Current home-studio setup for recording vocals involves using a Shure-SM-57
plugged into a Yamaha MG10/2, which sends the signal to my Audigy4 audio
interface. I also have a Shure Beta Green 5.0 small diaphragm condenser,
but there difference in sound quality of the recorded signal is so minimal I
have been simply using the SM-57. I mic the vocals close-up so that
background noise is less of an issue.

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or Presonus.

Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?

Thanks,

JY

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=411213

Well it really depends what sound you are looking for. The SM-57 is a
great mic for just about anything. I would have to say that having the
best mic pre that you can possibly afford will change you sound the
most. What DAW are you using with the Audigy4??
You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone because
of its frequency response, that is if its not constructed poorly....I
have found that most of the cheapo MXL and Behringer mics sound pretty
good for the price. I own the Behringer B-2 Pro and I have found it to
sound pretty good on just about anywhere I place it. Remember this that
most recording sessions have this signal flow
Microphone---Preamp----Recorder (Analog or digital). They want to have
the cleanest signal path to the recorder. So to say all that I want to
sum it up with the Preamp would be my choice to go with, you would
probably be a little better off to save your money and buy a better
quality preamp like the Summit Audio 2BA-221, that would be my choice
for a great pre amp that will take you to the next level for your
recording

Good luck,

Garrett West

jymusic wrote:
Current home-studio setup for recording vocals involves using a Shure-SM-57
plugged into a Yamaha MG10/2, which sends the signal to my Audigy4 audio
interface. I also have a Shure Beta Green 5.0 small diaphragm condenser,
but there difference in sound quality of the recorded signal is so minimal I
have been simply using the SM-57. I mic the vocals close-up so that
background noise is less of an issue.

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or Presonus.

Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?

Thanks,

JY

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=411213

jymusic wrote:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or Presonus.

Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?

My humble suggestion, assuming that your current setup would be
capable of providing phantom power for a condensor mic, would be to
spend twice as much as you're intending to on a "better" inexpensive
condensor microphone, and to forget about the inexpensive tube mic preamp.
I'm fond of Audio-Technica's 30xx series, as inexpensive condensor mics,
though I've not tried the others you mention.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Major in Electroacoustic Studies Concordia University
Faculty of Fine Arts / Music Department Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"jymusic" wrote in message
news:Bxvzf.2163$pq5.2070@trndny02...
Current home-studio setup for recording vocals involves using a
Shure-SM-57
plugged into a Yamaha MG10/2, which sends the signal to my Audigy4 audio
interface. I also have a Shure Beta Green 5.0 small diaphragm condenser,
but there difference in sound quality of the recorded signal is so minimal
I
have been simply using the SM-57. I mic the vocals close-up so that
background noise is less of an issue.

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects


Any of them would be a better match for certain vocals and in certain
situations. Just as the SM57 would still be a better match occasionally.


2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or
Presonus.
Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?


It would be an improvement over the mic input in your soundcard, but it
would probably do you more harm than good in the long run. There's no luck
with inexpensive equipment containing tubes. Find an used Symetrix SX202 on
Ebay. It's a decent clean preamp in its stock form and can be easily modded
into a very good one for very little money.

Predrag

jymusic wrote:
Current home-studio setup for recording vocals involves using a Shure-SM-57
plugged into a Yamaha MG10/2, which sends the signal to my Audigy4 audio
interface. I also have a Shure Beta Green 5.0 small diaphragm condenser,
but there difference in sound quality of the recorded signal is so minimal I
have been simply using the SM-57. I mic the vocals close-up so that
background noise is less of an issue.

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

I don't know that any of these will improve fidelity.

2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or Presonus.

I've been pretty satisfied with Presonus pres, pretty disappointed by
all things Behringer, and have never used Art gear.

Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?

Personally, I would determine what you need most based on your
application, and save up for something of higher quality. If you're
recording vocals mostly, you might want to look at a large-diaphragm
condenser and preamp combination. There isn't much that's worthwhile
for $200, but if you can hold out and spend $1,000, your options will be
much wider. There are some tried and true workhorses like the SM57, but
I think in most cases, you get what you pay for, especially with mics
and pres.

Matt

jymusic wrote:

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

For $100? If you get the AT2020 (which is not really large diameter), maybe
(just maybe). Otherwise, no. But for $200 you could get the AT3035 which
is really nice for the money (and actually does have a large diaphragm, for
whatever that's worth). It probably won't change your life, but it is
pretty nice. Plus, while you're saving the extra $100, you'll have some
time to practice things like mic placement & listening skills (which will
change your life).


2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or
Presonus.

Abso-****ing-lutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The preamps built into your Yamaha
mixer are WAY better than any of those.

Here's a hint: those are not real tube preamps. They only call them "tube"
because listening to tracks recorded with them is about as much fun as
getting an enema. Think of them as "tube up your ass" preamps.

"tech guru" wrote:

You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone
because of its frequency response

You have to change your screen name after writing that.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Period.



So to say all that I want to sum it up with the Preamp would be my
choice to go with

I'd suggest putting the money towards treating the room, since a couple
hundred bucks will go a helluvalot further there than it will on gear.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:11:45 GMT, "jymusic"
wrote:

Current home-studio setup for recording vocals involves using a Shure-SM-57
plugged into a Yamaha MG10/2, which sends the signal to my Audigy4 audio
interface. I also have a Shure Beta Green 5.0 small diaphragm condenser,
but there difference in sound quality of the recorded signal is so minimal I
have been simply using the SM-57. I mic the vocals close-up so that
background noise is less of an issue.

Since I've never tried the gear mentioning below, I was just wondering if
any of these inexpensive purchases would really make any substantial
improvement to the fidelity of recording vocals:

1) Inexpensive (around $100 or less) large diaphragm condenser, such as
Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects

2) Inexpensive (Under $100) tube mic preamp by Behringer, Art, or Presonus.

Would these be any improvement in fidelity, or would I be better off
sticking with my current setup?


I don't think you're asking for fidelity. You want a mic/preamp that
will flatter the voice. LD condenser mics can certainly be
inaccurate in an interesting way. SD condensers tend to be more
accurate, hence less flattering. I wouldn't bother with cheap tube
preamps.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:15:58 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone
because of its frequency response

You have to change your screen name after writing that.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Period.


"Better" is a matter of opinion of course. But is it not the
frequency response characteristics that largely determine the sound?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Laurence Payne" wrote:

"Better" is a matter of opinion of course. But is it not the
frequency response characteristics that largely determine the sound?



Sure, but the suggestion that the frequency response of a mic will be
better because the capsule is bigger is wrong.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Better" is a matter of opinion of course. But is it not the
frequency response characteristics that largely determine the sound?

Sure, but the suggestion that the frequency response of a mic will be
better because the capsule is bigger is wrong.

Better in the context of this thread means better for flattering a
voice. That doesn't mean more accurate or more extended.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:15:58 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone
because of its frequency response

You have to change your screen name after writing that.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Period.

"Better" is a matter of opinion of course. But is it not the
frequency response characteristics that largely determine the sound?

No, not really. There's a lot of other stuff going on, including
impulse response and how things change off-axis. I can give you two
mikes that both have very flat on-axis frequency response but sound very
different.

For a real interesting time, compare the SM-57 and the Beyer M-500.
Both have almost the same on-axis response on the data sheet, with
that huge presence peak. The resemblance ends there.
--scott


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

You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone
because of its frequency response


You have to change your screen name after writing that.


Wrong. Just plain wrong. Period.


Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57. Yes it
depends on the application but I can bet that in a blind test over a 57
and a large diaphragm mic you ear is going to like the response of the
large better, and that would be in part to the freq response of the
mic. SM-57 40 to 15,000 Hz or a FET 47 20 to 20,000 Hz. If you are not
deaf yeah its going to sound different. ( Better to me but, apparently
not the deaf Lorin David Schultz, you might want to get your ears
checked out) And by the way the Summit audio 2BA-221 tube preamp is a
real tube preamp for about $600.00 and is a tool that is used in many
pro studios for vocals and instrument DI's. And there is never a right
or wrong way to do things in the recording world , you just have to
know the rules before you can break them. Its also the pre and the mic
that determine the sound, before you ever move an EQ knob on the
console experiment with mic placement to see if you can achieve the
sound you are looking.

G

You would get better results with a large diaphragm microphone
because of its frequency response


You have to change your screen name after writing that.


Wrong. Just plain wrong. Period.


Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57. Yes it
depends on the application but I can bet that in a blind test over a 57
and a large diaphragm mic you ear is going to like the response of the
large better, and that would be in part to the freq response of the
mic. SM-57 40 to 15,000 Hz or a FET 47 20 to 20,000 Hz. If you are not
deaf yeah its going to sound different. ( Better to me but, apparently
not the deaf Lorin David Schultz, you might want to get your ears
checked out) And by the way the Summit audio 2BA-221 tube preamp is a
real tube preamp for about $600.00 and is a tool that is used in many
pro studios for vocals and instrument DI's. And there is never a right
or wrong way to do things in the recording world , you just have to
know the rules before you can break them. Its also the pre and the mic
that determine the sound, before you ever move an EQ knob on the
console experiment with mic placement to see if you can achieve the
sound you are looking.

