all the lies

If everyone had an identical mic collection - would we all have the same favourite?
When it comes to preferences for different microphones, I have definitely found it to be an exercise in subjectivity. My answer would be “no, definitely not.”

When I upgraded from my $30 Amazon condenser mic to an AT2035, I was blown away. Obviously there’s going to be a difference there. Eventually, I sold that mic after reading up on various large diaphragm condensers. A lot of baritones and other people with voices similar to my own were happy with the NT1. In my recording room, with my baritone voice, I am very happy with it. It sets a nice foundation any subtle tweaks I want to make. I happen to really like it for my acoustic guitar, too, especially through a tube preamp.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the SM7B when I tested it for lead vocals, but I’ve heard so many excellent recordings with that mic. I’m sure there are baritones who like it.

I really liked your point about the mic EQ response curve, too. It’s just like how you can get a Marshall tone out of a fender style circuit by boosting the mids with a tube screamer. Or how the sm57 and 58 are the same exact mic with a slightly differently positioned diaphragm and a different grill/screen. Just to build on that, I got the Beta 58A for live performances because the EQ response gives a slight boost in the hi-mids as compared to the normal 58, which I have found helps to minimize setup time and eq tweaking for small gigs. The hypercardioid pickup pattern has been really useful, too.

And then there’s usability. I really liked how the AT2035 had a 10db cut switch and a high pass switch. It made gain staging easier, and it was nice to get rid of the stuff below 60hz for those tracks where I knew it wasn’t going to be used. That has nothing to do with the sound, because I could do that stuff with other equipment too, but it sure made the process just a little bit easier!
 
no brother, when i say hardware, I am talking about outgear. Compressors, limiters, effects, etc, that are actual units, not software plugins...remember im the old guy, so im using semantics you cool kids dont use anymore..sorry for being so out of touch
Dude, what you said was "What I meant was that Protools, which is a killer editing tools, was never designed to be a recording device. It was made to edit, so the A/D convertors are shit"
And I said what I did - ProTools is NOT A/D converters or ANY hardware. You're putting down PT and then talking about other things entirely.
 
Let me just say that im tired of watching the industry pros lie to up and comers just to take their money, and then give them a promise that cant possibly be achoeved even by an old pro like me. I started engineering on my first record deal in 1990. I cut my teeth at Westlake, Musical Animal, Trax, etc on mostly rap groups like Public Enemy, The College Boys, Biz Markie, and Little Easy E and his crew,..I met him before he died. God rest his very kind soul. After 30 years and many records, I have watched what was once an unknown skill become a multi-mullion dollar income for guys like Chris lord Al, Bob Clearmountain, etc, and most of it is well deserved. These guys make your songs radio ready. But when i speak to interns at my recording studio who are spending thousands on Masterclasses on the net and plug-ins that promise to deliver the "low end" of Chris lord alge (who by the way wouldnt know shit if it wasnt for the very kind man of bob clearmountain who taught him for free), then they tell me what was said...it pisses me off. I did a little research and got even more upset. I dont care about money, and what Chris LA can do for your song is worth every dollar he gets paid and beyond. However, getting paid for promises that cant possibly be delivered by the information your giving for the money is thievery. " Just ghets this plugin" they are told and you bass will thump. Just do this and thats All! Lies. No names mentioned, because it isnt all of them, and the right to keep your secrets as a trade is every mans right. But when very kind men (like bob clearmountain) are handing out knowledge to interns out of the kindness of their heart, and then that future pro charges for it isnt wrong in itself. We all have to eat and create a business. Where the wrong is done is is when the paid pro is saying" I just use a 1176 plugin on my bass at 4:1 fast attack and release with about 3 db reduction on parallel and thats it...get my plug-in" and they are lying...same thing as holding a gun up and robbing.I know some people are going to be pissed, but since im not selling a product, you can beliueve me. The next time your lied to, email me and Ill tell you how to get what youre looking for. The nerve of someone to do that so money can be made, and secrets are kept in selfish gain (especially when ost of them learned from a kind pro while they were making 5 dollars an hour as an intern) just makes me burn. So here are a couple quick hints next time a salesman is trying to dig into your pocket without giving you any of the air they breathe. The picture of a salesmans studio has a computer and a Pro tools screen (i call it pro-stools because the degradation to any sound wave when recorded is so bad it shocks me anyone uses it-try Reaper or Logic. The A/D converters are far superior. Hell, try audacity before you Pro-Stool up your music). Although, the picture of their studio is not what they are using. You see, Killers mixers have a sound- like the Neve 80 series i cut my teeth on, and the API counsel..the one with the double master pot, and that sound is a large part of what youre final product sounds like. Its not that you cant mix without on and get a hit...you can easily, but when the absolute hugeness of an instrument mixed through a Neve counsel with killer outgear hits your face, you realize quickly that the onboard compression of a 33609 on a bass channel paralleled to a blackface 1176 and a pultec on bus will destroy any sound you can get on protools with a waves plugin, period! A Telefunkin elam through a 1073 (screw it, a focusrite Red 8 is unreal) with the eQ engaged just to roll everything off below 50 cycles and give it the color straight from God and a 1176 silver face just to grab the peaks(or an LA 2A-but be prepared to loose some highs, although with the presence bump at 15k of the Elam, you never really had to worry about it) , never will you again believe the promises of these charlatans who tell you "just take my class or buy my plugin and youll sound like me" again. They dont mention that theyre using hardware, not software, using boards with a sound, not computer screens with a one dimensional depth. Yes they all edit and use computers, but (no name mentioned) when a detroit artist is stopping by to record, and send a group he signed to also record, at my studio because i have 2 inch tape, yet the credits on the record say digitally recorded and mastered, thats when all you new puppies out there can understand why you get so damn frustrated when your hip hop track sounds like it was recorded with toy sounds from a 50 dollar plastic casio keyboard instead of like a Tupac joint. And thats ok if your an artist keeping secrets...but not when your a salesman all over the net, getting rich, yet refusing to tell the truth. What happened to this business? Why cant they just say " sorry kid...i told the truth when i said digitally recorded and mastered, but what i didnt tell you was i hit tape first, then dumped it to my computer so i would have the low end shift on me when mixing like tape tends to do, and i used all hardware pres and outgear on the intake, not plug-ins, used my neve counsel for the 1081's and an extra stage of gain so i could have the control I wanted when gain staging, and also for the enormous fat colored huge professional sound it gives to my instruments when tracking, mixed it with all hardware outgear, not a single cheap plugin, because there is no way you can touch my pultecs and API eqs, My huge rack of vintage Urie comps, my Variable-Mu on the drum buss and my Shadow Hills on the master bus,... and oh yeah, I also had Bob Ludwig master it so i could run it half analog, or all analog--ok, now do you want to buy my master class or my 40 dollar waves plug-in so "your tracks will slam just like____?". Yes, im going overboard, but it really hurts me that this is going on. These kids come in my studio, and many of them are spending money they dot have because they actually believe this class of plugin will make the promises come to life! Look , Im not saying these arent good things, they are. I prefer UAD, but i love a ton of my waves plug-ins. They do deliver and keep their promises...its many of the guys turning the knobs that dont. I watched an interview (no name) by one of these pros after my intern told me he payed for a class to learn a specific thing...everything he was told was a half truth, and the interview was laughable. " I just do this -explanation- and thats why i get $10,000 a song from the majors...everything he said was true..except he told you the beginning and then conveniently left out the next 75% of how he gets his guitar sound. An example of of how much is actually left out can simply be stated like this. If im mixing a release and it happens to be a rock cut with heavy guitars--count on seeing me break a power rhythm guitar into three separate tracks just for the EQ..yep..just so i have the control i want on the lows, mids, and highs of that particular instrument, and thats just EQ. Never will you be told this. If ive got a rock song that is basically 4 instruments and thats it, Ill carry my low end by having two bass tracks panned 9 and 3 with inter-playing comps attack and release, Fast/slow left, Slow/fast right kinda thing. This is just a very small example so that you can envision how bad the lies are. Ok, so im donme, and im sure the backlash will be horrifying, but i dont care. To all you pros making promises for money you know cant be kept, my email will be wide open to any newbie who wants to know how to do something...and ill give it like i got it...for free
yep, im 3yrs in and discovering tht they arent revealing the real techniques. i am currently in search of a mentor, but, have stepped out on the lonely journey of learning the real techniques.
 
no brother, when i say hardware, I am talking about outgear. Compressors, limiters, effects, etc, that are actual units, not software plugins...remember im the old guy, so im using semantics you cool kids dont use anymore..sorry for being so out of touch
"What I meant was that Protools, which is a killer editing tools, was never designed to be a recording device. It was made to edit, so the A/D convertors are shit"

I know it's one small point out of many in your post but ProTools is software - A/D converters are hardware.
If you compare Repear to Protools on the same rig, you're using the same A/D hardware. I think that was mjbphotos' point.

