Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best $100 vocal mic: SM57?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:14:25 PM

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

Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
tomorrow.

More about : 100 vocal mic sm57

Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:14:26 PM

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

In article <1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews>,
<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote:
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
>tomorrow.

For PA or recording?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:14:26 PM

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

lennonmc@carttheay.com wrote:
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.

>From an overall perspective, no, there is nothing else to consider.

The 57 is tried and true. It is rugged. Its freq response is
appropriate. The price is right. For live performance, they're hard to
beat. In a studio, I might use a few additional mics, but the answer to
your question, IMO, is yes, they're the best at that price point.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:14:00 PM

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

"Start" the band for at least a week, then ask....


<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote in message
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:28:00 PM

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

SM58

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote in message
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:56:55 PM

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

Look at the EV ND range, especially the VOB models.

Try them, pick the one that best suits your voice.

JP

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:26:56 PM

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

On 8/23/05 9:15 AM, in article
1124802922.429694.68480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "blackburst@aol.com"
<blackburst@aol.com> wrote:


> The 57 is tried and true. It is rugged. Its freq response is
> appropriate. The price is right. For live performance, they're hard to
> beat. In a studio, I might use a few additional mics, but the answer to
> your question, IMO, is yes, they're the best at that price point.

.... As long as you're NOT doing live vocals with them...
That's why Shure makes the Sm58.

SHURE, AUDIX, EV, all have dandy mics in that price range...
All good
All reliable
All with a different character that might fit one or the other of your
singers better than the other.

You have homework to do now.
Let us know what you buy.
Satisfaction of our curiosity is the price of advice here.

jv
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:26:57 PM

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

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>On 8/23/05 9:15 AM, in article
>1124802922.429694.68480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "blackburst@aol.com"
><blackburst@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The 57 is tried and true. It is rugged. Its freq response is
>> appropriate. The price is right. For live performance, they're hard to
>> beat. In a studio, I might use a few additional mics, but the answer to
>> your question, IMO, is yes, they're the best at that price point.
>
>... As long as you're NOT doing live vocals with them...
>That's why Shure makes the Sm58.

Yeah, but the SM58 has no top end at all. It doesn't pop like the 57,
though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:13:32 PM

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

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.

For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58

For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can buy
at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio Nova,
Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.

PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't want to
brake the mic, a pop-shield!
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:13:45 PM

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

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote in message
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews

> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first
> band tomorrow.

Audix OM-3, OM-5 used from ebay, to get that low of a price.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:41:39 PM

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

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote in message
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.

What preamps?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:51:01 PM

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

You owe it to yourself to check out the Audix OM 3xB for vocal mics . . .
just a few dollars more and infinitely better sound.

<lennonmc@carttheay.com> wrote in message
news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> tomorrow.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:46:12 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:32 +0200, Lele wrote:

>
> <lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
>> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
>> tomorrow.
>
> For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58

One of the best anyway. YMMV.

>
> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio Nova,
> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.

You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.

>
> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't want
> to brake the mic, a pop-shield!

Not always.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:50:04 PM

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

Pooh Bear wrote:

> The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.
>
> There's simply so much that's better out here. Why stick with a 1960s ? design
> with clear and highly audible flaws.

A Beta 58 through a Neve micpre sounds pretty damn good. Even a
regular SM57 does, but then I am a fan of transformered mics through
transformered micpres.

But a regular SM58 through Mackie micpre is another story.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV/Audio Post Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:28:38 AM

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

Lele wrote:

> <lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> > Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> > tomorrow.
>
> For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58

The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.

There's simply so much that's better out here. Why stick with a 1960s ? design
with clear and highly audible flaws.

I cringe every time recommends a 58 on the basis of nothing other than hearsay
or ignorance usually. The same ppl usually recommend lots of 31 band graphics
too ( to fix the lousy 58 sound no doubt ).

Look at Sennheiser for example.

Graham
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:33:29 AM

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

In article <430B78E6.E5CED18@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.

