Best $100 vocal mic: SM57? - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

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

A bluegrass group attempting that "single mic' style"
brought their own mic', had their guy set it for them.
[ festival type gig; sound check on the fly]
I'm struggling with the sound. I thought their mic' was
broken. I take a close look and they're singing into the
back of the mic' ! ! ! !

Later...

Ron Capik
--

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 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."

Hmm, wouldn't folks that know better just use a better mic'?
I've seen people put modern guts in vintage mic' shells
for that old time mic' look on stage but can't imagine a similar
need with a SM-58. I find it sad that sound engineers need to
trick the talent like this.

I wonder if said (closed minded) talent couldn't be educated
somehow.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

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

Ron Capik wrote:
>
> Hmm, wouldn't folks that know better just use a better mic'?
> I've seen people put modern guts in vintage mic' shells
> for that old time mic' look on stage but can't imagine a similar
> need with a SM-58. I find it sad that sound engineers need to
> trick the talent like this.
>
> I wonder if said (closed minded) talent couldn't be educated
> somehow.

You'd be amazed at how many excellent singers will not use anything
except an SM58. They know that it's a mediocre microphone, but they also
know:

- exactly what their voice will sound like through it
- that it will be reasonably consistent from sample to sample
- that every sound company in the world has one
- that there is little risk of damaging it through mishandling
- that it will exhibit little handling noise when handheld
- that they can sing directly into it from 0" away and still sound OK
- that its sensitivity fades quickly with distance, so they won't get a
lot of bleed
- that its pickup pattern is not very sensitive to feedback

Want some examples? Doc Watson won't use anything except a 58 on stage.
Even in the studio, he wants a 58. Maura O'Connell insists on a 58 on
stage. Sam Bush uses 58s on stage, too.

BTW, Doc would NOT be fooled by Scott's pseudo-58.

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

Jim Gilliland wrote:

> Ron Capik wrote:
> > < ...snip.. >
> >
> > I wonder if said (closed minded) talent couldn't be educated
> > somehow.
>
> You'd be amazed at how many excellent singers will not use anything
> except an SM58. They know that it's a mediocre microphone, but they also
> know:
> < ..snip.. >
>
> - that its sensitivity fades quickly with distance, so they won't get a
> lot of bleed

Jim: good list, points taken. However, I'm not sure I understand the
theory/physics of your (above) sensitivity statement. Can anyone
out there enlighten me? As far as i know there's no distance term
in the -54.5 dBV/Pa sensitivity figure listed for the mic'.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

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

On 8/25/05 12:26 PM, in article 430df203$0$1600$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com,
"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

> You'd be amazed at how many excellent singers will not use anything
> except an SM58. They know that it's a mediocre microphone, but they also
> know:
>
> - exactly what their voice will sound like through it
> - that it will be reasonably consistent from sample to sample
> - that every sound company in the world has one
> - that there is little risk of damaging it through mishandling
> - that it will exhibit little handling noise when handheld
> - that they can sing directly into it from 0" away and still sound OK
> - that its sensitivity fades quickly with distance, so they won't get a
> lot of bleed
> - that its pickup pattern is not very sensitive to feedback
>
> Want some examples? Doc Watson won't use anything except a 58 on stage.
> Even in the studio, he wants a 58. Maura O'Connell insists on a 58 on
> stage. Sam Bush uses 58s on stage, too.
>
> BTW, Doc would NOT be fooled by Scott's pseudo-58.

Aw hell Jim, if all that were TRUE, well then there really wouldn't be a
THREAD here would there now? And since there IS a thread here well, it just
can't be true! You must be wrong.

Wait...
Sorry...
I look at what I wrote and realise that I'm allowing the current gummint
admin to function as a role model for my reasoning processes...

Thanks for the wake-up call!

