| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Dynamic mic questions
I have a Yoga DM-330B dynamic mic
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 ? Can anyone point me to a spec ? For some reason, XLR shield (pin1) is internally connected to one of the outputs. 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. Why have they done this to what I thought should be a balanced output ? To avoid having to use a modified mic. cable would it be a good idea to open it up and remove this internal connection ? |
Dynamic mic questions
In article ,
TonyL wrote: For some reason, XLR shield (pin1) is internally connected to one of the outputs. 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. Why have they done this to what I thought should be a balanced output ? Probably been used with an unbalanced input - this might improve handling noise. To avoid having to use a modified mic. cable would it be a good idea to open it up and remove this internal connection ? Yes. -- *Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dynamic mic questions
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
To avoid having to use a modified mic. cable would it be a good idea to open it up and remove this internal connection ? Yes. That worked, thanks. |
Dynamic mic questions
"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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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. |
Dynamic mic questions
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. |
Dynamic mic questions
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. |
Dynamic mic questions
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 ? |
Dynamic mic questions
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. |
Dynamic mic questions
"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 |
Dynamic mic questions
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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. K, thanks. |
Dynamic mic questions
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:42:51 +0100, "TonyL"
wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 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. K, thanks. If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. d |
Dynamic mic questions
In article ,
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. 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. All you're proving is you've never tried comparing it to a decent mic. The only time you'll see it used in a recording studio is for possibly a snare drum where the weird frequency response and high SPL handling can enhance that sound. And the OP wants a mic for *recording* vocals and acoustic guitar. 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. Weird people prefer all sorts of sounds - as you've proved. But as a general purpose recording mic I can barely think of a worse one. 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. What microphones do you own or have experience of? Have you *ever* been in a recording studio etc and observed what is used where? -- *Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
"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 opionions on others. Dave Plowman is a first class example of the above. His kind of congenital autism disorder is rampat in the UK That is what the whole country is totally and permaneantly ****ed and every one of its residents hated world wide. ...... Phil |
Dynamic mic questions
Don Pearce wrote:
If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
In article ,
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. 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. -- *If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dynamic mic questions
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:39:43 +0100, "TonyL"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. OK. Behringer is a good manufacturer for everything. I would go for a pair of C-1 mics. They are decent cardioids, and Dolphin Music are doing them at £28.95. They are condensors, so they need phantom power. If you don't have that available, get yourself a small mixer. The Behringer UB802 with four mic inputs will set you back about £45. That is the basis of some really very high quality recording capability for £100. That do? d |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
"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 100% ****ing idiot. Certainly not sound quality. ** That so many folk PREFER the results given by the SM58 and many other mics that are essentially clones of it, proves there is nothing wrong with the design. Certainly, 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 opinions on others. Dave Plowman is a first class example of the above. His kind of congenital autism disorder is rampant in the UK That is what the whole country is totally and permanently ****ed and every one of its residents hated world wide. ...... Phil |
Dynamic mic questions
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:39:43 +0100, "TonyL" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. OK. Behringer is a good manufacturer for everything. I would go for a pair of C-1 mics. They are decent cardioids, and Dolphin Music are doing them at £28.95. They are condensors, so they need phantom power. If you don't have that available, get yourself a small mixer. The Behringer UB802 with four mic inputs will set you back about £45. That is the basis of some really very high quality recording capability for £100. That do? OK....that'll do nicely. Actually, I was reading C- 1 reviews just before I read your message. They were mainly positive as to sound transparency although some were not 100% sure about build quality/robustness. But hey, we are not planning to go on tour and chuck stuff about. Also, one review mentioned a noise issue, are you aware of this ? The Roland capture unit I already have will do 48 volt phantom power and has two XLR inputs. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
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.... |
Dynamic mic questions