So why it it still the best selling mic for the application? Why do so
many performers who could certainly afford whatever is available still
put SM58 in their tech rider? Maybe because "the best" mic isn't
always what's called for. Sometimes the singer just wants what's
always worked for him.


--
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 24, 2005 12:47:56 AM

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

"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:p an.2005.08.23.16.46.12.444177@control.gov...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:32 +0200, Lele wrote:
>
>>
>> <lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
>>> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
>>> tomorrow.
>>
>> For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58
>
> One of the best anyway. YMMV.
>
>>
>> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
>> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio
>> Nova,
>> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.
>
> You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.

Don't talk nonsense, please, voice reconding of SM 57 are rough and thin and
even lack in the top end!

>>
>> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't want
>> to brake the mic, a pop-shield!
>
> Not always.
>

Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:47:57 AM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:47:56 +0200, Lele wrote:

>>> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
>>> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio
>>> Nova,
>>> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.
>>
>> You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.
>
> Don't talk nonsense, please, voice reconding of SM 57 are rough and thin
> and even lack in the top end!

Unplug it from your Mackie or B* & try a little nicer preamp (or a Really
Nice one). Recordings (voice or otherwise) through most $100 condensers
are usually harsh and gritty.


>>> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't
>>> want to brake the mic, a pop-shield!
>>
>> Not always.
>>
>>
> Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!

Then don't get them wet. MANY high quality condenser mics run just fine
on as little as 12 vdc phantom
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:47:57 AM

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

On 8/23/05 2:47 PM, in article hbKOe.33002$TR5.31812@news.edisontel.com,
"Lele" <lanciak@wooow.it> wrote:

>
> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:p an.2005.08.23.16.46.12.444177@control.gov...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:32 +0200, Lele wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
>>>> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>
>>> For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58
>>
>> One of the best anyway. YMMV.
>>
>>>
>>> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
>>> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio
>>> Nova,
>>> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.
>>
>> You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.
>
> Don't talk nonsense, please, voice reconding of SM 57 are rough and thin and
> even lack in the top end!

Damn, now I have to go back and redo all those projects over 30-some yeqars
where, for whatever reasons in the subject at hand, the 57 won out over
other things that were 'better'...drum OH, lead and BG vox, even stereo
pairs on occasion.. Shoot, me and the roducers (all of em) musta been deef.

OTOH maybe all the ones you;ve had were used to stir beer...?

>
>>>
>>> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't want
>>> to brake the mic, a pop-shield!
>>
>> Not always.
>>
>
> Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!

Damn, another thing to worry about...
Outta-the-kit wit ya then: There go my 535's, the km84's, the 4050's, the
SM81's,
What was I thinking...?
August 24, 2005 12:47:57 AM

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

In article <hbKOe.33002$TR5.31812@news.edisontel.com>, lanciak@wooow.it
says...
>
> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:p an.2005.08.23.16.46.12.444177@control.gov...
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:32 +0200, Lele wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <lennonmc@carttheay.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:1124795666.db90168948eb84b700fa3c8481ee383c@teranews...
> >>> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
> >>> tomorrow.
> >>
> >> For P.A. the best choice is Shure SM-58 or, for little more, Beta 58
> >
> > One of the best anyway. YMMV.

I would also look at the ATM41HE and the EV N/D767 (I think it is).
Both can be had for close to $100[us], and I like them both better
than a SM58 (we're talking vocal PA, right?).
--
---Mikhael...
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:47:58 AM

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

Agent 86 wrote:

< snip .

> Then don't get them wet. MANY high quality condenser mics run just fine
> on as little as 12 vdc phantom

In a gigging environment humidity may be so high that 'not getting them wet'
isn't an option.