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:45:20 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:16:32 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>>>
>> < ...snip.. >
>>>>
>>>> - that its sensitivity fades quickly with distance, so they won't get a
>>>> lot of bleed
>>>
>>> Jim: good list, points taken. However, I'm not sure I understand the
>>> theory/physics of your (above) sensitivity statement. Can anyone
>>> out there enlighten me? As far as i know there's no distance term
>>> in the -54.5 dBV/Pa sensitivity figure listed for the mic'.
>>>
>>> Later...
>>>
>>> Ron Capik
>>
>> The distance term is zero. The 1Pa level is measured at the microphone.
>>
>> d
>
> Maybe I misinterpreted Jim's statement but I took it to imply that the
> sensitivity
> of the 58 falls off with distance faster than other mic's. Or put another way,
> I would expect any cardioid's sensitivity to "fade" just as quickly with
> distance.
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik

No, fading of signal with distance is a function of the acoustics of the
room. As you move further from the source you tend to pick up more
reverberant sound than direct. The distance at which they are equal is
called the critical distance - this is a very important number to know when
you record, particularly live ensembles.

Within the critical distance, the sound gets louder as you get closer.
Outside the critical distance it doesn't much matter how far you are - the
sound level is the same.

d

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

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

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

Ron Capik wrote:
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Capik wrote:
>>
>>>< ...snip.. >
>>>
>>>I wonder if said (closed minded) talent couldn't be educated
>>>somehow.
>>
>>You'd be amazed at how many excellent singers will not use anything
>>except an SM58. They know that it's a mediocre microphone, but they also
>>know:
>>< ..snip.. >
>>
>>- that its sensitivity fades quickly with distance, so they won't get a
>>lot of bleed
>
>
> Jim: good list, points taken. However, I'm not sure I understand the
> theory/physics of your (above) sensitivity statement. Can anyone
> out there enlighten me? As far as i know there's no distance term
> in the -54.5 dBV/Pa sensitivity figure listed for the mic'.

That's true. No microphone knows anything about distance.
It is only sensitive to the magnitude of the sound wave that
reaches it and that will not depend in any way on the mic
itself.

OTOH, it may have a particularly effective proximity effect,
which is a function of distance, because the geometry of the
capsule (specifically the distance from the front to to back
of the cartrige) does impact that.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

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

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:27:10 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:
>
>>Then, in perspective, Jim made his above quote in support of the SM-58
>>and you refute the statement (via our intermediate exchange) with your
>>quote ...right?
>>
>>Yes, I do have a basic understanding of near field, far field, critical
>>distance, critical bands, diffuse field, proximity effect, 3 to 1 rule (or
>>better: 3 to 1 guideline), and lots of other stuff-acoustic.
>>
>
> Yes - I refute Jim's statement. There are certain microphones with a pair
> of back to back omni capsules wired out of phase that exhibit this effect,
> but they are specialist designs. The SM-58 is a straightforward square law
> cardioid microphone.

And that's fair, I'm certainly not an expert on mic theory. I based my
statement on direct and indirect experience - I've noted that singers can
get a great distance away from some mics without losing a lot of volume,
while a 58 seems to drop off much more quickly with even moderate
distance, and I've had singers report the same observation based on their
use of these mics. But, perhaps that really is due to proximity effect,
I don't know.

Is it possible that the 58's proximity effect extends higher in frequency
than some other cardioid mics?

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

On 8/25/05 2:45 PM, in article 430E10F4.6A21B9DD@worldnet.att.net, "Ron
Capik" <r.capik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Maybe I misinterpreted Jim's statement but I took it to imply that the
> sensitivity
> of the 58 falls off with distance faster than other mic's. Or put another way,
> I would expect any cardioid's sensitivity to "fade" just as quickly with
> distance.

A Neumann km84 is a cardioid.
The AKG C535 is pretty damned close.
A 58 is no more a normal cardioid than I am.
-Most- vocal mics are technically not really classic cardioid but are
(varying with frequency and that¹s REAL important ) a LOT different,
hopefully with the idea that whatevertheheck they ARE, at any particular
frequency, it results in something that works live, gives the performer a
tool they can intuitively WORK with, and don;t break.
'Cardioid' in this vein of mics is just a badly misapplied term, used for
conveinience.

