Hello.
I have read that Mr. Dorsey said that the Electrovoice RE-20 is almost
always an OK mic choice (not necesarilly the best) for vocals.
I dont sing but i record differents vocals once in a while. The RE-20 is not
too much expensive so it could be a good choice for vocals on a home studio.
Is this true for female and male?.

Thanks.

José Luis Amores wrote:
Hello.
I have read that Mr. Dorsey said that the Electrovoice RE-20 is almost
always an OK mic choice (not necesarilly the best) for vocals.
I dont sing but i record differents vocals once in a while. The RE-20 is not
too much expensive so it could be a good choice for vocals on a home studio.
Is this true for female and male?.

Thanks.




Yes, but you should arrange to hire or borrow one to test before you buy
one. You may or may not like it.

José Luis Amores wrote:
Hello.
I have read that Mr. Dorsey said that the Electrovoice RE-20 is almost
always an OK mic choice (not necesarilly the best) for vocals.
I dont sing but i record differents vocals once in a while. The RE-20 is not
too much expensive so it could be a good choice for vocals on a home studio.
Is this true for female and male?.

The midrange on the RE-20 is flat enough that it's reasonable for both male
and female vocals. The problems you run into are with microphones that are
very specifically designed to flatter vocals in some way or another; most of
the things that are flattering to one sort of voice won't be flattering to
others. The flat midrange on the RE-20 makes it less exciting, but it makes
it usable on an incredible range of different things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Sugarite wrote:

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy on
high treble for vocals IMO.

I beseech thee, get thee to the .pdf for the RE20 and learn somethng
about its response.

Ever seen the response of the MD441? It's a dynamic mic.

In a live setting it can be nice since it
doesn't have the 4kHz notch of most dynamics,

Keeerist...

but there's many less
expensive and tougher alternatives.

Given that the RE20 is one of the toughest mics ever built, that is not
likely. Yeah, there are cheaper mics around. But tougher? Damn few.

I'd gladly endure a 4kHz notch for
something more durable for stage, and there are several condenser mics I'd
try long before considering any dynamic mic for vocals in the studio,

Dang it, wish somebody had known that before Bonnie's track became such
a hit. Maybe Ed should call you next time before he puts up a mic for a
rough that turns out a killer vocal that sells cowabunga.

--
ha

Sugarite wrote:

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy on
high treble for vocals IMO.

No, actually it doesn't. Even considering how big that mylar diaphragm is.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(hank alrich) writes:

Sugarite wrote:
I'd gladly endure a 4kHz notch for
something more durable for stage, and there are several condenser mics I'd
try long before considering any dynamic mic for vocals in the studio,

Dang it, wish somebody had known that before Bonnie's track became such
a hit. Maybe Ed should call you next time before he puts up a mic for a
rough that turns out a killer vocal that sells cowabunga.

--
ha

Guess you have to scratch all those vocal tracks done with an SM7
while you're at it.

Combining posts...

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy on
high treble for vocals IMO.

I beseech thee, get thee to the .pdf for the RE20 and learn somethng
about its response.
[and]
No, actually it doesn't. Even considering how big that mylar diaphragm
is.

Look again yourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/4jjbk

Now check the D3800:
http://tinyurl.com/4pvwd
gets up closer to 16kHz

And the greatest disparity between the two is at 4kHz, like I said.

Ever seen the response of the MD441? It's a dynamic mic.

Guess you have to scratch all those vocal tracks done with an SM7
while you're at it.

Both of these have a treble boost switch. Try comparing switch off and EQ
up. Treble is the last thing I want to have to EQ, whether it's a plug-in,
mixer strip, or on-board circuit. Dynamic diaphrams just don't get up there
nearly as well as condensers, and it's a critical aspect to an impressive
vocal sound. Midrange is too of course, which is where a dynamic can be
most effective, but not at the expense of high treble under everyday
circumstances, like the OP is considering.

I'd gladly endure a 4kHz notch for
something more durable for stage, and there are several condenser mics
I'd
try long before considering any dynamic mic for vocals in the studio,

Dang it, wish somebody had known that before Bonnie's track became such
a hit. Maybe Ed should call you next time before he puts up a mic for a
rough that turns out a killer vocal that sells cowabunga.