Graham
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:08:34 AM

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

In article <znr1124835174k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <430B78E6.E5CED18@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.
>
>So why it it still the best selling mic for the application? Why do so
>many performers who could certainly afford whatever is available still
>put SM58 in their tech rider? Maybe because "the best" mic isn't
>always what's called for. Sometimes the singer just wants what's
>always worked for him.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with an omni B&K capsule in it around here.
Nobody has yet noticed that there's no foam in the ball and it takes
a 5-pin XLR. But it's just great for those performers that absolutely
have to have an SM-58.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:56:14 AM

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

"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:p an.2005.08.23.19.03.43.665903@control.gov...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:47:56 +0200, Lele wrote:
>
>>>> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
>>>> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio
>>>> Nova,
>>>> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.
>>>
>>> You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.
>>
>> Don't talk nonsense, please, voice reconding of SM 57 are rough and thin
>> and even lack in the top end!
>
> Unplug it from your Mackie or B* & try a little nicer preamp (or a Really
> Nice one). Recordings (voice or otherwise) through most $100 condensers
> are usually harsh and gritty.
>

SM-57 is a good dinamic mic for a lot of things but NOT for voice recording,
if you want a hi-fi sound... maybe for an hip-hop sounding voice that's not
true.

>
>>>> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't
>>>> want to brake the mic, a pop-shield!
>>>
>>> Not always.
>>>
>>>
>> Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!
>
> Then don't get them wet. MANY high quality condenser mics run just fine
> on as little as 12 vdc phantom
>

12 vdc phantom on quality condeser, which ones? Maybe electrect mics (not
LDC) like AKG C-3000 and C-1000.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:56:15 AM

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

On 8/23/05 7:56 PM, in article kIOOe.33049$TR5.12014@news.edisontel.com,
"Lele" <lanciak@wooow.it> wrote:

>
> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:p an.2005.08.23.19.03.43.665903@control.gov...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:47:56 +0200, Lele wrote:
>>
>>>>> For recording, maybe your budget is too low, but with only $100 you can
>>>>> buy at least a low budget LDC (large diafram condenser) like M-Audio
>>>>> Nova,
>>>>> Behringer B-1 or SM PRO-AUDIO MC-01.
>>>>
>>>> You could, but you'd probably be better off with a 57.
>>>
>>> Don't talk nonsense, please, voice reconding of SM 57 are rough and thin
>>> and even lack in the top end!
>>
>> Unplug it from your Mackie or B* & try a little nicer preamp (or a Really
>> Nice one). Recordings (voice or otherwise) through most $100 condensers
>> are usually harsh and gritty.
>>
>
> SM-57 is a good dinamic mic for a lot of things but NOT for voice recording,
> if you want a hi-fi sound... maybe for an hip-hop sounding voice that's not
> true.
>
>>
>>>>> PS: to use a LDC you also need +48 V phantom power and, if you don't
>>>>> want to brake the mic, a pop-shield!
>>>>
>>>> Not always.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!
>>
>> Then don't get them wet. MANY high quality condenser mics run just fine
>> on as little as 12 vdc phantom
>>
>
> 12 vdc phantom on quality condeser, which ones?

Good GRIEF are we in this sort of seasonal affective disorder already?
(ASIDE from the fact that this is another BESY VOCAL FOR A DOLLAR thread...)
AKG 451
What will an 81 do on that? Anybody?


> Maybe electrect mics (not
> LDC) like AKG C-3000 and C-1000.
Please... Gimme a clean 57 and a decent pre... And this means WHAT? Yer
gonna toss a 535 outta bed in place of a $100 chinadensor?
Argh...


>
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:56:15 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:

> 12 vdc phantom on quality condeser, which ones? Maybe electrect mics (not
> LDC) like AKG C-3000 and C-1000.

Well, for starters...
AKG C451
AKG C535
Shure KSM44
Shure KSM32
Shure SM81
Shure SM86
Shure Beta87

And I Think, although I don't have the specs within arm's reach...
AKG C414
Neumann KMS105

Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:56:15 AM

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

In article <kIOOe.33049$TR5.12014@news.edisontel.com>,
"Lele" <lanciak@wooow.it> wrote:

> SM-57 is a good dinamic mic for a lot of things but NOT for voice recording,
> if you want a hi-fi sound


I've been told a many Steven Tyler Aerosmith vocals were done with 57's,
and not just back in the 70's. Supposedly they'd buy a mess of them, go
thru them one at a time and pick out a few they liked best.