With that out of the way,
Look at the CROWN differoid handhelds...
They;re designed so that when your lips are TOUCHING the mic, you sound
dandy...
Back off 3/4" and you don;t fade out some... You VANISH.
Never forget watching a Clair Brothers engineer shoving his head practically
INSIDE one of their big stage wedges with a Crown and chanting the "CHECK!"
"TEST!" thing and watching their hair move, but no feedback...
SO, every mic has its own 'working range' and commensurate
volume/vs/distance (and on/off-axis) character. It;s like a car, they all
drive, but they drive differently. You adapt, you can drive ANY of them, but
you surely will have your favorite, both overall and for different courses.

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

On 8/25/05 7:59 PM, in article 430E5AB0.E33E24BF@worldnet.att.net, "Ron
Capik" <r.capik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> SSJVCmag wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/05 2:45 PM, in article 430E10F4.6A21B9DD@worldnet.att.net, "Ron
>> Capik" <r.capik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I misinterpreted Jim's statement but I took it to imply that the
>>> sensitivity
>>> of the 58 falls off with distance faster than other mic's. Or put another
>>> way,
>>> I would expect any cardioid's sensitivity to "fade" just as quickly with
>>> distance.
>>
>>
>> A 58 is no more a normal cardioid than I am.
>> -Most- vocal mics are technically not really classic cardioid [ ... ]
>> < ...snip, lots of fun technical and anecdotal stuff... >
>
> So Jim's statement:
>
> " ...its sensitivity fades quickly
> with distance, so they won't get
> a lot of bleed "
>
> is true?

Maybe.
Percepturally, as was mentioned previously,
the pattern (at any and all frequencies),
how it's perceived not only as you go back dead-on-axis, but as you rotate
the mic out of pattern,
how the proximity effect dies out with distance,
all these tied to the dialed-in tonality of a particular sound system and
room,
and how-close to what-sort of feedback situation it's in at any moment,
all affect how one PERCIEVES the working distance from the mic.
THIS is what you need to address when trying to decide which aspect of it
all you're wanting to change with any mic choice.

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:02:28 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:27:10 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:
>>
>>>Then, in perspective, Jim made his above quote in support of the SM-58
>>>and you refute the statement (via our intermediate exchange) with your
>>>quote ...right?
>>>
>>>Yes, I do have a basic understanding of near field, far field, critical
>>>distance, critical bands, diffuse field, proximity effect, 3 to 1 rule (or
>>>better: 3 to 1 guideline), and lots of other stuff-acoustic.
>>>
>>
>> Yes - I refute Jim's statement. There are certain microphones with a pair
>> of back to back omni capsules wired out of phase that exhibit this effect,
>> but they are specialist designs. The SM-58 is a straightforward square law
>> cardioid microphone.
>
> And that's fair, I'm certainly not an expert on mic theory. I based my
> statement on direct and indirect experience - I've noted that singers can
> get a great distance away from some mics without losing a lot of volume,
> while a 58 seems to drop off much more quickly with even moderate
> distance, and I've had singers report the same observation based on their
> use of these mics. But, perhaps that really is due to proximity effect,
> I don't know.
>
> Is it possible that the 58's proximity effect extends higher in frequency
> than some other cardioid mics?

Sort of - proximity effect is related to the source and the fact that the
sound waves are highly spherical close up. The result - from a lot of
physics - is that the velocity of the air in that part of the wave is
disproportionally higher than the pressure. Directional mics work by
combining velocity and pressure in vary degrees. The more directional the
mic< the more it emphasises the velocity part. The extreme is the figure 8,
dropping back through hypercardioid, cardioid and finally omni, which is
pure pressure.