The average age around here might surprise you, btw. The 'cool kids' aren't on forums. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
Can anyone come up with any descriptive words to describe the differences between mics that make any sense? We have published response curves and then when we hear a mic, we try to either use bland and often badly misunderstood words like warm, hard, thin, full, bright, detailed etc. We all use them frequently and while I know what warm means in my head - I'm not convinced others have the same understanding. So many of these differences are completely removed with very gentle EQ. We recommend mics to others non-stop, and often the people recommending them do so totally in the dark. Mic XYZ might work on one voice in one recording space amazingly well. It could be terrible on a different voice, in a different space. It's a matching exercise you do in places you know. You put out the mic of first choice and it doesn't work, so you try something else till the magic match happens. See don't do that - we prescribe like a doctor on Facebook. When you see somebody using a mic oddly - doing something the rule book never mentions, or worse, warns you off, why don't we ask if it works? If it does, re-write the rule book.

We know how a Strat sounds different from a Tele and that from a LP - but we are doing the thing the guitar addicts do - start to tell people that it's not just a Tele you need, but only the ones made on a Tuesday in January with the load of timber that got left out in the rain for a week. Seriously - why don't people buy mics from dealers who take them back, so they can pick one they like. I've had surprises and disappointments and my list of mics bought because somebody recommended them without me knowing what they record, where they record and how they record, is thankfully small. Funny how even famous world respected engineers and producers change their opinions once a sponsorship deal is on the cards. AT took great care in placing their mics with 'influencers' - even before that term had been invented. Before we had parametric EQ, some desks were selected simply because their EQ centre frequencies were better thought out.

If everyone had an identical mic collection - would we all have the same favourite?
IMHO any time someone suggests a mic for a particular purpose they should be able to post a 30 second recording of said instrument and mic with a pic preferably. They don't have to have it in there post but it should be available for posting if someone askes.

I have 5 acoustic guitars, 13 electric guitars and 4 bass guitars and NONE of them sounds the same with the same mic setup, amp setup, etc. And WHERE the instrument is being played has a huge effect on which mic will work. And as for amp sims the amount of tonal variety available with Impulse Responses is beyond imagination.

I will say that I have found they are some semi "universal" descriptions of popular mics(though there are still variances" for instance the classic AT 4050 has a relatively uncolored accurate sound that makes it a good general work horse LDC.
 
I think we should be able to suggest things we’ve had experience of, especially if the experience runs against the usual flow. I fear so much we read and even hear is audio hearsay, with a good dose of misinformation thrown in.

if you were AKG, and designed a microphone that coukd be powered by phantom or batteries, could be cardioid or hyper cardioid what would you feel like when the entire audio world says it’s rubbish, even to extent that it makes a better hammer than a microphone. I’ve wondered this for years and in my old exam world heard hundreds of truly awful sound recordings made with them. BUT…. So often recordings were also attached to photos and they showed exactly why these mics did such a bad job. They needed very careful placement and alignment, because some people were able to get good results from them. That is not very different from many mics. You can wave a Shure 57 vaguely in the direction of a sound source and it is hard to get a truly bad result. As I’ve discovered with my U87, it does not guarantee a good sound on everything. We also do video work, and used to do lots outside, so we have all sorts of shotgun mics laying around. Short, medium and stupidly long ones. On video forums, their universal advice is never use them inside, but this I believe is simply because it’s easy to get bad results, but if you put them in the right place, they can be pretty good.