G

"tech guru" wrote:

Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57.

Yeah, and the difference between those two is the size of the capsule.
Gimme a ****in' break...



Yes it depends on the application but I can bet that in a blind test
over a 57 and a large diaphragm mic you ear is going to like the
response of the large better

What the **** are you talking about?

First, which large diaphram mic are you talking about? If you're
suggesting that one of those ubiquitous Chinese lookalikes is going to
sound better than a 57, I'd say you'd probably be wrong about half the
time (the 57 will sound better on many sources). If you're still
talking about the 47, then it's a ridiculous comparison -- OBVIOUSLY the
47 will sound better, but not because it has a larger capsule. Yeesh...



and that would be in part to the freq response of the
mic. SM-57 40 to 15,000 Hz or a FET 47 20 to 20,000 Hz.

Take any two mics with supposedly identical frequency response and put
them side by side. Then tell me they sound the same. Lemme save you
the trouble. They won't. An AKG C414B/ULS has a response curve that
looks very similar to a Neumann TLM103. Not only the same range, but
very similar peaking characteristics. How come they don't sound even
similar? The answer is because frequency response specs tell you only a
tiny little bit about how the mic will sound.

Besides, the size of the capsule does NOT automatically imply extended
frequency response. That's where you were wrong before, and you still
are.



( Better to me but, apparently not the deaf Lorin David Schultz

**** you and the monkey you blow for nickels. You splatter some
ill-informed old wives' tales that betray some room for improvement in
the area of understanding how microphones work, and *I'M* the one who
needs a hearing check? Tell you what Chuckles, let's see you
demonstrate a little understanding of the subject, then you can insult
me.

You wanna clear out some of the cobwebs that are clouding your
judgement? Try this:

Take your $99 Chinese LARGE diaphragm mic and put it up against ANY
Neumann SMALL diaphragm mic (I don't even care which one) on a real
piano. Tell me which one sounds better.

Now make the test tougher: take that large diaphragm FET47 and put in on
a picked acoustic guitar. Compare it to a small diaphragm Schoeps and
tell me which sounds better.

Large diaphragms are not a magic bullet, and the fact that a mic has a
large diaphragm does NOT mean it has wider frequency response or even a
better curve. It's one design consideration among dozens that all trade
off against each other to achieve certain design goals.

My comment meant that someone who calls him/herself "tech guru" should
know that. Now you do.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:19:01 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Take your $99 Chinese LARGE diaphragm mic and put it up against ANY
Neumann SMALL diaphragm mic (I don't even care which one) on a real
piano. Tell me which one sounds better.

Now make the test tougher: take that large diaphragm FET47 and put in on
a picked acoustic guitar. Compare it to a small diaphragm Schoeps and
tell me which sounds better.

Let's keep on-topic, we're discussing vocal mics.
You can defeat tech guru without resorting to straw man arguments :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

tech guru wrote:

Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57.

What are the specific differences between those two mics?

--
ha

I am so glad that - Lorin David Schultz is in the control room making
even bad news sound good. You are probably some little local market
master contol operator that deals with lavs all day and has never heard
a real microphone or been in a real recording studio.
According to your quote you like it loud so that might contribute to
your hearing loss that you apparently have. Also your attitude is
horrible when correcting people, so what if I didnt explain my self
very well it didnt deserve a tounge lashing from you with your horrible
language, try to be a little more pro about things it might get you
father.

tech guru wrote:

I am so glad that - Lorin David Schultz is in the control room making
even bad news sound good. You are probably some little local market
master contol operator that deals with lavs all day and has never heard
a real microphone or been in a real recording studio.
According to your quote you like it loud so that might contribute to
your hearing loss that you apparently have. Also your attitude is
horrible when correcting people, so what if I didnt explain my self
very well it didnt deserve a tounge lashing from you with your horrible
language, try to be a little more pro about things it might get you
father.

To what are you replying? Your reply is tagged to my post, but I see no
answer to the question I posed. Let's try this again.

hank alrich wrote:

tech guru wrote:

Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57.

What are the specific differences between those two mics?

I thought you were going to talk about mics.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote...
To what are you replying? Your reply is tagged to my post,
but I see no answer to the question I posed. Let's try this again.

His newsgroup skills seem similar to his technical
expertiese, despite the alias. Good trolling, though. :-)

tech guru wrote:

Well what do you like the sound of better a FET 47 or a SM-57.

On what? On snare drum or rack tom? 57 all day long.