The 58 may wel be rather more hypercardioid than cardioid, in which case
the lowest frequencies will drop faster than square law up close to the
mic. But the actual frequency at which this occurs is determined by physics
and geometry - a 58 can't behave any differntly to any other mic.

d

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

SSJVCmag wrote:

< snip >

> Look at the CROWN differoid handhelds...
> They;re designed so that when your lips are TOUCHING the mic, you sound
> dandy...
> Back off 3/4" and you don;t fade out some... You VANISH.

Interesting.

From Crown's website.

" The Differoid microphone has a huge amount of proximity effect because the
microphone capsule is so close to the mouth. Normally this would make the
voice too bassy or boomy. But in the Differoid, the low frequencies are rolled
off electronically to control boominess. The microphone still has some bass
rise for warmth, which singers prefer.

The voice is 16 dB louder with lips touching the grille than at 3 inches
away. That’s 16 dB more gain before feedback. So the singer should use the
differential cardioid with lips touching the grille. "

So it's purely using proximity effect to do the trick.

Graham

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

On 8/26/05 9:10 AM, in article 430F13DE.7A30A8E9@worldnet.att.net, "Ron
Capik" <r.capik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> SSJVCmag wrote:
>
>> < ....snip, snip, snip.. >
>>
>> A quick clarifying question Ron,
>> are you, like, AWAKE when you're reading this NG?
>
> Is that SM-58 specific or just a general question?
>
> Sorry to have bothered you. ZZzzz...

I KNEW it!
(ok Chris, gimme the fiver!)

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

*justme* wrote:
>
[malignant spew snipped]

*justme* is actually Gary Sokoloch. He stalks me in any
group where I post. Please ignore. You can't filter him
because he nymshifts to avoid it and make you suffer him.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

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

Andre Majorel wrote:

> Can't electrets lose their polarisation over time ?

Yes, but they're getting better. The Sony electrit mics that were made
in the late 1960s are kind of weak today. (I have a pair of ECM-21s
bought new that I think cost about $100, or maybe it was $100 for two
of them) I suspect that the $100 electret condenser mic that you buy
today will have something else fail sooner than the electret element,
and almost certainly after 40 years, you'll find, like I do with the
ECM-21s, that there ins't anything I'd like to use them on.

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

Ron Capik wrote:

> A bluegrass group attempting that "single mic' style"
> brought their own mic', had their guy set it for them.
> [ festival type gig; sound check on the fly]
> I'm struggling with the sound. I thought their mic' was
> broken. I take a close look and they're singing into the
> back of the mic' ! ! ! !

We've all been known to make mistakes when rushing through a festival
setup. Perhaps they should put a piece of black tape on the "hot" side,
and if the band can't see that, the need to turn around and face the
back of the stage. You know how some of these sound guys are about
having anyone touch their mics once they're set up. <g>

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

Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2005-08-25, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Can't electrets lose their polarisation over time ?

With modern electret materials (teflon, PVDF2, etc.) the
bulk resistance is so high that leakage of the embedded
charge is no longer of consequence. Also, I believe that
modern poling methods (plasma discharge, IIRC) also embed it
deeper.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

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

Ty Ford wrote:

> get the extra
> pop filter for a few more bucks to keep the saliva out of the works and
> protect against ground fault shocks.

I'd personally like to be rather more confident that something other than pop
filter is protecting the performer from ground faults. Maybe an assurance that
the gear conforms to safety standards ?

Graham

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:46:08 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:19:45 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>No, fading of signal with distance is a function of the acoustics of the
>>room. As you move further from the source you tend to pick up more
>>reverberant sound than direct. The distance at which they are equal is
>>called the critical distance - this is a very important number to know when
>>you record, particularly live ensembles.
>>
>>Within the critical distance, the sound gets louder as you get closer.
>>Outside the critical distance it doesn't much matter how far you are - the
>>sound level is the same.
>
> Inside the critical distance - more direct than reverb. Outside,
> less direct than reverb. But still some. How does that add up to
> the same for any distance outside the critical distance?

Obviously the dividing line isn't sharp - but the general principle
applies.

d