Right, he put it up for a *rough take* and it was a fluke that it worked
*for that voice in that setting*. He could easily have come to the same
conclusion after trying several more likely condenser candidates, and
wouldn't be wasting his time doing so. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of
the time it's a condenser that works best, and of the 1% where a dynamic is
preferable it's generally because of an atypical voice or vocal style.

The OP is talking about a first vocal mic. A dynamic mic for recording
vocals is a 5th or 6th mic at best. I'm not saying don't ever use dynamics
on vocals, I'm saying don't limit yourself to one. Damn near any reasonable
$300+ condenser is going to work better more often. Who in their right mind
would pick an RE20 over a NT1000 as their one-and-only vocal mic?

The RE-20 is reportedly Bonnie Riatt's favorite studio mic.

Al

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:13:40 +0100, "José Luis Amores"
wrote:

Hello.
I have read that Mr. Dorsey said that the Electrovoice RE-20 is almost
always an OK mic choice (not necesarilly the best) for vocals.
I dont sing but i record differents vocals once in a while. The RE-20 is not
too much expensive so it could be a good choice for vocals on a home studio.
Is this true for female and male?.

Thanks.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Sugarite wrote:

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy on
high treble for vocals IMO.

No, actually it doesn't. Even considering how big that mylar diaphragm is.

An RE20 in good shape is down 3 dB @ 18 Khz.

http://tinyurl.com/4jjbk

--
ha

Sugarite wrote:

Combining posts...

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy on
high treble for vocals IMO.

I beseech thee, get thee to the .pdf for the RE20 and learn somethng
about its response.
[and]
No, actually it doesn't. Even considering how big that mylar diaphragm
is.

Look again yourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/4jjbk

RE20 is down 3 dB at 18 KHz. It has plenty of top for very good vox.
I've tracked plenty of singers nicely using an RE20.

Now check the D3800:
http://tinyurl.com/4pvwd
gets up closer to 16kHz

2 KHz short of the RE20?

And the greatest disparity between the two is at 4kHz, like I said.

I don't see a "notch" anywhere.

Ever seen the response of the MD441? It's a dynamic mic.

Guess you have to scratch all those vocal tracks done with an SM7
while you're at it.

Both of these have a treble boost switch.

??

SM7 has switches for bass roll-off and presence boost, not a treble
boost switch.

ND441 has four stages of bass roll-off to counteract proximity effect in
close micing of speech, not a treble boost switch.

I have these mics, SM7 and MD441, have had four RE20's and now have one
PL20.

Try comparing switch off and EQ up.

As stated and observed, these mics do not have "treble boost" switches.

Treble is the last thing I want to have to EQ, whether it's a plug-in,
mixer strip, or on-board circuit.

You're the guy who talked about boosting the living **** out of the top
end in your live recording work. Remember?

-----

Not so long ago...

Sugarite wrote:

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz
down over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and
the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

-----

Dynamic diaphrams just don't get up there
nearly as well as condensers, and it's a critical aspect to an impressive
vocal sound. Midrange is too of course, which is where a dynamic can be
most effective, but not at the expense of high treble under everyday
circumstances, like the OP is considering.

An MD441 is far smoother on top, I mean at 20 KHz, than any of the
inexpensive small cap condensors I've heard.

I'd gladly endure a 4kHz notch for something more durable for
stage, and there are several condenser mics I'd try long before
considering any dynamic mic for vocals in the studio,

Dang it, wish somebody had known that before Bonnie's track became such
a hit. Maybe Ed should call you next time before he puts up a mic for a
rough that turns out a killer vocal that sells cowabunga.

Right, he put it up for a *rough take* and it was a fluke that it worked
*for that voice in that setting*.

I don't suppose there's a reason an RE20 is often considered a good all
around go-to mic for vox. One reason is that it can be worked very
closely when people are playing all together now without muddying the
vocal with proximity effect.

