Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Inexpensive dynamic mic for live vocals
Hi,
I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female) live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if the same might be true with the Behringer pre's. I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in that SM58 class these days. So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget could be increased a little. Thanks in advance for any replies. Dean |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
drichard wrote: Hi, I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female) live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if the same might be true with the Behringer pre's. I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in that SM58 class these days. So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget could be increased a little. Thanks in advance for any replies. Dean For an all-purpose knock-around mic, I like the EV 635 or RE10 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Look for a used Sennheiser e855. You should find one for around a
hundred bucks and they sound significantly better than the SM58 in my opinion. You might even find a good deal on a new one at a music store because I think thay were discontinued recently. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
drichard wrote:
I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female) live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if the same might be true with the Behringer pre's. I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the SM-58. I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in that SM58 class these days. So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget could be increased a little. I don't know, and I suspect anything in that price range is going to be prone to loading issues of one sort or another. Avoid the Sennheiser e835... the e855 is a great mike but probably beyond your price range. You might look at the A-T neodymium mike series... the stronger magnets may mean less of an issue with loading, too. ---scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Aug 2005 09:44:28 -0700, "
wrote: For an all-purpose knock-around mic, I like the EV 635 or RE10 Both of these have their places. The EV 635 is an omni, and the EV RE10 is useful because it has little proximity effect. For Live vocals however I'd reach for an EV 767 first before either of these. It has a hypercardioid pattern which helps with feedback rejection and a great high end for a dynamic. It has a very linear midrange without a presence peak like may mics, so it is a very accurate mic for the money. It has a neodymium magnet for high output, about 3 - 6 dB hotter than a 58. My favorite vocal mics are EV767's Shure Beta 87's and Shure SM58's (instead of SM57's because many people do pop and 57's have problems with wind when used outdoors). The Beta 87 is the most expensive of these, but they sound silky smooth and clear. I just checked online pricing and it seems $250 is the best price currently for a Beta87. That may be out of your range. But do at least try a 767. They are around $100 and are so useful for live PA both voice and instruments too IMO. Julian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Julian wrote:
On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the SM-58. I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? The 57 is a 58 with a different windscreen. The windscreen on the 58 is a huge foam ball that cuts all the high end off. Speak into both of them and listen to yourself. The SM-58 has much poorer high frequency response than the SM-57, because of the foam ball. If you pop your Ps, the foam ball can be a good thing. If not, it is a bad thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... On 1 Aug 2005 14:07:14 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the SM-58. Scott, I've heard that from many people but I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? Well, there's a couple of reasons *I* can see. First off, the container for the capsule is different in the two mics. That gives you a different resonance, both from the sound bouncing acoustically off the inside of the container (windscreen, whatever), and then the sound conducted through the solid material (which is slightly different for the two mics). Plus, you can get closer to the actual element on the SM57, which will give you an even greater proximity effect. -- ---Mikhael... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Mick" wrote in message ... In article , says... I'd reach for an EV 767 first before either of these. It has a hypercardioid pattern which helps with feedback rejection and a great high end for a dynamic. It's a good-sounding mic, I agree, but I believe it's supercardioid, not hyper (which I like better anyway). Yes I think you are correct on both accounts. But do at least try a 767. They are around $100 and are so useful for live PA both voice and instruments too IMO. The lowest I've found them for is $129[US]. Where do you get them for a C-note? Today before I sent this out I Googled "EV 767a price NOT wireless". Try he http://www.wwbw.com/EV-N-D767A-i65198.music Julian |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ... (Scott Dorsey) writes: There's also a foam windscreen for the 57 (remember the trio of 57s often used on the US President's lecturn for the past 30-40 years -- those were 57s each with that windscreen -- I want to say model "WS2" but I could be wrong on that number). I do recall the Presidential trio! I had some bad experiences using 57's outdoors even with that windscreen accessory. Besides plosives, there is an annoying rattle because of the way the wire mesh is attached. Julian |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