I'm sure they weren't getting plugged into Mackie pres or Behringer
compressors 'tho ;>




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:30:30 AM

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

On 23 Aug 2005 22:08:34 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>That's why I keep an SM-58 with an omni B&K capsule in it around here.
>Nobody has yet noticed that there's no foam in the ball and it takes
>a 5-pin XLR. But it's just great for those performers that absolutely
>have to have an SM-58.

Wish i'd thought of something like this last season, with
shirtloads of pickup Big Bands' instrumentalists (horns
mostly; go figure) insisting on 58's. The ball on the end
apparently makes the pattern broader than 57's.

And they still spent half of their set adjusting the
mic stand up and down for their solos. Never again.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you
should cease asking scary questions." -S.L.J. in _Pulp Fiction_
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:21:55 AM

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

"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:p an.2005.08.24.00.38.18.162291@control.gov...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:
>

> Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.

I know that but they're not "real condenser", like dinamic mic are not
ribbon mic and so on...

> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.

I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
opinon.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:21:56 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:21:55 +0200, Lele wrote:

>
> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:p an.2005.08.24.00.38.18.162291@control.gov...
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:
>>
>>
>> Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
> I know that but they're not "real condenser", like dinamic mic are not
> ribbon mic and so on...

Sorry, I forgot REAL condensers don't eat quiche.


>> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
> I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
> opinon.

Whose voice? What room? Which preamp? Whose opinion?
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:21:56 AM

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

Lele <lanciak@wooow.it> wrote:
>"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:
>
>> Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
>I know that but they're not "real condenser", like dinamic mic are not
>ribbon mic and so on...

Yes, they are real condensers.

And not all dynamic mikes are ribbon mikes, but all ribbon mikes are
dynamic mikes.

>> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
>I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
>opinon.

Do you know why? Hint: it has something to do with pattern control.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:40:29 AM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article <znr1124835174k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >In article <430B78E6.E5CED18@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >> The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.
> >
> >So why it it still the best selling mic for the application? Why do so
> >many performers who could certainly afford whatever is available still
> >put SM58 in their tech rider? Maybe because "the best" mic isn't
> >always what's called for. Sometimes the singer just wants what's
> >always worked for him.
>
> That's why I keep an SM-58 with an omni B&K capsule in it around here.
> Nobody has yet noticed that there's no foam in the ball and it takes
> a 5-pin XLR. But it's just great for those performers that absolutely
> have to have an SM-58.

You mean the B&K capsule can withstand the shock overload levels incurred ?


Graham
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:10:40 AM

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

"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:p an.2005.08.24.01.44.43.908628@control.gov...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:21:55 +0200, Lele wrote:
>
>>
>> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:p an.2005.08.24.00.38.18.162291@control.gov...
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:

>>> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
>>
>> I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
>> opinon.
>
> Whose voice? What room? Which preamp? Whose opinion?

"In which galaxy, at which temperature and humidity?..." If you want the
last word, here, it's yours... but please don't be so futile in your
comments.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:29:43 AM

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

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Additionally, the SM58 has ( rather bizarrely ) an 'impedance matching' transformer. No
> logic behind this AFAIK. I bet it was designed before the days of rock and roll close miking
> and I'm convinced the damn transformer saturates in such use and creates massive distortion.
> Certainly any SM58 sounds 'muddled' to my ear in typical use. In comparison the very similar
> SM48 ( without transformer ) sounds way better IMO.

For those that may benefit from the information:
The Shure '57/545 family of mics also had versions
without the transformer - the PE65 and the SM77.
The SM77 was available in black and an ugly cream
color. Both are out of production and as such are
quite a bit less common than the SM57.
Graham's comment about the better sound of the SM48
holds true to the SM77/PE65 IMO. (slightly extended
high end)

rd
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:36:15 AM

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

In article <DYPOe.33051$TR5.13759@news.edisontel.com> lanciak@wooow.it writes:

> > Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
> I know that but they're not "real condenser"

Of course they are. They work by moving a plate in an electric field.
That's a "real condenser." You mean they aren't an externally
polarized condenser. So what?

