Want To Help Me Pick Out A Mic?

[Xanthus]

Hey all, another question. I'd put this in the Vote section, but honestly, I don't feel like it gets enough attention. Who wants to be bothered to scroll allllll the way down there anyways?

I'm looking to pick up a mic with the money my buddy owes me for a music project, as well as a bit of my own, if need be. I'm looking to pick up a mic with the following specs:

-under $200

-good for inst and vocals (mainly inst)

-i really don't know the difference between dynamic and condenser, so it doesn't matter much

I play jazz and metal, and a bit of jazzmetal, so a mic that can handle some gain would be nice. I'd like to use it for vocals too, if and when I get around to recording anything, but my main concern is a good instrument mid. I made a list based on my own opinions and others I've talked to:

*Electrovoice N/D967 (a brand I've never heard of)

*Audio-Technica AT2041SP 2-pack

*Audix i5 (their vocal mics are awesome)

*AKG Perception 220

*Shure SM57 (clearly)

The Shure is the old standby for most of the world. I'm a big fan of not using whatever equipment the "others" are using, so I'd like to shy away from this if at all possible. I've picked a mic from a few of the big names, trying to cover all my bases. All are under $200, with the EV being the most expensive. The AT 2-pack is pretty cool, seeing as 2 mics are better than one. The EV was recommended to me by a guy at GC. I don't know how much water that holds, but still, thought I'd throw it out there. Any thoughts, anyone?

[Thoughtless 7]

The Shure is the old standby for most of the world. I'm a big fan of not using whatever equipment the "others" are using, so I'd like to shy away from this if at all possible.

No offence, but that's kind of stupid. If it does its job well and the majority of people use it and its been used on hundreds, if not thousands of albums then why not use it? Being different for the sake of being different is pointless.

That being said, have you looked at the Shure Beta57a?

[curtisa]

I prefer the Audix i5 on electric guitars to the SM57.

You will need to know the basic differences between dynamic and condensor to a degree. As a very general rule of thumb dynamic mikes will handle higher sound pressure levels without destruction, but have a more limited frequency response. Condensor mikes are more fragile, won't take punishment as easily, and require phantom power from the mike preamp, but have more sensitivity to lower sound pressure levels and a broader frequency response. Some condensor mikes will run on batteries, so that can be used to your advantage if your mike preamp doesn't provide phantom power.

Because of their robustness dynamics are ideally suited to close-miked drums and cranked guitar cabs. Condensors, with their extended high frequency response are ideal for acoustic instruments, cymbals and vocals.

If you can stretch your budget a little more, theres also the Shure SM-7. It's a dynamic mike, but a lot of people favour it on vocals aswell. Devin Townsend uses it a lot on his albums, and James Hetfield can be seen using one on the Metallica documentary that came out a couple of years back.

[fryovanni]

A couple things about the mics. You mentioned your not sure about dynamic vs condensor. There is a huge difference. A condensor is much more sensitive, it requires phantom power, is not really a good choice in a less controlled environment(such as stage, better in the studio). A dynamic con handle higher sound pressure, and is more focused on the source, you can get in closer to a speaker/drum head or what have you. You usually want your mic to capture the sound that is present as accuratly as possible, although sometimes special preamps on condensors or a mic that may favor a particular range may be desirable. The beauty of the 57 is that they are accurate for many instruments range, they are durable and can take some stage abuse. There is a reason why you are not likely to find a studio that does not have several of them, and they are the most popular rented mic. Don't take that as they are less unique for your personal sound. Take it as they will accurately capture the unique sound you produce, lets face it your not playing your mic, it is more like your guitars cable. When you consider the price of a 57, it is really a natural choice for a first mic.

If you have a cage full of mics, and your just looking for a mic to use occasionally in the studio(possibly for some effect or special micing, then you can start searching for condensors. If this is going to be a vocalists personal mic, then they need to go do some searching, and trying out many mics.

Peace,Rich

[Xanthus]

@Thoughtless7: Man, thinking outside of the box is so hard. Going along with the crowd is so easy!

@Rich and Curtis: Thanks for the quick info on condenser vs dynamic. That's basically the gist of what I already knew; condensers are fragile things. Luckily I've got phantom power, so supplying the mic isn't much of a concern. Because my gear seems to never come off scot-free during a move, gig, organizing, what-have-you (I swear, it's not me!) the condensers might be out of the picture. If I get some free time this week, I'll go down to the GC and sound test some mics. I think they have most of the ones I listed.

[Thoughtless 7]

@Thoughtless7: Man, thinking outside of the box is so hard. Going along with the crowd is so easy!

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a conformist, but when something has been proven and fits with all your requirements, its hard NOT to go along with it.

[Geo]

The SM57 has a mid-heavy frequency response, making it (to my ears) unacceptable for studio vocals. I've used it for that, but had to increase the high EQ (around 7k if I remember right) to take away the muffled sound. It's decent for recording guitar IMO, but...

I've used the AKG Perception 100 (the next model down from the 220 you mentioned, I think) and I highly recommend it for studio vocals and studio electric guitar. Both sounded WAY better than with the SM57, as the condenser has a lot more "presence" and "sparkle". The AKG is also way better for acoustic guitar... the SM was horrible for acoustic. That said... those are just about the ONLY mikes I've used for recording, so my knowledge is quite limited.