In article writes: I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better. To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference to my ears to warrant the hooplula. Julian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Since we seem to have shifted to SM58s, Behringer makes or made a
knock-oof, something like the XM85, and sold them at 3 for $50. In A-B with a 58, the 85 has similar low and mid, but a brighter high end. How reliable and rugged I don't know, but I bought 12 of them for a college TV/Radio facility about 3 years ago, and they're still pumping. I must admit, I am the self-confessed lover-of-cheap-mics. I have all the classic mics, but I love to acquire cheapos. All of them have some virtue, and I often fall in love with a cheapo in some application. My favorite drum mic is some cheap Peavey, so ya never know! Scott Dorsey wrote: drichard wrote: I'm planning to buy 4 dynamic mics for general purpose (male or female) live vocals. I'll be using them with a Behringer digital mixer that's equipped with the Behringer "invisible" preamps. In the past I might have just bought 4 SM58's without giving a second thought, but I've recently read here (by Scott Dorsey, perhaps?) that the load of the SM58's don't match up well with the Mackie XDR preamps, and wondered if the same might be true with the Behringer pre's. I don't know, I never used the Behringer. But I will say that if you do not pop your Ps, that the SM-57 is a much better vocal mike than the SM-58. I realize, of course, that the best way to decide what mics are best would be to try out try them out and see how they work with the preamps. And that's what I'll end up doing. But I'm hoping people here will help me narrow it down to 3-4 top contenders. It's been years since I bought stage mics, and I know there are lots more choices in that SM58 class these days. So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget could be increased a little. I don't know, and I suspect anything in that price range is going to be prone to loading issues of one sort or another. Avoid the Sennheiser e835... the e855 is a great mike but probably beyond your price range. You might look at the A-T neodymium mike series... the stronger magnets may mean less of an issue with loading, too. ---scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Julian wrote:
On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote: In article writes: I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better. To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference to my ears to warrant the hooplula. Try it. It does sound like two completely different mikes, because it is. The windscreen and grille have as much to do with the sound as the element, believe me. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com So what dynamic mics would you recommend? Budget is approximately $100/mic or lower. If there is a significant difference the budget could be increased a little. If you're patient, you can pull together a goodly number of Audix OM5s on eBay within your budget. I obtained 5 this way earlier this year. One needed a paint job but it was fine, acoustically. If you shift your sights up to $125 per mic, you can make that OM6s. OM5 are more like girl mics and OM6s are more like boy mics. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
I confess, I love getting a bargain on gear that performs well too. I assume you're talking about the XM8500 mics? Eventually I might pick some up to use as "rehearsal" mics. For that price it's worth having them just to keep from unpacking the stage gear. Thanks for the insight. Dean |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Scott,
I'll be sure to check out the A-T's. Do you (or anyone else) have any favorites? I see model numbers like the ATM27, ATM29 and ATM41, though it's not immediately apparent from the copy I've read which use neodymium magnets. I'll keep a lookout for a bargain on a e855 as well. Thanks for your input. Dean |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Julian,
I'll add the EV767 to my list of mics to check out. Thanks, Dean |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
16. Scott Dorsey Aug 2, 10:06 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro From: (Scott Dorsey) - Find messages by this author Date: 2 Aug 2005 10:06:12 -0400 Local: Tues, Aug 2 2005 10:06 am Subject: Inexpensive dynamic mic for live vocals Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Julian wrote: On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote: In article JulianPAdam...= @SpamHotmail.Com writes: I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better. To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference to my ears to warrant the hooplula. Try it. It does sound like two completely different mikes, because it is. The windscreen and grille have as much to do with the sound as the element, believe me. --scott Still, I always wonder why the capsules have different part numbers.... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:59:30 -0700, Julian
wrote: To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference to my ears to warrant the hooplula. Have you tried? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Aug 2005 21:48:50 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