> like dinamic mic are not
> ribbon mic and so on...

But a ribbon mic is a (sic) "dinamic" mic.

> I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
> opinon.

OK, so go on stage hand-holding an NT-1A. Don't forget which side to
sing into.

--
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 24, 2005 11:36:16 AM

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

In article <1124848204.749049.62530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> willstg@aol.com writes:

> But a regular SM58 through Mackie micpre is another story.

Pooh "retired" before he had the opportunity to use an SM58 through a
Mackie. But let's not get him talking about Mackie here, too. <g>


--
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 24, 2005 11:36:16 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

> lanciak@wooow.it writes:
>
> > > Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
> >
> > I know that but they're not "real condenser"
>
> Of course they are. They work by moving a plate in an electric field.
> That's a "real condenser." You mean they aren't an externally
> polarized condenser. So what?

I've made comments in other threads about 'electret
vs externally polarized' so I will respond here to
clarify my opinion. If a mic maker goes to the effort
and expense to design and properly implement an
externally polarized capsule it stands to reason that
the balance of the design will also be reasonable
quality. Of course this is no guarantee. There are
plenty of good quality permanently charged caps
being used. It's just that above a certain price
point (and quality level) the electrets disappear.

To stay on topic:
If all you have to spend on a vocal mic is $100
go ahead and get the '57. When you have $200
stick the '57 on the snare or guitar amp and
go for the Rode NT1A. You'll always find a place
to use a '57.

rd
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:05:37 PM

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

"Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in news:TsHOe.301477
$xm3.209444@attbi_s21:

>> Anything else to consider. We're starting our first band
>> tomorrow.
>
> What preamps?
>


Forgot to mention, RNP. I hear they fit dynamics well.
I'd also like to record with this mic. Our budget is very limited.
I have a voice like Elvis Costello.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:39:38 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> That's why I keep an SM-58 with an omni B&K capsule in it around here.
> Nobody has yet noticed that there's no foam in the ball and it takes
> a 5-pin XLR. But it's just great for those performers that absolutely
> have to have an SM-58.
> --scott
>

Where can I get one? ;) 
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:59:47 PM

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

On 8/23/05 9:21 PM, in article DYPOe.33051$TR5.13759@news.edisontel.com,
"Lele" <lanciak@wooow.it> wrote:

>
> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:p an.2005.08.24.00.38.18.162291@control.gov...
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:
>>
>
>> Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
> I know that but they're not "real condenser", like dinamic mic are not
> ribbon mic and so on...
>
>> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
>
> I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
> opinon.

Where ARE you getting the support to spout these baseless, naïve,
ill-thought opinions as fact? Ignorance is fine only as long as you keep in
mind that you need to FIX it with regular heavy doses of New Information
coupled with thought and Consideration to incorpoarate it into whatever
existing knowledge and experience you have...
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:01:03 PM

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

On 8/23/05 9:44 PM, in article pan.2005.08.24.01.44.43.908628@control.gov,
"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:21:55 +0200, Lele wrote:
>
>>
>> "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:p an.2005.08.24.00.38.18.162291@control.gov...
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:14 +0200, Lele wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Electret vs externally polarized is NOT an indicator of quality.
>>
>> I know that but they're not "real condenser", like dinamic mic are not
>> ribbon mic and so on...
>
> Sorry, I forgot REAL condensers don't eat quiche.

Damn right! if that round thingie in there ain;t bigger than my eyeball, I
ain;t singin into it!


>
>
>>> Large vs small capsule is NOT an indicator of quality.
>>
>> I know that but for vocals usually LDC works better, and it's not only my
>> opinon.
>
> Whose voice? What room? Which preamp? Whose opinion?

Bigger -IS- Better... You gotta problum widdat?
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:09:21 PM

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

On 8/24/05 9:59 AM, in article
1124891944.117413.106140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "RD Jones"
<annonn@juno.com> wrote:


> ... If a mic maker goes to the effort
> and expense to design and properly implement an
> externally polarized capsule it stands to reason that
> the balance of the design will also be reasonable
> quality.