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:27:06 +0100, "TonyL"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:39:43 +0100, "TonyL" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. OK. Behringer is a good manufacturer for everything. I would go for a pair of C-1 mics. They are decent cardioids, and Dolphin Music are doing them at £28.95. They are condensors, so they need phantom power. If you don't have that available, get yourself a small mixer. The Behringer UB802 with four mic inputs will set you back about £45. That is the basis of some really very high quality recording capability for £100. That do? OK....that'll do nicely. Actually, I was reading C- 1 reviews just before I read your message. They were mainly positive as to sound transparency although some were not 100% sure about build quality/robustness. But hey, we are not planning to go on tour and chuck stuff about. Also, one review mentioned a noise issue, are you aware of this ? Noise is rarely an issue in real life. I've certainly never yet encountered a mic that was noisier than the ambience in anywhere other than an acoustic isolation chamber, so I wouldn't worry about this. I have found some noisy recording setups, but these were due to the operator not understanding the gain staging process. The Roland capture unit I already have will do 48 volt phantom power and has two XLR inputs. 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. d |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:35:44 +0100, "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. But once you are after catching an ensemble sound, you need flat and transparent. d |
Dynamic mic questions
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:27:06 +0100, "TonyL" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:39:43 +0100, "TonyL" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. OK. Behringer is a good manufacturer for everything. I would go for a pair of C-1 mics. They are decent cardioids, and Dolphin Music are doing them at £28.95. They are condensors, so they need phantom power. If you don't have that available, get yourself a small mixer. The Behringer UB802 with four mic inputs will set you back about £45. That is the basis of some really very high quality recording capability for £100. That do? OK....that'll do nicely. Actually, I was reading C- 1 reviews just before I read your message. They were mainly positive as to sound transparency although some were not 100% sure about build quality/robustness. But hey, we are not planning to go on tour and chuck stuff about. Also, one review mentioned a noise issue, are you aware of this ? Noise is rarely an issue in real life. I've certainly never yet encountered a mic that was noisier than the ambience in anywhere other than an acoustic isolation chamber, so I wouldn't worry about this. I have found some noisy recording setups, but these were due to the operator not understanding the gain staging process. The Roland capture unit I already have will do 48 volt phantom power and has two XLR inputs. 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. Just to say thanks for the advice Don, Dave. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
In article ,
TonyL 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. You're unlikely to need the noise cancelling properties of a 58 to mic up a cabinet. For that job pretty well any half decent mic will do which can handle the SPL. And a mic with such a tailored frequency response - for specific close vocal use - may well be not what you want for this task. I'd normally use a 'flat' response mic and EQ to taste. Horses for courses. And I stand by my view that the 58 is crap for anything other than live pop stuff where the only important thing is how much level you can get out of PA and foldback. -- *Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
" Dave Plowman (Nutcase )" 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. ..... Phil |
Dynamic mic questions
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:39:43 +0100, "TonyL" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: If you are recording, you definitely do not want a mic designed for vocals - they all have a peculiar frequency response. Can you give us a clue as to budget? That'll make a short list a whole heap easier. Definitely sub £100. OK. Behringer is a good manufacturer for everything. I would go for a pair of C-1 mics. They are decent cardioids, and Dolphin Music are doing them at £28.95. They are condensors, so they need phantom power. If you don't have that available, get yourself a small mixer. The Behringer UB802 with four mic inputs will set you back about £45. That is the basis of some really very high quality recording capability for £100. The C-1 is a large-diaphragm condensor mic. These can sound somewhat coloured off-axis. You might be better off with a small diaphragm condensor mic. The Neumann, AKG and Calrec types mentioned by Dave Plowman fall into this category, but cost several hundred quid apiece. 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 -- Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41 Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
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. 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 100% ****ing idiot. Certainly not sound quality. ** That so many folk PREFER the results given by the SM58 and many other mics that are essentially clones of it, proves there is nothing wrong with the design. Certainly, 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 opinions on others. Dave Plowman is a first class example of the above. His kind of congenital autism disorder is rampant in the UK That is what the whole country is totally and permanently ****ed and every one of its residents hated world wide. ..... Phil How ironic Phil..... Patrick Turner. |
Dave Plowman = Nutcase
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
"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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
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 |
Dynamic mic questions
"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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk