decent cheap microphone for vocals

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

(with most condenser you pick up so much of the surrounding environment/acoustics it can a bit impractical for some people)

true, but it's not such a bad thing really, most of the time you'd only notice background noise when the vocals are isolated, in a mix generally it gets drowned out by everything else.

i'd never personally use a dynamic mic for recording vocals, i've never been able to get my sm57 to pick up a decent range in my vocals, or anyone else's for that matter - though, nobody i've recorded so far has been a particularly loud vocalist.

i love the sound of my behringer c-2s, they're especially great for death/black metal stuff.

Did you try giving it lots of gain and really really compressing the hell out of that SM57? after that EQ, good reverb, de-esser a little tweaking and I'd imagine you would find that an SM57 can get a great sound from any vocal style.

DONT GET ME WRONG OF COURSE I PREFER TO RECORD VOCALS WITH A CONDENSER

I love love love my AKG condenser and if you got phantom power, dont have like 180dbs of noise constantly in their apartment, then ya definitely get a condenser if you just want to record vocals.

I am kinda thinking about recording some vocals with my SM57 for the first time in a while to really prove with great production that they can sound better than some condensers though.

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Braintree said:

Awkward, please note that Blanket Fort Fuckface has no idea what he's talking about, and please consider that when you're choosing microphones, style of music has a lot to do with what you use.

 

I love how you ask me if im fucking retarded and I dont get offended and but my intelligent response pissing you off. Your response doesn't actually reference what I said correctly and doesn't actually respond to my points.

 

I never said style of music doesnt have anything to do with what you use.

 

I said that your state of for achieving an "old crackly hard rock sound then a 57 would be great. If you're going for a smooth R&B sound, then a 58 would be much better, since it's not as abrasive." doesn't really make a lot of sense unless you have no ability fucking ability EQ then yes it would make sense that you wouldn't want the extra high end fidelity of not having the burly damping windscreen on your recording mic.

 

I do not understand why smart producer would want to purchase a mic for RECORDING that has less fidelity, is only best for one thing(live vocals) for the same price as a mic that can record a lot more things better when your not wanting to sing live... IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE

 

unless you cant muster up a stand and a pop filter and have no fucking clue how to EQ then yah get an SM58

It's obvious that you don't know what fidelity means. Just because the windscreen reduces a frequency area doesn't mean you're cutting fidelity. You're cutting out some of the more unpleasant frequencies by 1dB, which is handy so you don't have to spend time finding that area in an EQ. And what if you only have a two band EQ? Or a four band EQ? It's better to have that microphone just cut the area and save you time. It's one of the reasons why windscreens exist in the first place, genius. Also to reduce "p's."

Hearing high end in your mix doesn't mean it has more fidelity. Sometimes, especially for live shows, the high end can get out of control and become piercing.

And I love how you're trying to divide microphones like they're supposed to be studio mics and live mics. Some microphones are more rugged, and therefore tried and tested on the road, but ANY MICROPHONE CAN BE USED IN THE STUDIO. Shit, when I used to work for Berklee we used Earthworks for the drum set. They're very fragile, but they got a great sound, so we used them anyway. In the studio, we had all kinds of BLUE and Neumann microphones in addition to the Earthworks.

I recommend you go read a book about audio.

And just let me reiterate: the Shure SM58 is the same microphone as the SM57 but with a different capsule.

By the way, Awkward, you could spend a little more money and get a Shure Beta 58a, which sound much better. I think they are around $130.

I really had no ambition to continue this conversation as your quite hopeless at understanding my points, its quite annoying.

Theres not a god damn thing you have said in this whole thread that has been new information to me, I think ive spoken my points well enough that I dont need pull the card of oh when i did live sound ohh ohh when I recorded at berklee blah blah, if you knew your shit you wouldn't be so clueless to thinking that SM57 was just instrument mic, thats a very noobish ignorant preconception

The post I made that was sm58vsm57v58betaA said everything I needed to say

YES ACTUALLY FREQUENCY REDUCTION VS LESS FREQUENCY REDUCTION IS A FIDELITY EDGE TO WORK WITH

Using and Sm58 recording It felt like it randomly missing some of the key defining frequencies make words understand able, where the Sm57 was more predictable for the reasons below.

your fucking hopeless your trying to tell me what a fucking windscreen is? dood a thin pop filter is just better for recording than a wire cage around some thick windscreen padding. It does some unpredictable frequency blocking and dampening than a regular studio pop filter.

and YES IM FUCKING DIVIDING BETWEEN STUDIO AND LIVE because that's what we are talking about here is for him to RECORD vocals. He has said nothing about singing live and its quite assumed thats not happening anytime soon.