He could easily have come to the same
conclusion after trying several more likely condenser candidates, and
wouldn't be wasting his time doing so

I find it interesting that you would suggest what he could do. Do you
think he had a choice of mics for that situation? Just possibly? Don't
suppose he chose that mic because it can deliver the goods in a
situation where many other mics, including condensors, might not work as
well? The proximity effect thing is no small matter in such a tracking
situation. As it is, he chose a mic that wouldn't muddy a great take,
nor fill it with bleed to the point of uselessness.

Doesn't change the fact that 99% of
the time it's a condenser that works best, and of the 1% where a dynamic is
preferable it's generally because of an atypical voice or vocal style.

I am happy to disagree.

The OP is talking about a first vocal mic. A dynamic mic for recording
vocals is a 5th or 6th mic at best.

For the preamp stage is going to be more critical than whether or not I
have a condensor for vox. I'll take an RE20 through a Great River before
I'll take the Rode through a Mackie.

But I would never contend I am in my right mind. What'd be the point of
trying to stay _there_? g

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

As stated and observed, these mics do not have "treble boost" switches.

I correct myself: there is a peaking treble boost switch on the MD441,
but it doesn't extend the frequency range of the mic; the mic's hi-freq
extension is to 20 KHz with or without that switch. I've had these mics
since the mid-'70's and I don't ever feel the need to use that switch. I
do sometimes use the lo-freq roll-off, but not often for singing vox,
mainly for speech apps.

--
ha

Think you really should get all your facts together before you post, and
making sure they're correct would help too.
Been doing this long??

--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Sugarite" wrote in message
...
Combining posts...

Yeah, but being a dynamic mic it rolls off at about 12kHz, rather shy
on
high treble for vocals IMO.

I beseech thee, get thee to the .pdf for the RE20 and learn somethng
about its response.
[and]
No, actually it doesn't. Even considering how big that mylar diaphragm
is.

Look again yourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/4jjbk

Now check the D3800:
http://tinyurl.com/4pvwd
gets up closer to 16kHz

And the greatest disparity between the two is at 4kHz, like I said.

Ever seen the response of the MD441? It's a dynamic mic.

Guess you have to scratch all those vocal tracks done with an SM7
while you're at it.

Both of these have a treble boost switch. Try comparing switch off and EQ
up. Treble is the last thing I want to have to EQ, whether it's a
plug-in,
mixer strip, or on-board circuit. Dynamic diaphrams just don't get up
there
nearly as well as condensers, and it's a critical aspect to an impressive
vocal sound. Midrange is too of course, which is where a dynamic can be
most effective, but not at the expense of high treble under everyday
circumstances, like the OP is considering.

I'd gladly endure a 4kHz notch for
something more durable for stage, and there are several condenser mics
I'd
try long before considering any dynamic mic for vocals in the studio,

Dang it, wish somebody had known that before Bonnie's track became such
a hit. Maybe Ed should call you next time before he puts up a mic for a
rough that turns out a killer vocal that sells cowabunga.

Right, he put it up for a *rough take* and it was a fluke that it worked
*for that voice in that setting*. He could easily have come to the same
conclusion after trying several more likely condenser candidates, and
wouldn't be wasting his time doing so. Doesn't change the fact that 99%
of
the time it's a condenser that works best, and of the 1% where a dynamic
is
preferable it's generally because of an atypical voice or vocal style.

The OP is talking about a first vocal mic. A dynamic mic for recording
vocals is a 5th or 6th mic at best. I'm not saying don't ever use
dynamics
on vocals, I'm saying don't limit yourself to one. Damn near any
reasonable
$300+ condenser is going to work better more often. Who in their right
mind
would pick an RE20 over a NT1000 as their one-and-only vocal mic?

Who in their right mind would pick an RE20 over a
NT1000 as their one-and-only vocal mic?

Just about any radio station in the world.
Thank goodness those DJ's aren't singing !

rd

A quick foreword: this long-winded argument is a classic example of the
useless banterings that develop when someone drifts off-topic and
sharpshoots those who aren't.


Look again yourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/4jjbk

RE20 is down 3 dB at 18 KHz. It has plenty of top for very good vox.
I've tracked plenty of singers nicely using an RE20.

Now check the D3800:
http://tinyurl.com/4pvwd
gets up closer to 16kHz

2 KHz short of the RE20?

The D3800 is down 3dB at 20kHz, but because the response is generally
elevated at 8-10kHz, I find it's more important that the top-end be flatter,
so a difference of 6dB between 8-16kHz is the compelling issue to me. But
no matter how you want to interpret the charts, the D3800 has better high
extension, something the RE20 has never been known for. Doesn't mean it
sounds better, just one aspect of why I'd try it before an RE20.

You even tried a D3800 before? They're an exceptionally good mic for live
vocals, far better than an RE20 on stage. That's why I'd try it first in
the studio, specs be damned.

And the greatest disparity between the two is at 4kHz, like I said.

I don't see a "notch" anywhere.

See the D3800's 6dB bump centered around 4kHz? That's called a "notch".
See how the RE20 is -2dB at 4kHz, a difference of 8dB? That's called a
"disparity".

The 4kHz notch is common to most cardioid dynamic mics, which is just one
aspect of why a condenser is generally preferable for vocals in the studio.
I guess you haven't done much SR - step 1: drop the 4kHz by 6dB (not a
permanent adjustment, but a good starting point).

SM7 has switches for bass roll-off and presence boost, not a treble
boost switch.

Right, my mistake. I haven't used one in about 7 years because I never
liked what I got from them for anything.

I correct myself: there is a peaking treble boost switch on the MD441,
but it doesn't extend the frequency range of the mic; the mic's hi-freq
extension is to 20 KHz with or without that switch. I've had these mics
since the mid-'70's and I don't ever feel the need to use that switch. I
do sometimes use the lo-freq roll-off, but not often for singing vox,
mainly for speech apps.

If you say so, I don't use a 441 much either. Love them on Leslies though.

Treble is the last thing I want to have to EQ, whether it's a plug-in,
mixer strip, or on-board circuit.

You're the guy who talked about boosting the living **** out of the top
end in your live recording work. Remember?

-----

Not so long ago...

Sugarite wrote:

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz
down over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and
the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

Hahah I don't think you could have picked a worse possible example.
Firstly, 3.5k is hardly treble, secondly I was talking about SR and not
recording, thirdly there actually is good cause to boost the **** out of
high treble to compensate for the poor treble extension of compression
horns, a feature common to active crossovers, "Constant Directivity
Compensation" or "CD Horn Equalization", which boosts the 18kHz by as much
as 21dB with a 6dB/oct slope.

That post was refering to the 3kHz notch of a Sennheiser E609, designed for
micing guitar cabinets for SR. Try making a cranked Celestion 4x12 sound
like anything but mud in a medium-sized club without using some serious EQ.
The 250-1k fills the room, the high-mids go in a straight line. It can be
bad enough that I pin the 3.5k to the roof and 250 to the floor on the
channel EQ, and just feather the fader up until it's reasonably defined. No
such situation exists in studio recording, especially not for vocals. You'd
have to start posting in braille to get any more off-topic.

Dynamic diaphrams just don't get up there
nearly as well as condensers, and it's a critical aspect to an
impressive
vocal sound. Midrange is too of course, which is where a dynamic can be
most effective, but not at the expense of high treble under everyday
circumstances, like the OP is considering.

An MD441 is far smoother on top, I mean at 20 KHz, than any of the
inexpensive small cap condensors I've heard.

Stay on target, we're talking vocal mics here. Still, the Oktava MC012 and
Rode NT5 would refute your claim, not that I'd use either for vox. (Note:
the response curve for the NT5 is wrong on Rode's website, the treble
doesn't drop off like the curve indicates, not sure what they're smoking
down there...)

I don't suppose there's a reason an RE20 is often considered a good all
around go-to mic for vox. One reason is that it can be worked very
closely when people are playing all together now without muddying the
vocal with proximity effect.

Those are SR and live recording issues, again not on topic. A dynamic
rejects bleeding better than a condenser? No ****! If bleeding were an
issue, it should have been the first thing you mentioned. The OP didn't
mention it, so why should you? They're completely different animals.
That's why Bonnie was singing into an RE20 instead of a U87, it was a
scratch vocal fer fux sakes!