Yes it depends on the application

Damn right it does.

but I can bet that in a blind test over a 57
and a large diaphragm mic you ear is going to like the response of the
large better,

Maybe, maybe not. Blind test on what? Like you said, it depends on the
application.

and that would be in part to the freq response of the
mic. SM-57 40 to 15,000 Hz or a FET 47 20 to 20,000 Hz.

In part, but in reality, frequency response is a very small part of the
reason various mics sound different. And since this discussion was
initiated due to your misstatement regarding diaphragm size, I'll point out
that not only do many modern dynamics boast a 20 - 20K frequency response,
but diaphragm size has exactly zero to do with frequency response.

And how did we get to talking about U-47s any way? The OP asked about large
condensers by "Behringer, MXR, Audio Technica, or Studio Projects" in the
"$100 or less" range. Given that constraint, an SM57 pretty much mops the
floor with the whole class. (Except "maybe" the AT2020 & that's
debateable.)

"tech guru" wrote:

You are probably some little local market

I dunno, does Vancouver count as a "little local market?" It's the
second largest market in Canada (well, now that I think about it,
Montreal *might* be bigger, but I can't be sure since I can't understand
what they're saying when they tell me the stats).

Of course, being the second biggest market in Canada is kinda like
parking your full-size pickup next to a Kenworth lot... the boys next
door tend to be a touch bigger.



master contol operator

C'mon, I'm posting here and reading your messages, so obviously I'm not
in a coma. You *know* that means I can't be an MCO.

So what do YOU do, oh mighty guru of all things technical?

Never mind, I don't care.



that deals with lavs all day

Uh huh. You better believe it baby. Toughest gig I've ever had. YOU
try balancing the phasing and comb filtering from having half a dozen
open mics within a few feet of each other and constantly moving. Then
add a live audience with mics and foldback. Balance leakage from the
audience and foldback getting into the talent mics when you bring them
up and suddenly disappearing when you take them out. Balance the room
ambience from a live band getting into the lavs and audience mics on a
glass and tile set that sounds like ****, then having to pull them out
without the viewer even noticing the sound has changed. Live music is
downright predictable compared to trying to guess who's gonna talk and
when.

Getting it all to work *at all* is a challenge by itself. Getting it
all to sound good takes skill, timing, practice and luck. Ask Will...
talk shows are unbelievably challenging.

Wanna talk about stuff where the mic can't be visible, so you have to
bury it but still keep the dialogue intelligible? How about live news
where you have dozens of sources and multiple discrete mixes to handle
simultaneously, in a setting that requires to-the-second timing with no
rehearsal and no chance for a second try?

Errors of a couple dB here and there and a quarter second here and there
are enough to get you banned from a national show. It takes quick hands
and intense concentration. So, if your comment about dealing with lavs
all day was supposed to be belittling or an insult, you missed the mark.
I'm sure there are some gigs that are less demanding, but major national
shows are NOT simple or easy.



and has never heard a real microphone

Whaddaya wanna wager I *own* better mics than you've ever used?

Do you really want to do a comparison of credits here? Are you sure you
want that?



or been in a real recording studio.

If I hope I never have to again, does that count? The hours suck, and
working with meat puppets is MUCH easier than wrangling musicians, which
a colleague once likened to herding kittens.

Actually I do still pop into commercial rooms from time to time, to
track drums for example, but not as often as I used to. I now just do
it for fun rather than food.

There's one really sweet room in town that has an API console and a
great room that sits practically unused since they turned their business
focus to production music and jingle work. Instead of banging sampled
drums into a sequencer with a MIDI keyboard, I just go there and get big
fat yummy drums for real.



According to your quote you like it loud so that might contribute to
your hearing loss that you apparently have.

Sorry, whadyousay? SPEAK UP!!!

I hear fine. I can't hear the ultrasonic client direction system at the
bank like I could when I was 18 (thank God), but my Audiologist told me
to get out and quit wasting her time, so I must be okay.



Also your attitude is horrible when correcting people

Garrett, I don't give **** One whether you like me, my attitude or the
way you got corrected. All I care about is making sure myths don't
perpetuate, because *I* have to deal with the bull**** they cause when
clients walk in with their heads pumped full of misinformation ("Dood,
you got any, like, tubular mics?").

Besides, you're obviously deserving of it, since you STILL haven't
conceded any error even though you're obviously wrong. You've chosen to
respond with insults rather than make any effort to improve your
understanding. Nobody knows everything (the longer I hang around here,
the more I discover how much I still have to learn -- thanks Hank!), but
staying stupid on purpose will exponentially increase your chances of
being taunted a second time, you silly English ka-niggit.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)