In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58


** Huh ???

What " noise cancelling properties " ??

What a ******.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (Nutcase)"
wrote:

You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58


** Huh ???

What " noise cancelling properties " ??

The SM58 has low handling noise and it is a cardioid.

But is has no hum bucking coil and the internal transformer is not
shielded.


What a ******.


** What a DAMN LIAR and pommy PIG.




..... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"TonyL"

I have a Yoga DM-330B dynamic mic

** Chinese junk.

That much is highly likely. 'Yoga' is not exactly a big name in the world of
mics and unlikely ever to be.


Suit a jerk off like you just fine.

Despite your 'winter' I see the temperature of your vitriol hasn't changed.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

TonyL wrote:

I've ordered a SM 58, will be interesting to compare.

Oh dear !

The SM58 is the most over-hyped mic in history and is certainly not an accurate
mic. In fact its frequency response looks like a cross-section of the Rocky
Mountains. A classic example of the power of marketing ( and recommendation by
deaf sound engineers ) over science.

Just about any European brand mic will better it.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

TonyL wrote:

Could you clarify what else it is about the SM 58 that you dislike ?

Yes. Using the desk EQ to compensate for the mic's failings instead of being
able to use EQ as intended. For one.

You want more ? It does make an acceptable hammer though.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

TonyL wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

They never sound 'clean' and pop badly when used close on the voice.
The very thing they're designed for.

OK, noted.

I'm hoping to use it for vocals and maybe acoustic guitar.

Is this for recording purposes or for live gigs? Those requirements
are very different.

For recording, strictly for fun with a few friends ATM. We are not intending
any public performances. Recommendations ?

Almost any AKG, Sennheiser or Beyer.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Don Pearce wrote:

That'll do nicely, then. sixty quid and you are good to go. You can
spend the change on a stereo bar to mount the mics, and as good a
stand as you can afford. And some decent length cables, of course.

And don't buy 'boutique' over-priced ones or in any way buy into the crap about
esoteric cables.

These are stunning for the money.
http://www.bluearan.co.uk/index.php?...ew=XLR_%3E_XLR

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

TonyL wrote:

Richard Lamont wrote:

Although large-diaphragm condensor mics are popular with the home
recording crowd, that's partly because they look impressive. A
small-diaphragm condensor mic is a more versatile general-purpose mic
and I would recommend going for those first, especially for acoustic
quitar.

Fortunately, the Behringer C-2 appears to fit the bill and at the same
price. I've not used them but at around £56 for a matched pair
including stand adaptors, windshields and stereo bar they seem worth
a look.

http://www.behringer.com/en/products/C-2.aspx

OK, thanks.

BTW, I've just seen them on Ebay for around £45

I would say they are a very sound low-investment best buy for your immediate
needs.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

Phil Allison wrote:

"Dave Plowman (Nutcase) "

I've ordered a SM 58, will be interesting to compare.

The SM 58 is one of the most over-rated mics ever.

** On the contrary - the Shure SM58's good reputation for live vocal work
is well justified. Since the late 1960s, it has LITERALLY set the standard
for ALL vocal mics in both appearance and sound quality to follow.

UTTER ******** !

It has set the standard for mediocre muddy sound that has set back the industry
by decades.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
The SM 58 is one of the most over-rated mics ever.

** On the contrary - the Shure SM58's good reputation for live vocal
work is well justified. Since the late 1960s, it has LITERALLY set the
standard for ALL vocal mics in both appearance and sound quality to
follow.

It set a fashion with those who knew no better - purely because it was
quite good as a 'live' vocal mic feeding a PA etc system. Seeing it on TV
etc gave the idea to amateurs that it was therefore a good general purpose
mic - which it's not. FFS - I've even seen it being used for interviews in
a quiet location. So it's not just amateurs that get fooled so easily.

A number of sassy bands put a different capsule in an SM58 body so they look
'cool' but can actually get an acceptable sound.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address