Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Inexpensive dynamic mic for live vocals

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 1:24:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female)
live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's
equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might
have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've
recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the
SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if
the same might be true with the Behringer pre's.

I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best
would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the
preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here
will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years
since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in
that SM58 class these days.

So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately
$100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget
could be increased a little.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Dean
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 1:44:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

drichard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female)
> live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's
> equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might
> have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've
> recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the
> SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if
> the same might be true with the Behringer pre's.
>
> I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best
> would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the
> preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here
> will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years
> since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in
> that SM58 class these days.
>
> So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately
> $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget
> could be increased a little.
>
> Thanks in advance for any replies.
>
> Dean

For an all-purpose knock-around mic, I like the EV 635 or RE10
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 2:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Look for a used Sennheiser e855. You should find one for around a
hundred bucks and they sound significantly better than the SM58 in my
opinion. You might even find a good deal on a new one at a music store
because I think thay were discontinued recently.
Related resources
August 1, 2005 3:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Aug 2005 09:44:28 -0700, "blackburst@aol.com"
<blackburst@aol.com> wrote:

>For an all-purpose knock-around mic, I like the EV 635 or RE10

Both of these have their places. The EV 635 is an omni, and the EV
RE10 is useful because it has little proximity effect. For Live
vocals however I'd reach for an EV 767 first before either of these.
It has a hypercardioid pattern which helps with feedback rejection and
a great high end for a dynamic. It has a very linear midrange without
a presence peak like may mics, so it is a very accurate mic for the
money. It has a neodymium magnet for high output, about 3 - 6 dB
hotter than a 58. My favorite vocal mics are EV767's Shure Beta 87's
and Shure SM58's (instead of SM57's because many people do pop and
57's have problems with wind when used outdoors). The Beta 87 is the
most expensive of these, but they sound silky smooth and clear. I
just checked online pricing and it seems $250 is the best price
currently for a Beta87. That may be out of your range. But do at
least try a 767. They are around $100 and are so useful for live PA
both voice and instruments too IMO.

Julian
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:07:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

drichard <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female)
>live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's
>equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might
>have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've
>recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the
>SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if
>the same might be true with the Behringer pre's.

I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
SM-58.

>I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best
>would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the
>preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here
>will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years
>since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in
>that SM58 class these days.
>
>So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately
>$100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget
>could be increased a little.

I don't know, and I suspect anything in that price range is going to be
prone to loading issues of one sort or another. Avoid the Sennheiser
e835... the e855 is a great mike but probably beyond your price range.
You might look at the A-T neodymium mike series... the stronger magnets
may mean less of an issue with loading, too.
---scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
August 1, 2005 6:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
>not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
>SM-58.

Scott,

I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure
factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?

Julian
August 1, 2005 6:20:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <jnqse1t5io0k5v6uos47o5020f1rk3lfm6@4ax.com>,
JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com says...
> On 1 Aug 2005 09:44:28 -0700, "blackburst@aol.com"
> <blackburst@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >For an all-purpose knock-around mic, I like the EV 635 or RE10
>
> Both of these have their places. The EV 635 is an omni, and the EV
> RE10 is useful because it has little proximity effect. For Live
> vocals however I'd reach for an EV 767 first before either of these.
> It has a hypercardioid pattern which helps with feedback rejection and
> a great high end for a dynamic.

It's a good-sounding mic, I agree, but I believe it's supercardioid,
not hyper (which I like better anyway).

> But do at
> least try a 767. They are around $100 and are so useful for live PA
> both voice and instruments too IMO.

The lowest I've found them for is $129[US]. Where do you get them
for a C-note?
Also, I would look at the ATM41HE. Another warm, feedback-resistant
mic
--
---Mikhael...
August 1, 2005 6:29:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1kqse19nruif54d3n7h1q62dl4jtvnmqub@4ax.com>,
JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com says...
> On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
> >I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
> >not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
> >SM-58.
>
> Scott,
>
> I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure
> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?

Well, there's a couple of reasons *I* can see. First off, the
container for the capsule is different in the two mics. That gives
you a different resonance, both from the sound bouncing acoustically
off the inside of the container (windscreen, whatever), and then the
sound conducted through the solid material (which is slightly different
for the two mics). Plus, you can get closer to the actual element on
the SM57, which will give you an even greater proximity effect.
--
---Mikhael...
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 7:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Julian <JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
>>not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
>>SM-58.
>
>I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure
>factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?

The 57 is a 58 with a different windscreen. The windscreen on the 58
is a huge foam ball that cuts all the high end off.

Speak into both of them and listen to yourself. The SM-58 has much poorer
high frequency response than the SM-57, because of the foam ball.