writes: I've been told by the Shure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Do you disagree? Why do you like 57's so much better? Maybe because, with a different wind screen, it sounds better. I never said it didn't sound a little better, just a matter of degree. For recording, I'd probably care, but for live PA I don't really care if it is a 58 or 57. If it's a singer they get a 58 unless they insist on a 57 in which case I assume they know how to use it without popping. More likely I'll use a Beta 87 for live vocals. There's a LOT of difference between THAT and a 58! Julian |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:57:01 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:59:30 -0700, Julian wrote: To hear people talk it sounds like 2 completely different mics rather than the same one with different windscreens. Not enough difference to my ears to warrant the hooplula. Have you tried? YES |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1123021158k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com writes: I've been told by the SHure factory the 58 is exactly a 57 with a different windscreen. Still, I always wonder why the capsules have different part numbers.... So that people like you will think that they're different microphones. To understand (and know for sure) you'd need to look at Shure's detailed enginnering drawings, It could be that the same "motor" is common to both mics, but since one mic is designed for hand-holding and the other one isn't, it's quite likely that they have a mounting ring that's different in size or elasticity. If the mounting ring is attached to the motor, and this is the part that is used to build the mic, their part numbers (since the assemblies are not identical) would necessarily have different part numbers. Or maybe they're really different. But can the Internet be wrong? -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:53:52 -0500, Mick
wrote: In article .com, says... Hi Scott, I'll be sure to check out the A-T's. Do you (or anyone else) have any favorites? I see model numbers like the ATM27, ATM29 and ATM41, though it's not immediately apparent from the copy I've read which use neodymium magnets. I'll keep a lookout for a bargain on a e855 as well. I believe the ones with "HE" after the model number have n/d magnets. I have been somewhat disappointed with n/d mics by anyone except EV with the possible exception of Sennhesier. The AT's I heard I definitely didn't care for and even the Shure beta 58 I thought has a grainy edge to it. EV was the first company out with n/d's and I think still the best. Julian |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
drichard wrote: Hi, I confess, I love getting a bargain on gear that performs well too. I assume you're talking about the XM8500 mics? XM8500...yeah, yeah...that's the ticket! Here's the scenario: College TV/Radio/Theater department; dwindling mic supply, but a constant need for more mics. Example: bluegrass band come in for a theater performance, we need 5 instrument and 5 vocal mics in a hurry. But a strangely limited budget. They were cheap and looked OK in Musician's Friend, so I bought 12 for $200- Roughly the cost of two SM58s. Clips and cases included. A-B tests showed a difference between the 8500s and a 58: A brighter high end. I LIKE high end, and was very happy with them. Doubling as remote radio and TV mics, they performed perfectly. I think ALL mics are subjective. It either works with the application or not. I'm not all that fussy about getting the same sound other audio pros have been getting for years. Try it. You might like it. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
My observation is that many "cheap" mics sound OK for non-critical SR work. I think one of the main differences being how much handling or boom noise the mic picks up. Better mics sometimes havew better isolation. Mark |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
They cost $60 for three now, not $50. But I've ordered a set, thinking I can use them for rehearsal mics if nothing else. Definitely worth trying out. Dean |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 Aug 2005 07:13:29 -0700, "Mark" wrote:
My observation is that many "cheap" mics sound OK for non-critical SR work. I think one of the main differences being how much handling or boom noise the mic picks up. Better mics sometimes havew better isolation. Mark Everyone has different needs and preferences. Some people go on and on about how much better a 57 sounds than a 58 and I just roll my eyes. It doesn't matter to me. Others are happy with some of the really cheap new mics out there but I won't just go there. I'd rather spend twice as much for one mic that I really like. It doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong we all have different preferences and ways of working. A cheap mic that is properly placed eq'd and mixed can sound better than an expensive mic mixed by someone who doesn't understand these things. Thanks, you guys. Julian |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
working. A cheap mic that is properly placed eq'd and mixed can sound
better than an expensive mic mixed by someone who doesn't understand these things. Aye. Right now my band is using some very inexpensive behringer mic's. A three pack for $50, with clips. For what we are doing, they work very well. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mixing, Any additional suggestions? | Pro Audio | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Dynamic Mics (Sennheiser, AKG, Beyer etc.) | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Dynamic Mics (Sennheiser, AKG, Beyer etc.) | Pro Audio |