He could easily have come to the same
conclusion after trying several more likely condenser candidates, and
wouldn't be wasting his time doing so

I find it interesting that you would suggest what he could do. Do you
think he had a choice of mics for that situation? Just possibly? Don't
suppose he chose that mic because it can deliver the goods in a
situation where many other mics, including condensors, might not work as
well? The proximity effect thing is no small matter in such a tracking
situation. As it is, he chose a mic that wouldn't muddy a great take,
nor fill it with bleed to the point of uselessness.

So they kept a scratch vocal, big deal. What does that have to do with the
selection of vocal mic for when she would have otherwise sang the vocal
overdub? Ever occur to you that maybe the performance was the key reason
for keeping the scratch?

There is nothing in the OP that would indicate that the mic is intended for
any purpose other than vocals on their own. Chances are he's already got an
SM58 clone kicking around for scratches. Nobody in their right mind would
spend more on a scratch vocal mic than on a vocal condenser just in case the
bedtracks reveal the perfect vocal take.

For the preamp stage is going to be more critical than whether or not I
have a condensor for vox. I'll take an RE20 through a Great River before
I'll take the Rode through a Mackie.

Man, where did that come from? IME dynamics are much more demanding on
preamp quality for clean top-end, and an NT1000 costs $200 less than an
RE20, so you're less apt to get stuck with Mackie. An NT1000/RNP combo
undisputedly _smokes_ an RE20/1202VLZ combo for vocals, and the NT1000/RNP
combo costs *less*. Thanks for pointing out the most important reason NOT
to use an RE20!

But I would never contend I am in my right mind. What'd be the point of
trying to stay _there_? g

Well, it helps if you're left handed...

Sugarite wrote:

The 4kHz notch is common to most cardioid dynamic mics

Says you.




I guess you haven't done much SR - step 1: drop the 4kHz by 6dB (not a
permanent adjustment, but a good starting point).

Usually to offset the nasty presence peak that starts around 5-6k in many vocal mics. Dipping at a slightly lower Fc helps offset the nasty 3k5 ringing found in so many cheap PA setups.






3.5k is hardly treble

What else would you call a frequency that is only produced as an overtone by the vast majority of instruments? Piano and Piccolo come to mind as common instruments which emit fundamentals that high, but not much else other than percussion.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Sugarite wrote:

The 4kHz notch is common to most cardioid dynamic mics

Says you.

By "notch" do you actually mean a boost at 4KHz? Like a presence peak?

When most folks use the word "notch" we are talking about a dip and not
a boost.

It's true that most cheap dynamics have a presence peak, and one of the
wonderful things about the RE-20 is that it doesn't have one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Sugarite wrote:

I guess you haven't done much SR

I started doing live sound in 1968, professionally. I did some
interesting SR work at Armadillo World Headquarters and I have a long
list of wonderful artists for whom I have provided SR since moving from
Austin to northern California twenty years ago. I've mixed Count Basie
and I've mixed John Nitzinger. I've mixed on tiny consoles and huge
ones, from Peavey to Midas. I've mixed in venues that hold a couple
dozen folks and in venues that hold a couple dozen thousand folks.

I find your spec sheet generalizations outrightly silly, based on my
experience. But I leave you to them.

--
ha

I guess you haven't done much SR

I started doing live sound in 1968, professionally. I did some
interesting SR work at Armadillo World Headquarters and I have a long
list of wonderful artists for whom I have provided SR since moving from
Austin to northern California twenty years ago. I've mixed Count Basie
and I've mixed John Nitzinger. I've mixed on tiny consoles and huge
ones, from Peavey to Midas. I've mixed in venues that hold a couple
dozen folks and in venues that hold a couple dozen thousand folks.

....when reason fails, name-drop. Anyone who takes someone's advice just
because they've mixed Count Basie shouldn't be reading usenet.

I find your spec sheet generalizations outrightly silly, based on my
experience. But I leave you to them.

I beseech thee, get thee to the .pdf for the RE20 and learn somethng
about its response.

Hard to believe those two posts are from the same person...

I leave you to your unfounded bias.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:25:03 -0500, "Sugarite"
wrote:

I leave you to your unfounded bias.