If you pop your Ps, the foam ball can be a good thing. If not, it is
a bad thing.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 11:24:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Julian <JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>>On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
>>>not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
>>>SM-58.
>>
>>I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure
>>factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>>disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?

>The 57 is a 58 with a different windscreen. The windscreen on the 58
>is a huge foam ball that cuts all the high end off.

>Speak into both of them and listen to yourself. The SM-58 has much poorer
>high frequency response than the SM-57, because of the foam ball.

>If you pop your Ps, the foam ball can be a good thing. If not, it is
>a bad thing.

There's also a foam windscreen for the 57 (remember the trio of 57s often
used on the US President's lecturn for the past 30-40 years -- those were
57s each with that windscreen -- I want to say model "WS2" but I could be
wrong on that number).

Been a while since I used that combo in a PA application, but it seemed to
me this windscreen was nearly as effective for pops as the 58 ball, if not
more so if the vocalist had good technique, and it sounded a *lot* better.
Worth a try if you want to add some versatility to a 57.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--
.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:48:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1kqse19nruif54d3n7h1q62dl4jtvnmqub@4ax.com> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:

> I've been told by the SHure
> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?

Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 2, 2005 1:59:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <1kqse19nruif54d3n7h1q62dl4jtvnmqub@4ax.com> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:
>
>> I've been told by the SHure
>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?
>
>Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better.

To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
to my ears to warrant the hooplula.

Julian
August 2, 2005 4:33:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mick" <m.porter@sausagefreescale.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5831f4dc92036298976b@news.freescale.net...
> In article <jnqse1t5io0k5v6uos47o5020f1rk3lfm6@4ax.com>,
> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com says...

>> I'd reach for an EV 767 first before either of these.
>> It has a hypercardioid pattern which helps with feedback rejection and
>> a great high end for a dynamic.
>
> It's a good-sounding mic, I agree, but I believe it's supercardioid,
> not hyper (which I like better anyway).

Yes I think you are correct on both accounts.

>> But do at
>> least try a 767. They are around $100 and are so useful for live PA
>> both voice and instruments too IMO.
>
> The lowest I've found them for is $129[US]. Where do you get them
> for a C-note?

Today before I sent this out I Googled "EV 767a price NOT wireless". Try
here: http://www.wwbw.com/EV-N-D767A-i65198.music

Julian
August 2, 2005 4:47:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:11esto8c97k6s24@corp.supernews.com...
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> There's also a foam windscreen for the 57 (remember the trio of 57s often
> used on the US President's lecturn for the past 30-40 years -- those were
> 57s each with that windscreen -- I want to say model "WS2" but I could be
> wrong on that number).

I do recall the Presidential trio! I had some bad experiences using 57's
outdoors even with that windscreen accessory. Besides plosives, there is an
annoying rattle because of the way the wire mesh is attached.

Julian
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:03:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Since we seem to have shifted to SM58s, Behringer makes or made a
knock-oof, something like the XM85, and sold them at 3 for $50. In A-B
with a 58, the 85 has similar low and mid, but a brighter high end. How
reliable and rugged I don't know, but I bought 12 of them for a college
TV/Radio facility about 3 years ago, and they're still pumping.

I must admit, I am the self-confessed lover-of-cheap-mics. I have all
the classic mics, but I love to acquire cheapos. All of them have some
virtue, and I often fall in love with a cheapo in some application. My
favorite drum mic is some cheap Peavey, so ya never know!





Scott Dorsey wrote:
> drichard <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female)
> >live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's
> >equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might
> >have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've
> >recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the
> >SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if
> >the same might be true with the Behringer pre's.
>
> I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do
> not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the
> SM-58.
>
> >I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best
> >would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the
> >preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here
> >will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years
> >since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in
> >that SM58 class these days.
> >
> >So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately
> >$100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget
> >could be increased a little.
>
> I don't know, and I suspect anything in that price range is going to be
> prone to loading issues of one sort or another. Avoid the Sennheiser
> e835... the e855 is a great mike but probably beyond your price range.
> You might look at the A-T neodymium mike series... the stronger magnets
> may mean less of an issue with loading, too.
> ---scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:43:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I confess, I love getting a bargain on gear that performs well too. I
assume you're talking about the XM8500 mics? Eventually I might pick
some up to use as "rehearsal" mics. For that price it's worth having
them just to keep from unpacking the stage gear.

Thanks for the insight.

Dean
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:52:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Scott,

I'll be sure to check out the A-T's. Do you (or anyone else) have any
favorites? I see model numbers like the ATM27, ATM29 and ATM41, though
it's not immediately apparent from the copy I've read which use
neodymium magnets. I'll keep a lookout for a bargain on a e855 as well.

