-standard large-diaphragm condenser for vocals—not only do these mics have the desired open-ness, but their tonal balance is often optimized to help the vocal float effortlessly above the mix, with a minimum of fuss or EQ needed.
The number 1 MISTAKE a person should not make when trying to record a vocal is use an SM58. Mistake means error. You're doing something immediately wrong.

Words he uses to describe LDCs: most recordists use, desired openness, tonal balance, optimized, vocal will float "effortlessly" (?)

Words used to describe the SM58: workhorse, won't really provide the best sound quality, lack of clarity and air, limitation, nasal quality

Workhorse? You mean like a working-class mic as opposed to the upper class?

If what he's saying is true, then as soon as you reach for an SM58 to do a recording you've instantly made a mistake. If what he's saying is true, then the vocal quality recorded as an example here: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=249349 instantly sucks because I used an SM58.

Now look at this article:
http://www.recording64.com/2014/08/1...ders-question/

Quote:
What’s the point of recording with a super detailed condenser microphone, with solid lows and crystal clear highs, if you know that once in context within the mix, your final track will have to sound more midrangey (let’s say, just like an SM58)? Just use an SM58 right from the beginning and save you some EQ work during the mixing stage!
It all depends on the sound you want to get. An expensive Neumann condenser will likely sound “better”, more precise and rich, but won’t necessarily be the better choice for your mix or your voice.
Exact opposite advice, except for perhaps "It all depends on the sound you want to get."

I'm only trying to further demonstrate how I've become so confused over the years to the point that I don't know what to believe anymore. Trust your ears is usually the default strategy. It's very hard to do this as an individual when you've got such conflicting information out there.
Peterk312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 09:08 AM   #154
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,007
Default

It is difficult to sift through the dirt to find the diamonds. I feel a little concerned about anyone giving information objectively about subjective things, but that’s how articles are written these days in the times of click bait and hyperbole. Whenever someone gives a hard and fast rule about audio, your first thoughts should probably be ‘is this information objective, provable and repeatable, or is it subjective and context dependant?’

One of the best things about the Reaper forum in my opinion, that there is a kind of understanding that this place has become a kind of archive of sorts for many people, filled with useful information - some of which changes and becomes obsolete due to the program itself evolving over time and some of it perpetually solid concepts that will always be relevant. Because of this there is a very strong desire amongst longstanding members to keep information here objective, accurate and useful. You can always run concepts by folks here and people will take the time to answer and explain the how and the why.
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 10:11 AM   #155
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
But I am also left with the impression you would still like suggestions for alternatives to use in the future, which would be 'warm and smooth' (my words paraphrasing and simplifying what you have written).
Often the Beyer M160 is characterized by exactly those terms, and as you can see on the back of Mark Murphy's Stolen Moments album, it was chosen by either the recording engineer or the man himself. He's a master, sure, but those 70's tunes of his always sound effortless and natural to me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tspring View Post
Dynamic: SM-7 /SM-7B. Perhaps a bit smoother and warmer than SM58, but Shea (my son) finds them to be more 'boomy and dark'.
I find them nasty and thin to be honest. They're so dependant of the "right" preamp, it's not even funny. The only difference to a 57 is a larger transformer and the distance of the capsule within the basket - yes, it's much further inside and so eliminates any proximity effect in the first place.
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 04:04 PM   #156
Allybye
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 680
Default

I can see, Peter why you do not like that ask "advice". Not that keen on it myself. Very poor saying mic choice is the number one mistake. Would be better to have written that not being flexible in mic choice is a possible mistake?
As other have written there is no hard and fast rule for all situations!

However I think you might be missing some fair points. Is he not saying do not automatically select A particular mic (such as the 58 and it's ilk) because of limitations. That does not mean 'do not consider them' or using one is a mistake! That can apply to any mic.

I the think description "workhorse" refers not to social hierarchy but "something that is markedly useful, durable, or dependable" which the 58 is amongst other things. All condensers (apart from rf types) often need more looking after -for want of a better description as they are more prone to problems such as moisture.

The second article (that extract seem better written IMHO) really just approaches it from the premise: start by considering an LDC but don't neglect a dynamic if that is the best in the circumstances?

