Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

Phil Allison wrote:

Cerainly, there are some Shure mic haters out there

Have you EVER looked at the frequency response ? It's an abomination. When I ran
my rig I REFUSED to use Shure mics. Potential clients often asked if I had
Shures but I told them the truth and we had lots of compliments at the end of
the day.

Graham


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

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Live sound has different priorities - actual quality often coming well
down the list.

Because so many gullible people continue to use SM58s !

Graham

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

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

Don Pearce wrote:

"TonyL" wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You're a prat. You'll never see one used for vocals in a recording
studio. Live sound has different priorities - actual quality often
coming well down the list. So add that to all the other things you
don't know.

I don't get to see Mr. Allisons posts directly but I did see a fragment in
your post.

Surely, accurate fidelity might not always be desirable. There might be
circumstances where the characteristic sound of a SM 58 might be required
to get a "live" on-stage sound. I'm also thinking of the common practice of
getting feeds from mics placed in front of overdriven guitar amp speakers.
Hardly "accurate fidelity" but much better than the dry output from an
electric guitar.

In my opinion....

When you are miking a solo voice or an individual instrument, you can
regard the mic as part of the "sound" of that source.

Maybe. Perhaps more so with vocalists who have 'unusual' intonation.


But once you are after catching an ensemble sound, you need flat and
transparent.

100% agreed.

Graham


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

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58 to mic up
a cabinet.

LOL ! FWIW the Shure Freaks say you must use an SM57 for miking guitars
anyway. It's 'almost' as bad as a '58 but misses some of the more extreme
failures.


For that job pretty well any half decent mic will do which can
handle the SPL.

Handling the SPL is critical in that application. Not to mention placement.
Cone edge placement for example will pick up more harmoics as a rough and
ready rule. Those people who hang the mic from the cord in front of the
speaker should be hanged themselves for total ignorance of mic use. Yummy,
look at the response 90 degrees off-axis.

Graham


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

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

Eeyore wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58 to mic up
a cabinet.

LOL ! FWIW the Shure Freaks say you must use an SM57 for miking guitars
anyway. It's 'almost' as bad as a '58 but misses some of the more extreme
failures.

The SM57 is suitable for miking up a cabinet. It's a general purpose
dynamic cardioid mic. But then miking up a cabinet is not a particularly
demanding task. A great many mics can be used for this. Each will
produce its own colouration, as will choosing which part of the cabinet
to point it at.

The SM58 is a variant of the SM57 designed specifically for close vocal
use. It has a built-in windshield, which is not entirely effective, and
has a built in LF roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effect.
That's why anything more than 6 inches from an SM58 sounds so bass light.

Both mics were designed over 50 years ago, at about the time microgroove
records and FM radio were just getting started, and most people still
used 78s and AM.

They both have pronounced peaks and troughs in their frequency
responses, especially in the 'presence' region, causing a distinctive
and obvious colouration.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:07:11 +0100, Richard Lamont
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58 to mic up
a cabinet.

LOL ! FWIW the Shure Freaks say you must use an SM57 for miking guitars
anyway. It's 'almost' as bad as a '58 but misses some of the more extreme
failures.

The SM57 is suitable for miking up a cabinet. It's a general purpose
dynamic cardioid mic. But then miking up a cabinet is not a particularly
demanding task. A great many mics can be used for this. Each will
produce its own colouration, as will choosing which part of the cabinet
to point it at.

The SM58 is a variant of the SM57 designed specifically for close vocal
use. It has a built-in windshield, which is not entirely effective, and
has a built in LF roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effect.
That's why anything more than 6 inches from an SM58 sounds so bass light.

Both mics were designed over 50 years ago, at about the time microgroove
records and FM radio were just getting started, and most people still
used 78s and AM.

They both have pronounced peaks and troughs in their frequency
responses, especially in the 'presence' region, causing a distinctive
and obvious colouration.

Yup - and this rather goes against the idea that they are general
purpose mics. They are in fact specialist mics - one trick ponies, if
you like. A general purpose mic will have a wide, flat response and
very low noise, not to mention selectable patterns.

d

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Cerainly, there are some Shure mic haters out there

Have you EVER looked at the frequency response ? It's an abomination.
When I ran my rig I REFUSED to use Shure mics. Potential clients often
asked if I had Shures but I told them the truth and we had lots of
compliments at the end of the day.

Snag is some vocalists demand a '58 for live stuff. And an unhappy
performer being forced into using something they don't want is not a good
idea.

But I doubt our Phil has any experience of working with talent. He
wouldn't last two minutes with his attitude.

Only thing I do choose a 58 for is a snare drum - one on top and one
underneath. The peculiar frequency response quite suits it.

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

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

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

"Richard Lamont"

** Strewth !!!!!!!!!

- another mind numbingly stupid pommy ****HEAD !!


The SM58 is a variant of the SM57 designed specifically for close vocal
use. It has a built-in windshield, which is not entirely effective, and
has a built in LF roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effect.


** ******** !!

Both mics have a strong proximity effect at close range.


That's why anything more than 6 inches from an SM58 sounds so bass light.


** ********.


Both mics were designed over 50 years ago, at about the time microgroove
records and FM radio were just getting started, and most people still
used 78s and AM.


** As massive " red-herrings " go, that particularly ASININE one

has got to take the ****ING CAKE !!!!!



They both have pronounced peaks and troughs in their frequency
responses,

** More asinine ******** !!


especially in the 'presence' region, causing a distinctive
and obvious colouration.


** Same alleged "coloration " exists in the vast majority

vocal mics ever sold - including the famous Sennnheiser 421.

Know nothing ****S like this pommy puke should all just

go stick their pointy AUTISTIC heads in a gas oven and suck.

ASAP.



..... Phil

"Dave Plowman (Psychopath)
 

"Dave Plowman (Psychopath) "


** This TROLLING know nothing loser is a classic example of ALL that is
wrong with the recording industry and ALL that is wrong with the UK.

The whole planet just loathes pommies.





...... Phil

Dave Plowman = Nutcase
 

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:37:16 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

The SM58 is a variant of the SM57 designed specifically for close vocal
use. It has a built-in windshield, which is not entirely effective, and
has a built in LF roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effect.


** ******** !!

Both mics have a strong proximity effect at close range.


Of course they do, they are cardioids - that's why they have the LF
roll-off filter, so they have a better response up close. They are
down about 10dB at 50Hz in the far field.

d