Thanks for your input.

Dean
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Julian,

I'll add the EV767 to my list of mics to check out.

Thanks,

Dean
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 2:06:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Julian <JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>In article <1kqse19nruif54d3n7h1q62dl4jtvnmqub@4ax.com> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:
>>
>>> I've been told by the SHure
>>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>>> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?
>>
>>Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better.
>
>To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
>than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
>to my ears to warrant the hooplula.

Try it. It does sound like two completely different mikes, because it is.

The windscreen and grille have as much to do with the sound as the element,
believe me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 3:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1122913490.678892.138240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com


> So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is
> approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a
> significant difference the budget could be increased a
> little.

If you're patient, you can pull together a goodly number of
Audix OM5s on eBay within your budget. I obtained 5 this way
earlier this year. One needed a paint job but it was fine,
acoustically. If you shift your sights up to $125 per mic,
you can make that OM6s. OM5 are more like girl mics and
OM6s are more like boy mics.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <78vte1ha0g4ciq6g8gftg5m5gf830ncj9a@4ax.com> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:

> To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
> than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
> to my ears to warrant the hooplula.

The mechanical construction makes a significant different in the sound
of the mic. As to whether you care about the difference, that's your
choice. Just because someone says it sounds better doesn't mean that's
what you have to use.

If you have an SM58, unscrew the windscreen and see how different it
sounds from with the windscreen on. That's about the difference
between an SM57 and SM58, but not exactly, unless you level the
playing field by taking the small windscreen off the SM57 for
comparison.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

16. Scott Dorsey Aug 2, 10:06 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Aug 2005 10:06:12 -0400
Local: Tues, Aug 2 2005 10:06 am
Subject: Re: Inexpensive dynamic mic for live vocals
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Julian <JulianPAdam...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, mriv...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>In article <1kqse19nruif54d3n7h1q62dl4jtv­nm...@4ax.com> JulianPAdam...@SpamHotmail.Com writes:

>>> I've been told by the SHure
>>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>>> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?


>>Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better.


>To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
>than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
>to my ears to warrant the hooplula.



>Try it. It does sound like two completely different mikes, because it is.

>The windscreen and grille have as much to do with the sound as the element,
>believe me.
> --scott

Still, I always wonder why the capsules have different part numbers....
August 2, 2005 5:53:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1123001533.033404.277890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
DRichard@wi.rr.com says...
> Hi Scott,
>
> I'll be sure to check out the A-T's. Do you (or anyone else) have any
> favorites? I see model numbers like the ATM27, ATM29 and ATM41, though
> it's not immediately apparent from the copy I've read which use
> neodymium magnets. I'll keep a lookout for a bargain on a e855 as well.

I believe the ones with "HE" after the model number have n/d magnets.
--
---Mikhael...
August 2, 2005 11:26:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:
>
>> I've been told by the Shure
>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you
>> disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better?
>
>Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better.

I never said it didn't sound a little better, just a matter of degree.
For recording, I'd probably care, but for live PA I don't really care
if it is a 58 or 57. If it's a singer they get a 58 unless they
insist on a 57 in which case I assume they know how to use it without
popping. More likely I'll use a Beta 87 for live vocals. There's a
LOT of difference between THAT and a 58!

Julian
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1123012430.686927.165380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> tymish@hotmail.com writes:

> >>> I've been told by the SHure
> >>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen.

> Still, I always wonder why the capsules have different part numbers....

So that people like you will think that they're different microphones.
To understand (and know for sure) you'd need to look at Shure's
detailed enginnering drawings, It could be that the same
"motor" is common to both mics, but since one mic is designed for
hand-holding and the other one isn't, it's quite likely that they have
a mounting ring that's different in size or elasticity. If the
mounting ring is attached to the motor, and this is the part that is
used to build the mic, their part numbers (since the assemblies are
not identical) would necessarily have different part numbers.

Or maybe they're really different. But can the Internet be wrong?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:57:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:59:30 -0700, Julian
<JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:

>To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
>than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
>to my ears to warrant the hooplula.

Have you tried?
August 3, 2005 2:57:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:57:01 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:59:30 -0700, Julian
><JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>>To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather
>>than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference
>>to my ears to warrant the hooplula.
>
>Have you tried?

