On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:46:12 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Don Pearce = ****ing LIAR "


Yes, the Chinese do an awful lot of this stuff, both badged and OEM.
The NT1-A isn't part of it, though.


** Prove it with facts - you


LYING PILE OF POMMY **** !!!

OK. It is a fact that the NT1-A isn't part of it. There you go -
proved.

d

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:

"Dave Plowman (****ing Nutcase)"


In NO WAY SHAPE or FORM is the NT-1 a vocal mic !!!!

Pray tell what determines a vocal mic,


** Try reading the stuff you sniped - ****HEAD.

There's no information to back up your claim in it...


** Yes there is - ****WIT.

In the very next line.

The next line reads:-

'Using it for that purpose will very soon RUIN it !!'

Well, others here seem to disagree with you - and have used it for that
very purpose. Or is it you've invented a special meaning for vocal mic all
on your own? Hint. It's a mic used for vocals. And vocals are called just
that 'on the road' or in a recording studio, etc.


Despite many many years in the industry ...


** What industry is that ?

One which uses high quality microphones.


** Stop being so ****ing coy

You seemed to have snipped the clue in the very next line. Too cryptic for
you?

- you **** for brains ****head .

Yawn. Isn't it about time you tried some new insults?


Is being a know nothing bull**** artist now a recognised form of
employment in the UK ?

I suppose it's too much to hope you'd just answer the question asked?


** Yep.

Obviously because you ain't got a clue.

Cos it is based on a logical fallacy.

Try only to use words you understand. I know that they'll only be four
letter ones...

Like every one of your ****ed ideas.

Have you ever recorded *anything* with a mic and listened to the results?
You should try it sometime. Can be quite revealing.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:41:55 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Don Pearce"


Not vocal "studio" mics, which are what this thread is about.
** WRONG !!!

The heading is a fallacy.

The OP does not have any kind of ****ing studio.

You AUTISTIC IMBECILE !!!


Now that is really quite funny.

You know who is the OP?
I expect a post soon extolling the virtues of Russ Andrews
Kimber Select balanced microphone cables.

--
Eiron.

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
Right... I have some backing tracks that I need to record vocals on using
Audition. At the moment I have an el-cheapo cardioid mic from Maplin (kind
of like a poor man's SM58) that I've had since I was about 15. It works to
a point but I need something a bit better.

So without breaking the bank, any recommendations? (Yes, I have an
offboard mic pre-amp, I'm not using the noise-ridden AC97 input!)

If it's affordable I'd like to get a pair of them, not for stereo use,
I've got a singing partner and would rather like to be able to record both
parts at once rather than using an overdub. You get a better interaction
if you're both at the mic at the same time.

Yes, I know you can just both sing into the same mic... but the other
vocal part is a female voice so will probably need different EQ. She's
also not as loud as me so... two tracks would be better!

Was considering a pair of SM58s but I believe these are designed with
ruggedness first and sound quality second with live stage use in mind. So
any suggestions?

It's for recording a demo, not a full blown studio, so don't want to spend
loads on it!

--
Squirrel Solutions Ltd Tel: (01453) 845735
http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ Fax: (01453) 843773

Registered in England: 05877408

Hi Glenn,

If you are keen on singing together with your partner at the mic and like
the intimacy of that, I would suggest that you get a mic that has an
omni-directional pattern rather than a cardioid. You will pick up some of
the room as well (obviously), but that will add to the atmosphere and you
will tend to get a response with less bumps in it. This will widen your
choice of available devices to do the job.

You could also try a PZM microphone, (or a pair of them for stereo) although
you will have to give it a boundary (ies) to get any decent bottom end.

Regards

Mike

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:12:04 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:

If you are keen on singing together with your partner at the mic and like
the intimacy of that, I would suggest that you get a mic that has an
omni-directional pattern rather than a cardioid. You will pick up some of
the room as well (obviously), but that will add to the atmosphere and you
will tend to get a response with less bumps in it. This will widen your
choice of available devices to do the job.

He specifically said he wanted to record two separate tracks.


You could also try a PZM microphone, (or a pair of them for stereo) although
you will have to give it a boundary (ies) to get any decent bottom end.

What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:12:04 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:

If you are keen on singing together with your partner at the mic and like
the intimacy of that, I would suggest that you get a mic that has an
omni-directional pattern rather than a cardioid. You will pick up some of
the room as well (obviously), but that will add to the atmosphere and you
will tend to get a response with less bumps in it. This will widen your
choice of available devices to do the job.

He specifically said he wanted to record two separate tracks.


You could also try a PZM microphone, (or a pair of them for stereo)
although
you will have to give it a boundary (ies) to get any decent bottom end.

What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)


Hi Lawrence,

I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to recording
IMHO, both quality and psychologically. The OP wanted to sing with his
partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good single omni mic
is probably more honest and give a better sound than a pair of eq'd
mulitracked. If his cash would go to it, I would have suggested a good
figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic, but they start to get
pricey. :-)

As for the PZMs, have an experiment sometime if you haven't already: with a
good baffle, you can get some very good recordings.

Regards

Mike

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)

Indeed. I've played with them without much success. Only time I do use
something like that is to mic up the front of a car for filming - a small
mic mounted on the windscreen behind the mirror can sometimes work very
well. But I'm not certain if this is pressure zone or parabola effect.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

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

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:20:35 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:


I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to recording
IMHO, both quality and psychologically. The OP wanted to sing with his
partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good single omni mic
is probably more honest and give a better sound than a pair of eq'd
mulitracked. If his cash would go to it, I would have suggested a good
figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic, but they start to get
pricey. :-)

I might agree with you. But as he specifically said he wanted two
mics, not to share one with his partner...

In article ,
fredbloggstwo wrote:
I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to
recording IMHO, both quality and psychologically.

Possibly, but for the home musician it opens up all sort of possibilities
otherwise impossible. Not many can afford to hire a studio and orchestra -
let alone one which is internally balanced. ;-)

The OP wanted to sing
with his partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good
single omni mic is probably more honest and give a better sound than a
pair of eq'd mulitracked.

Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics. Where you don't need deafening
levels of foldback and PA. But used more distantly will pick up more room
acoustic/background sounds. Which you probably won't want if working at
home.

If his cash would go to it, I would have
suggested a good figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic,
but they start to get pricey. :-)

Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardiod and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule. By matrixing these you get the
various DPs.

As for the PZMs, have an experiment sometime if you haven't already:
with a good baffle, you can get some very good recordings.

They can have their uses - but these tend to be rather restricted.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

"Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutcase)


Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics.


** Only true for film and TV interview work.

When sound reinforcement is in place, the extra gain before
feedback of a cardioid ** VOCAL MIC ** is almost essential.

The proximity effect also adds to that extra gain very significantly.


Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardioid and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule.

** True.

By matrixing these you get the various DPs.


** Totally FALSE !!!!!!

No matrixing of two signals is involved, a far simpler and more
technically elegant method is used.

See the schematic of any famous " variable pattern " condenser
mic for the details.

Cos this know nothing, PIG IGNORANT pommy ****

HAS NO ****ING IDEA !!




...... Phil