IM DONE bantering with you braintree, I have wasted my time with this plenty enough

  modey said:

true, but it's not such a bad thing really, most of the time you'd only notice background noise when the vocals are isolated, in a mix generally it gets drowned out by everything else.

 

i'd never personally use a dynamic mic for recording vocals, i've never been able to get my sm57 to pick up a decent range in my vocals, or anyone else's for that matter - though, nobody i've recorded so far has been a particularly loud vocalist.

i love the sound of my behringer c-2s, they're especially great for death/black metal stuff.

for truth.

i'm pretty fucking over people perpetuating the "get a 57/58" myth on every poor n00b that comes along. they sound shit unless you are a loud singer. end of story.

this is OT but the sound of the 58 has been ruining a lot of live recordings for me. it just doesn't complement THAT many voices, certainly far fewer than it's used for.

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I really had no ambition to continue this conversation as your quite hopeless at understanding my points, its quite annoying.

 

Theres not a god damn thing you have said in this whole thread that has been new information to me, I think ive spoken my points well enough that I dont need pull the card of oh when i did live sound ohh ohh when I recorded at berklee blah blah, if you knew your shit you wouldn't be so clueless to thinking that SM57 was just instrument mic, thats a very noobish ignorant preconception

I believe I said it depends on the scenario, but it's used as an instrument mic 99% of the time for reasons aforementioned.

  Quote

The post I made that was sm58vsm57v58betaA said everything I needed to say

 

YES ACTUALLY FREQUENCY REDUCTION VS LESS FREQUENCY REDUCTION IS A FIDELITY EDGE TO WORK WITH

EQ does not compromise fidelity, frequency response in the microphone itself does. If you look at any high condenser microphone, there's usually a boost/cut switch.

  Quote

Using and Sm58 recording It felt like it randomly missing some of the key defining frequencies make words understand able, where the Sm57 was more predictable for the reasons below.

Maybe your mixing is shit? Cut out the low end below 130Hz in the voice and it will sound more clear. And the area of tangibility in the human voice is between 2-4kHz, so the 58 doesn't cut those out.

  Quote

your fucking hopeless your trying to tell me what a fucking windscreen is? dood a thin pop filter is just better for recording than a wire cage around some thick windscreen padding. It does some unpredictable frequency blocking and dampening than a regular studio pop filter.

A pop filter is basically the same thing as a windscreen, you fucking dumbass. The windscreen is just built into the microphone.

  Quote

and YES IM FUCKING DIVIDING BETWEEN STUDIO AND LIVE because that's what we are talking about here is for him to RECORD vocals. He has said nothing about singing live and its quite assumed thats not happening anytime soon.

Did I say say anything about him playing live? You're the one that keeps saying the 58 is a live mic. It can be both, just like the 57. The difference is in the capsule. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself to get through your thick skull.

  Quote

IM DONE bantering with you braintree, I have wasted my time with this plenty enough

Let me guess...you're someone that has recorded his band on a four track and automatically thinks he's an audio engineer. You've played around your shitty little bumfuck nowhere town and have convinced yourself you know something about audio because you read it on wikipedia or some shit. Well let me tell you, this basically comes down to experience. I have it and you don't. Every time someone posts incorrectly about audio on the internet, they're basically shitting on my degree, and propagating more disinformation.

Stop and read a book, plebian.

  Quote

i'm pretty fucking over people perpetuating the "get a 57/58" myth on every poor n00b that comes along. they sound shit unless you are a loud singer. end of story.

It's true that a cheap microphone will make a shitty singer sound like shit. Honestly, if I had an infinite amount of money and time, there wouldn't be one Shure microphone in my catalog, but the fact is that people have budgets and the SM57/58, Beta series are actually quite good for that price range.

gotcha