YES
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:16:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1123021158k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>In article <1123012430.686927.165380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> tymish@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> >>> I've been told by the SHure
>> >>> factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen.
>
>> Still, I always wonder why the capsules have different part numbers....
>
>So that people like you will think that they're different microphones.
>To understand (and know for sure) you'd need to look at Shure's
>detailed enginnering drawings, It could be that the same
>"motor" is common to both mics, but since one mic is designed for
>hand-holding and the other one isn't, it's quite likely that they have
>a mounting ring that's different in size or elasticity. If the
>mounting ring is attached to the motor, and this is the part that is
>used to build the mic, their part numbers (since the assemblies are
>not identical) would necessarily have different part numbers.
>
>Or maybe they're really different. But can the Internet be wrong?
>
>
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
>However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
>lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
>you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
>and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
August 4, 2005 2:30:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:53:52 -0500, Mick
<m.porter@sausagefreescale.com> wrote:

>In article <1123001533.033404.277890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>DRichard@wi.rr.com says...
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I'll be sure to check out the A-T's. Do you (or anyone else) have any
>> favorites? I see model numbers like the ATM27, ATM29 and ATM41, though
>> it's not immediately apparent from the copy I've read which use
>> neodymium magnets. I'll keep a lookout for a bargain on a e855 as well.
>
> I believe the ones with "HE" after the model number have n/d magnets.

I have been somewhat disappointed with n/d mics by anyone except EV
with the possible exception of Sennhesier. The AT's I heard I
definitely didn't care for and even the Shure beta 58 I thought has a
grainy edge to it. EV was the first company out with n/d's and I
think still the best.

Julian
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

drichard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I confess, I love getting a bargain on gear that performs well too. I
> assume you're talking about the XM8500 mics?

XM8500...yeah, yeah...that's the ticket!

Here's the scenario: College TV/Radio/Theater department; dwindling mic
supply, but a constant need for more mics. Example: bluegrass band come
in for a theater performance, we need 5 instrument and 5 vocal mics in
a hurry. But a strangely limited budget. They were cheap and looked OK
in Musician's Friend, so I bought 12 for $200- Roughly the cost of two
SM58s. Clips and cases included.

A-B tests showed a difference between the 8500s and a 58: A brighter
high end. I LIKE high end, and was very happy with them. Doubling as
remote radio and TV mics, they performed perfectly.

I think ALL mics are subjective. It either works with the application
or not. I'm not all that fussy about getting the same sound other audio
pros have been getting for years. Try it. You might like it.
August 4, 2005 11:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My observation is that many "cheap" mics sound OK for non-critical SR
work.

I think one of the main differences being how much handling or boom
noise the mic picks up.

Better mics sometimes havew better isolation.

Mark
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:06:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

blackburst@aol.com <blackburst@aol.com> wrote:
>drichard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I confess, I love getting a bargain on gear that performs well too. I
>> assume you're talking about the XM8500 mics?
>
>XM8500...yeah, yeah...that's the ticket!
>
>Here's the scenario: College TV/Radio/Theater department; dwindling mic
>supply, but a constant need for more mics. Example: bluegrass band come
>in for a theater performance, we need 5 instrument and 5 vocal mics in
>a hurry. But a strangely limited budget. They were cheap and looked OK
>in Musician's Friend, so I bought 12 for $200- Roughly the cost of two
>SM58s. Clips and cases included.

I think these are the same mikes that Sam Ash was selling at a similar
price. They were brighter than the SM-58 but had no sloppier a pattern.
(Then again, they had a worse pattern than the SM-57). The problem I
saw with them was that they broke easily... I saw one guy throw one
across the room and the mike body itself split down the middle as the
pot metal casting cracked. But hell, for that kind of money you can
afford to replace them, and if shrinkage is a more serious source of
loss than failure (as it often is in college situations), that's fine.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:43:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

They cost $60 for three now, not $50. But I've ordered a set, thinking
I can use them for rehearsal mics if nothing else. Definitely worth
trying out.

Dean
August 4, 2005 3:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 4 Aug 2005 07:13:29 -0700, "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>My observation is that many "cheap" mics sound OK for non-critical SR
>work.
>
>I think one of the main differences being how much handling or boom
>noise the mic picks up.
>
>Better mics sometimes havew better isolation.
>
>Mark

Everyone has different needs and preferences. Some people go on and
on about how much better a 57 sounds than a 58 and I just roll my
eyes. It doesn't matter to me. Others are happy with some of the
really cheap new mics out there but I won't just go there. I'd rather
spend twice as much for one mic that I really like. It doesn't mean
anyone is right or wrong we all have different preferences and ways of
working. A cheap mic that is properly placed eq'd and mixed can sound
better than an expensive mic mixed by someone who doesn't understand
these things.

Thanks, you guys.

Julian
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>working. A cheap mic that is properly placed eq'd and mixed can sound
>better than an expensive mic mixed by someone who doesn't understand
>these things.

Aye. Right now my band is using some very inexpensive behringer mic's.
A three pack for $50, with clips. For what we are doing, they work
very well.
!