Actually a lot of these sort of mics are actually quite good and definitely
robust, they need to be after all that spit and bear breath gets into them.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"TonyL"

I have a Yoga DM-330B dynamic mic

** Chinese junk.

Suit a jerk off like you just fine.


Questions:
I can't find any info on it....is it any good ? I know it is horses for
courses with mics. What might this one be useful for ?

** Karaoke is the main app.


Can anyone point me to a spec ?

** ROTFL !!

For some reason, XLR shield (pin1) is internally connected to one of the
outputs.


** The Chinese like to do that - seen it done with fake Shure Beta 58As.


The only way I can get reasonable noise/hum levels is to disconnect the
shield connection in the mic.cable XLR connector at the mic. end.

** Shows you must be using a pile of **** for a pre-amp.


Why have they done this..

** Ahhhh - is ancient Chinese recipe .....

ROTFL !!


..... Phil

Spit and bear breath....right, he he.

I'm not particularly impressed with vocal performance with this mic. For
tests I'm listening via a Roland UA-25 USB Audio capture unit switched to
Direct Monitor mode and driving a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 cans. I know
that dynamic mics aren't known for their HF response but I was expecting
more crispness. At this time I don't have any gear to do proper measurements
so I'm reliant on my own ears...

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

Brian Gaff wrote:
Actually a lot of these sort of mics are actually quite good and
definitely robust, they need to be after all that spit and bear
breath gets into them.
Brian

In article ,
TonyL wrote:
I'm not particularly impressed with vocal performance with this mic. For
tests I'm listening via a Roland UA-25 USB Audio capture unit switched
to Direct Monitor mode and driving a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 cans. I
know that dynamic mics aren't known for their HF response but I was
expecting more crispness. At this time I don't have any gear to do
proper measurements so I'm reliant on my own ears...

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

The SM 58 is one of the most over-rated mics ever. Its only virtues are
robustness and reasonable noise cancellation. Certainly not sound quality.

--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

The SM 58 is one of the most over-rated mics ever. Its only virtues
are robustness and reasonable noise cancellation. Certainly not sound
quality.


I know it is not the most sensitive mic and doesn't do much above 13 kHz or
so. Could you clarify what else it is about the SM 58 that you dislike ? I'm
hoping to use it for vocals and maybe acoustic guitar.

In article ,
TonyL wrote:
The SM 58 is one of the most over-rated mics ever. Its only virtues
are robustness and reasonable noise cancellation. Certainly not sound
quality.


I know it is not the most sensitive mic and doesn't do much above 13 kHz
or so. Could you clarify what else it is about the SM 58 that you
dislike ?

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

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.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

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 ?

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

Personally I'd favour a good quality secondhand condenser mic - probably
ex broadcast, etc. Something like a Neumann KM 84, AKG C451, Calrec CM101.
But they might be hard to find. But there are plenty of cheap new Chinese
condensers which will sound far better than an SM58 for this - and cost
about the same. Sadly I'm not well up on those so perhaps someone else
could give a recommendation.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

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

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

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shure_SM58


Its only virtues are robustness and reasonable noise cancellation.


** You are allowed to have that opinion

- but it is the view of a ****ing idiot.


Certainly not sound quality.


** That so many folk PREFER the results given by the SM58 and many other
mics that are essentialy clones of it, proves there is nothing wrong with
the design.

Cerainly, there are some Shure mic haters out there - just like there are
rabid racists, religious bigots and all kinds of ratbags and mental
defectives who try to foist their mad opionion on others.

Dave Plowman is a first class example of the above.



...... Phil