I'm finally gonna buy a microphone.

Hi all,

I'll keep this simple. I wanna buy a mic.

specifically for female vocals only.

and I want to spend a max of $250 AUD.

any recommendations?

just make sure it's a decent compressor mic and that you have a mic preamp with phantom power. there are lots of good ones out there. i'm rocking i surprisingly nice MXL V67i (only $70) and it to me riiiiight.

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

edit: oh yeah, and WHATEVER ANYONE TELLS YOU, sm58s are only reknowned as a vocal; mic because they're good for touring... ie you can let off a grenade next to it and it'll still work. they have shit frequency response.

  loganfive said:

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

 

 

 

edit: oh yeah, and WHATEVER ANYONE TELLS YOU, sm58s are only reknowned as a vocal; mic because they're good for touring... ie you can let off a grenade next to it and it'll still work. they have shit frequency response.

true, you'd never use an sm58 in a studio

  loganfive said:

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

yeah, i waked and baked... actually i didn't... pathetic...

  westhead said:

  loganfive said:

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

 

 

 

edit: oh yeah, and WHATEVER ANYONE TELLS YOU, sm58s are only reknowned as a vocal; mic because they're good for touring... ie you can let off a grenade next to it and it'll still work. they have shit frequency response.

 

true, you'd never use an sm58 in a studio

Erm, wrong. Totally depends on the nature of the sound that you're recording. For instance, on several Michael Jackson records the lead vocal is mic'd with an SM57 - chosen over some of the best tube condensers in the world. Dynamic mics are good for some things, condensers for others. The SM58 is a perfectly good studio mic for quite a number of purposes, especially rock vocals. A good mic to have in a set, but not a good all purpose mic.

As for a cheapish but really good condenser mic, I went for an Studio Electronics SE2200 A - it's an absolute beaut for almost everything!

  esquimaw said:

  westhead said:

  loganfive said:

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

 

 

 

edit: oh yeah, and WHATEVER ANYONE TELLS YOU, sm58s are only reknowned as a vocal; mic because they're good for touring... ie you can let off a grenade next to it and it'll still work. they have shit frequency response.

 

true, you'd never use an sm58 in a studio

 

Erm, wrong. Totally depends on the nature of the sound that you're recording. For instance, on several Michael Jackson records the lead vocal is mic'd with an SM57 - chosen over some of the best tube condensers in the world. Dynamic mics are good for some things, condensers for others. The SM58 is a perfectly good studio mic for quite a number of purposes, especially rock vocals. A good mic to have in a set, but not a good all purpose mic.

 

As for a cheapish but really good condenser mic, I went for an Studio Electronics SE2200 A - it's an absolute beaut for almost everything!

well now i look like an absolute beaut - thank you so much

  westhead said:

  loganfive said:

i think he meant 'condenser' mic.

 

 

 

edit: oh yeah, and WHATEVER ANYONE TELLS YOU, sm58s are only reknowned as a vocal; mic because they're good for touring... ie you can let off a grenade next to it and it'll still work. they have shit frequency response.

 

true, you'd never use an sm58 in a studio

Bjork uses an SM58 in the studio. And they're perfectly decent mics for recording. You have to be a complete baffoon at the console in order to not get a decent mix out of a 58.

who gives a shit what bjork uses? i've recorded acoustic guitar and vocals at home with my sm58 - and it sounded absolutely flat and shite, when i've recorded the same using a condenser mic it sounded good. i'd probably use an sm58 for micing up an amp or something, when it comes to vocals there's no comparison. so whatever, i must be a 'baffoon'.

meneedit, if you're recording female vocals, buy a condenser mic - thats just from personal experience.

surely you'd be best to use a condenser, to get the best frequency range, and if you want the effect of a 58, then narrow the frequency range from the desk.

it just seems a bit limiting to use such a limited mic for recording something with such a broad frequency range as vocals.

whatever. maybe i'm a baffoon as well.

  westhead said:

who gives a shit what bjork uses?

First of all, he's asking for a mic for female singers. Secondly, listen to the mixes on her albums, dude, they're pretty fucking good, and they were recorded with one of the cheapest microphones on the market. It's the best thing to get in that price range.

  loganfive said:

surely you'd be best to use a condenser, to get the best frequency range, and if you want the effect of a 58, then narrow the frequency range from the desk.

 

it just seems a bit limiting to use such a limited mic for recording something with such a broad frequency range as vocals.

 

whatever. maybe i'm a baffoon as well.

I'm not saying you'll get the most pristine recording you've ever heard out of it. Fuck, I would rather use a Sennheiser 421 than a SM58, but they're hardly the same price range, and the 58 is perfectly capable of getting a passable mix even if you don't know what you're doing. It really comes down to mixing ability, guys.

meneedit: If you want to spend a bit more money, a Beta 58a is also perfectly capable [about $150]. Again, it depends on what style of vocal you're recording. If you want a more smooth/warm sound, go for a ribbon. A Nady RSM-1 ribbon mic is pretty good, and it's around $150.

thanks braintree :smiling:

Might be a little off topic, but what does everyone think of the SM57 for a decent inexpensive all-purpose mic?

better than the 58.

still not great.

for 'all-purpose'... (if there is such a thing), imo, you want a wide diaphragm condenser.

will do most jobs adequately, and some jobs extremely well.

  Braintree said:

  westhead said:

who gives a shit what bjork uses?

 

First of all, he's asking for a mic for female singers. Secondly, listen to the mixes on her albums, dude, they're pretty fucking good, and they were recorded with one of the cheapest microphones on the market. It's the best thing to get in that price range.

 

  loganfive said:

surely you'd be best to use a condenser, to get the best frequency range, and if you want the effect of a 58, then narrow the frequency range from the desk.

 

it just seems a bit limiting to use such a limited mic for recording something with such a broad frequency range as vocals.

 

whatever. maybe i'm a baffoon as well.

 

I'm not saying you'll get the most pristine recording you've ever heard out of it. Fuck, I would rather use a Sennheiser 421 than a SM58, but they're hardly the same price range, and the 58 is perfectly capable of getting a passable mix even if you don't know what you're doing. It really comes down to mixing ability, guys.

 

 

agreed to a point. however, my mixing ability is not in question here.

i would never go to a 58 first for recording vocals. ever.

it might be good at some jobs ( i believe u2 also use it as their main recording mic for vocals), but personally i like more headroom to work wioth than the 58 provides.

different strokes mate.

michael jackson used a SM7, not a SM 57

bjork surely didn't record with a 58, but shall have recorded demos and pre production stuff with it.

bontempi I'm going to go out on a limb and say Braintree is a little bit of a better position to know