If you want the mike for live work, go with the SM57. I use it for live vocals and the mid-heaviness doesn't really matter because it's loud, so no one can hear the difference. The SM57 is very feedback resistant. I have to put it right in front of my Bassman (which I run it through) with the volume on 8 or 9 to get any hint of feedback. Usually I have it ~10ft away and angled slightly and there's no problem at all.

[fryovanni]

The SM57 has a mid-heavy frequency response, making it (to my ears) unacceptable for studio vocals. I've used it for that, but had to increase the high EQ (around 7k if I remember right) to take away the muffled sound. It's decent for recording guitar IMO, but...

I've used the AKG Perception 100 (the next model down from the 220 you mentioned, I think) and I highly recommend it for studio vocals and studio electric guitar. Both sounded WAY better than with the SM57, as the condenser has a lot more "presence" and "sparkle". The AKG is also way better for acoustic guitar... the SM was horrible for acoustic. That said... those are just about the ONLY mikes I've used for recording, so my knowledge is quite limited.

If you want the mike for live work, go with the SM57. I use it for live vocals and the mid-heaviness doesn't really matter because it's loud, so no one can hear the difference. The SM57 is very feedback resistant. I have to put it right in front of my Bassman (which I run it through) with the volume on 8 or 9 to get any hint of feedback. Usually I have it ~10ft away and angled slightly and there's no problem at all.

Interesting observations. The AKG 100 has a fairly flat responce curveAKG link(good for a clean even less colored responce, very good for studio mics). The 57 has a curve like this-57. The 58's curve58's curve is slightly different(dip in the range that often causes problems with sibilance-around 7K give or take*that varies with the vocalist) and slightly better 10-12K for sparkle and clarity.

In the studio a condensor is much more repsoncive, but of course you have to watch the SPL cause they are not going to take the pressure well. Drums are a great example. I take dynamics in close(near heads, or in the kick) but prefer condensors for OH's capture cymbals. Nice thing about condensors is that you can capture more of the room dynamics also. Condensors tand to favor close in micing(less of the room is captured, which is ideal for live or isolating).

Peace,Rich

[Geo]

The SM response curves are interesting. They don't have the shape I would expect from how it "sounds" to me. The spike in the high K area should provide "clarity/sparkle" (I would think). Perhaps my experience of the SM57 sounding muddy for recording had more to do with the direction? I know the 57 is unidirectional.

take dynamics in close(near heads, or in the kick) but prefer condensors for OH's capture cymbals.

Yep, exactly.

[bluesy]

I'm a big fan of not using whatever equipment the "others" are using, so I'd like to shy away from this if at all possible.

Well, I wanted something with a little more fidelity than the average stage mic I was used to, but a big delicate stduio mic wasn't really what I wanted either.

I bought a cheap LD condenser mic, the Behringer C1

It is quite solid and probably will survive more knocks than the more expensive studio mics. If it doesn't, well it was cheap anyway (under $50)

It really has a nice sound though.

Edited July 1, 2008 by bluesy

[fryovanni]

The SM response curves are interesting. They don't have the shape I would expect from how it "sounds" to me. The spike in the high K area should provide "clarity/sparkle" (I would think). Perhaps my experience of the SM57 sounding muddy for recording had more to do with the direction? I know the 57 is unidirectional.

Hearing is a funny thing. None of us hear all frequencies equally. No mic tracks absolutely flat, then again who knows what the sound system it is played on will do to the sound(just about every device is going to alter things a bit). Very High frequencies and very low frequencies tend to be harder to hear. If you hear loud sounds for a short period, you will lose your ability to hear to a degree(temp. unless you did some damage). You could almost think of it like your hearing is being re-equalized daily. If you have ever had a guy play his guitar loud and then listen to his track, he will likely want to boost certain frequencies too much, have him do it again and he will want to add more. A totally flat responce will capture what is there, and I think that is best for studio work. I got over trying to "fix" bad tracks with a lot of equalization, compression, and what not. The best recordings are all about the good source, and go figure they are the simplest to track.

Rich

[curtisa]

The SM response curves are interesting. They don't have the shape I would expect from how it "sounds" to me. The spike in the high K area should provide "clarity/sparkle" (I would think). Perhaps my experience of the SM57 sounding muddy for recording had more to do with the direction? I know the 57 is unidirectional.

Looking closer at the plots of the SM57 and SM58, the reason why the 58 works better on vocals than the 57 does is due to the earlier rise in the upper-mid response. The 58 has a circa 3dB rise at 3K, which is exactly where most people perceive "presence" in a spoken voice. The dip at 7K will help tame sibilance on close-miked vocals without ruining overall clarity in the vocal sound.

That said, a person who sings with a particularly strident voice may not need the extra upper-mid help that the SM58 provides, so the SM57 might work better in that application. The same could be said for any miking situation - the combination of the source and the mike (and the position, and the room, and the preamp, and the...) will determine how the result sounds.

I'd suggest borrowing some mikes to experiment with, both condensor and dynamic - it's really down to your own personal preference and what you think works best for your source material.