I appreciate that trusting your ears can be difficult. In professional studios, with experience, possibly with other experienced staff to get feedback from, known good monitoring equipment and acoustics it is easier to recognise acceptable quality. I respect the 'bedroom producer' that gets that acceptable good quality.



@beingmf not sure how you come to that statement "I find them nasty and thin to be honest. They're so dependant of the "right" preamp,"
Well they can be a little light on the very deep base, true, and have a slight wide scoop starting below 1k but how does the "right" preamp affect that? Can you clarify please?
Allybye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 10:19 PM   #157
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk312 View Post
...

I'm only trying to further demonstrate how I've become so confused over the years to the point that I don't know what to believe anymore. Trust your ears is usually the default strategy. It's very hard to do this as an individual when you've got such conflicting information out there.
On this...

It's probably worth just pointing out that there is some basic "How To Sort Through Everybody Having An Opinion..." stuff that is always worth keeping in mind when you are sorting out what to believe(and how much weight to give "Facts" that folks are trying to sell someone on...)

First -

This person with the opinion? Do they stand to make any sort of a profit out of whatever they are trying to school folks on?

Second -

It's not so much "Believe..." like we are talking about the fact that gravity works on Earth.

Third -

Anything that someone is saying. Just how many times do you see agreement on it? I can remember Mark from Sparklhorse talking about using empty toilet paper rolls on an SM57 as a filter.

While it worked for him?

That ain't anything like a "Rule..."/"Fact..."

It's just something that you can try to see if it is helpful in your particular instance.
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2021, 11:16 AM   #158
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allybye View Post
I the think description "workhorse" refers not to social hierarchy but "something that is markedly useful, durable, or dependable" which the 58 is amongst other things. All condensers (apart from rf types) often need more looking after -for want of a better description as they are more prone to problems such as moisture.
Last time I was working in the studio, I wanted to use my Rode Classic rather than the house mics. However, they were using pierced metal pop-shields & after about three songs my Rode started hissing and crackling like crazy.

Turned out to be moisture being able to penetrate the metal pop-shield, whereas my cheap old AKG shield, equipped with my wife`s used nylon pop socks stopped moisture penetrating.
Next day`s session, we used a nylon shield and no problems.
Who knew?
__________________
Ici on parles Franglais
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2021, 04:22 AM   #159
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allybye View Post
@beingmf not sure how you come to that statement "I find them nasty and thin to be honest. They're so dependant of the "right" preamp,"
Well they can be a little light on the very deep base, true, and have a slight wide scoop starting below 1k but how does the "right" preamp affect that? Can you clarify please?
Yes. There's been several occasions that I – or we – tried different mics for a given source (mostly drums that is). Most of these tests took place in great studios with incredible mic selections. Each time the SM7 (on console preamps or the "usual" high end outboard) resulted in turned-up noses. Shrill, tinny, resonant. One of the engineers then told me about Shure's strange recommendation of using preamps with no more than 300 Ohm, basically the impedance you'd want for ribbon mics.
Not that I have ever tried this combination, but it might render the SM7 a little "better"? Or maybe it's just meant for certain voices and guitar amps?
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2021, 06:32 AM   #160
tspring
Human being with feelings
 
tspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eastern shore of Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Yes. There's been several occasions that I – or we – tried different mics for a given source (mostly drums that is). Most of these tests took place in great studios with incredible mic selections. Each time the SM7 (on console preamps or the "usual" high end outboard) resulted in turned-up noses. Shrill, tinny, resonant. One of the engineers then told me about Shure's strange recommendation of using preamps with no more than 300 Ohm, basically the impedance you'd want for ribbon mics.
Not that I have ever tried this combination, but it might render the SM7 a little "better"? Or maybe it's just meant for certain voices and guitar amps?
Some of the preamps we have provide variable impedence inputs down to 200 ohms or so. Perhaps this is a factor as you suggest.

I do wish some folks would chime in on suggestions for some *low price* dynamic mics other than SM58/57 that they have found to be useful for recording vocals, and that could be roughly described as smooth and warm sounding. I have had a fair number of inexpensive dynamic mics that have been very useful, but they have either sounded just like an SM58 to me or were less smooth and warm. I'm not in the market for one at the moment, I'm just curious.

Last edited by tspring; 02-28-2021 at 06:43 AM.
tspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.