This was true 30 years back.
It has been COMPLETELY falsified over the past 5-years.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:21:33 PM

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

What do you guys reckon on the Behringer XM1800 series?


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1124835174k@trad...
>
> In article <430B78E6.E5CED18@hotmail.com>
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > The SM58 is a truly *rubbish* choice *even for PA*.
>
> So why it it still the best selling mic for the application? Why do so
> many performers who could certainly afford whatever is available still
> put SM58 in their tech rider? Maybe because "the best" mic isn't
> always what's called for. Sometimes the singer just wants what's
> always worked for him.
>
>
> --
> 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 25, 2005 3:18:51 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:39:58 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> RD Jones <annonn@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course this is no guarantee. There are
>>plenty of good quality permanently charged caps being used. It's just
>>that above a certain price point (and quality level) the electrets
>>disappear.
>
> Not at all, it's just they aren't advertised as electrets. For example,
> the DPA microphones, which are pretty hard to beat, are actually electret
> designs. You won't find any mention of that in the ads, though.

Really? Even the 130v ones?
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:47:03 AM

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

"Agent 86"

>>>
>> Condersers are very very sensitive to moisture!!!
>
> Then don't get them wet.


** Like your underpants are all the time ?


> MANY high quality condenser mics run just fine
> on as little as 12 vdc phantom


** What an ASININE comment - from an utter ass.

Such mics are either electrets or have on board voltage booster to supply
the capsule with 50 to 100 volts DC.

Just as prone to high humidity problems at any phantom supply voltage.




............ Phil
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:47:04 AM

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:47:03 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

>--<some measure of incoherent and irrelevant drivel>--

I guess this puts me in some pretty good company. YEAH!
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:49:42 PM

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

david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> That's why I keep an SM-58 with an omni B&K capsule in it around here.
>> Nobody has yet noticed that there's no foam in the ball and it takes
>> a 5-pin XLR. But it's just great for those performers that absolutely
>> have to have an SM-58.
>
>Where can I get one? ;) 

If I did a DIY project (probably with a less expensive Sennheiser
omni condenser), you think anyone would build it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:50:53 PM

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

Agent 86 <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:39:58 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> RD Jones <annonn@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course this is no guarantee. There are
>>>plenty of good quality permanently charged caps being used. It's just
>>>that above a certain price point (and quality level) the electrets
>>>disappear.
>>
>> Not at all, it's just they aren't advertised as electrets. For example,
>> the DPA microphones, which are pretty hard to beat, are actually electret
>> designs. You won't find any mention of that in the ads, though.
>
>Really? Even the 130v ones?

Yes, although B&K still makes some 200V measurement microphones that are
externally-polarized. They stayed with B&K during the split, though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:10:20 PM

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

one of the best under $100 vocal mikes? The Apex 435 condensor mike.
My local Long & McQuades sells this for $70 (including zippered case and
mike stand mount). If you've got a mixer or preamp with phantom power
this one is a good one to try.

--
Dan Dreibelbis, Guitar Nerd - Better Living Through Home Recording
http://www.soundclick.com/dandreibelbismusic.htm
Current song - "Hitting The Monkey Nerve"
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:55:25 PM

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

RD Jones wrote:
> There are
> plenty of good quality permanently charged caps
> being used. It's just that above a certain price
> point (and quality level) the electrets disappear.

It was initially a cost reduction step but not one with any
inherent loss of quality. It's marketing issue not a
technological one that keeps the more expensive mics
externally polarized. There are several reasons why
electret condensers are inherently superior today and none
that favor external polarization.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 5:04:13 PM

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

Pooh Bear wrote:

> You mean the B&K capsule can withstand the shock overload levels incurred ?

Small condensers are far better at handling shock than
dynamics. There's only one moving part, it isn't composite
and it's extremely light. With a large condenser, the
suspension is more at risk because of the large suspended
mass of the cartrige but the diaphragm itself is pretty much
impervious to physical shock damage in any condenser.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
!