Geez, Louise. Let me guess: Southern Cal? Anywhere in Canada?
Around here it was 70F and blustery today, and all's right
with the world. Until the tornados tommorrow.

So I can lollback and comfortably assure you that you're in
Mistooken. Been there so many times I could draw the map.
It's no sin.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"Happiness isn't something you experience; it's something you remember."
-Oscar Levant

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Sugarite wrote:

I guess you haven't done much SR

I started doing live sound in 1968, professionally. I did some
interesting SR work at Armadillo World Headquarters and I have a long
list of wonderful artists for whom I have provided SR since moving from
Austin to northern California twenty years ago. I've mixed Count Basie
and I've mixed John Nitzinger. I've mixed on tiny consoles and huge
ones, from Peavey to Midas. I've mixed in venues that hold a couple
dozen folks and in venues that hold a couple dozen thousand folks.

I find your spec sheet generalizations outrightly silly, based on my
experience. But I leave you to them.

--
ha

Game. Set. Match.

Steve King

Cheap has nothing to do with it. The D3800, D112, MD441,
MD421, E855, OM-7
are all over $300 as well as over +3dB at 4kHz. Frankly I
can't think of a
dynamic mic that isn't except for the RE20 and SM7, which is
probably a big
reason why they are preferred dynamic mics for vocals in the
studio.
Neither have the high treble response characteristics of a
condenser that
are advantageous to vocals IMO.


You might want to look at BeyerDynamic's M201.
around $200 new, Hypercard, very flat except
for a little top end boost above 10K.
You'll need a pop-stop in front to use for vocal.
"The little dynamic that thinks it's a condensor"

rd

Sugarite wrote:

I guess you haven't done much SR

and

I leave you to your unfounded bias.

LOL!

--
ha

Sugarite wrote:
By "notch" do you actually mean a boost at 4KHz? Like a presence peak?

Oops... brainfart there. I guess I figured the meaning would be obvious
due to the commonality of the phenomenon.

It's true that most cheap dynamics have a presence peak, and one of the
wonderful things about the RE-20 is that it doesn't have one.

Cheap has nothing to do with it. The D3800, D112, MD441, MD421, E855, OM-7
are all over $300 as well as over +3dB at 4kHz. Frankly I can't think of a
dynamic mic that isn't except for the RE20 and SM7, which is probably a big
reason why they are preferred dynamic mics for vocals in the studio.
Neither have the high treble response characteristics of a condenser that
are advantageous to vocals IMO.

The 441 has no real presence peak. The 421 has a very slight one (although the
"New And Improved 421 II" has a much more serious one). The response on the
D112 is so wacky that it's hard to tell WHAT it's doing.

Other good examples of dynamics without presence peaks are the 666, the
664 and 676, and some of the Audio-Technica mikes like the AT N/D 468.

There are plenty of mikes out there with solid patterns and no presence
boost, but you do have to look a bit harder for them these days. It is
really a serious problem for PA that most of the cheaper PA mikes all have
a presence boost and are usually combined with speaker systems that have
a presence boost as well. The end result sadly often needs a lot of EQ
to make it sound decent at all. There's no reason for that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Sugarite wrote:

By "notch" do you actually mean a boost at 4KHz? Like a presence peak?

Oops... brainfart there. I guess I figured the meaning would be obvious
due to the commonality of the phenomenon.


It's true that most cheap dynamics have a presence peak, and one of the
wonderful things about the RE-20 is that it doesn't have one.

Cheap has nothing to do with it. The D3800, D112, MD441, MD421, E855, OM-7
are all over $300 as well as over +3dB at 4kHz. Frankly I can't think of a
dynamic mic that isn't except for the RE20 and SM7, which is probably a big
reason why they are preferred dynamic mics for vocals in the studio.
Neither have the high treble response characteristics of a condenser that
are advantageous to vocals IMO.


The 441 has no real presence peak. The 421 has a very slight one (although the
"New And Improved 421 II" has a much more serious one). The response on the
D112 is so wacky that it's hard to tell WHAT it's doing.

Other good examples of dynamics without presence peaks are the 666, the
664 and 676, and some of the Audio-Technica mikes like the AT N/D 468.

And of course the Beyer M201.