I’m thinking about maybe a video might work for demonstrating mics. ive got a SM7b setup at the moment, but if I swap it for another mic, for comparison, it wont be in the right/optimum place, so comparisons get confusing. What I could do would be to set up a swivel chair, and set up a mic for each camera location, so maybe even use the shotguns too, then when the thing is edited, you hear the mic matched to what you see, with each one at the best place, for the design. Sitting a U87 next to a 57, next to an AKG etc just gives you the frequency response curve you can google? Siting them at the best distance for each mic might let some shine, and maybe reveal those that are sort of bland, or difficult. I can’t find any YouTube videos that take placement very seriously. I’ve done myself mic comparisons that made them all sound very similar, and maybe we’re missing the point.

we all look at videos and say that mic is too far away, that one is too close, etc i‘ve got a couple of days to experiment as the job starting Monday is pretty well set up, and the studio is empty over the weekend.
 
I spent some time today fiddling - and discovered something accidentally. I stuck up the SM7B and thought I'd start the collection of videos by a comparison with a 57. As expected the 57 was a little lightweight. I didn't go for the very close lips on the foam perspective, a bit further away. The first experiments made me think a bit. I wondered if I could EQ the 57 to sound similar to the SM7B and I got really close, just be adding a bit of LF boost. So close that I got one of the early versions mixed up and couldn't work out which was which. The video then sort of shifted into a why buy an SM7B if with very simple EQ, a 57 can sound the same. Then, being a smart arse, I then chopped up the audio and switched between the 57 and SM7B at convenient silent points - before revealing it later on.

I know I'm not a huge lover of the SM7B, but this has convinced me that with all the messing around with coudlifters, it's really just a warmer 57 - and that can be fixed with moderate EQ.

Now I've done the 57, I'll do more with the SM7B for continuity, and then try whatever mics I can collect together to see what works badly or well.

The choice I can sort should cover spoken voice pretty well - so maybe I should try a bit of acoustic guitar and try some of the things we have discussed on here? Acoustic with one or two mics of different types, to prove/disprove what works and what doesn't do so well.

If I list the mics that are available - would anyone like to suggest things they've tried that have worked or been a problem. I'm not remotely a brilliant guitarist but I can manage enough to make it work. Also - do you think I should keep it dry, or do a second version with reverb, or even a track of some kind? I wish I could play like Mr Quango, but sadly, I can't. I'm thinking maybe a few mismatches might be good too, as a don't do this if anyone can think of common things. So one mic and stereo reverb, or two mics for sound hole and neck, or what? I'm not sure the subtle differences will be obvious - but should I do one mic or setup per video, or would it be better to pick big differences? Like an SM58 - a vocal mic people short of dosh often have to use on guitars? and compare it with a cheap condenser? What would be best?

Dynamics Available
Shure 57, 58, 48, 7B
AKG 190, 202, 112
Beyer 201, M58
Sennheiser 604

Condensers
AKG 414, 451
Shure 87
Samson C01 (LDC) C02 (SDC)
Oktava MK-319
Neumann 103, U87, 105

Weird ones - Chinese versions of the AKG 451 and a Neumann 105 counterfeit, plus a 103 that pretends to be 'real' - these were all very cheap and the sort of thing beginners could buy on purpose, or accidentally?

If anyone would like any of these as comparisons - I'd be happy to mix and match. Some I have never tried on an acoustic guitar, so I don't know how they'll perform.

I'm up for challenges so with this lot available with a bit of collecting, I can put most things together - apart from the 6 string acoustic, I can grab a Spanish style, a 12 string, various saxophones and a clarinet if you would like more acoustic instruments in the experiment. I do have a flute and a trumpet - but I'm rubbish at playing them! If pushed, I could also bring a double bass if anyone really wanted to hear how that faired with certain mic combinations. The first video was all talk - so I'd like to get music into the next = and if all the talk about mics is boring, I could always expand to certain VSTis I suppose, although the MacBook there isn't that well kitted out with them, but the studio at home is - that would mean setting up more video stuff which would be a pain, and the net already has some very good VSTi videos.

Here's the link to the SM7B vs SM57.
 
Not sure if I have any truly tiny ones - but the short shotguns on some of the broadcast cameras could be tried - the Sonys, JVCs and Panasonics all seem to use a common type with different OEM branding? They could work? I've never tried to use those as conventional mics, but they'd be interesting to try.
 
I think we should be able to suggest things we’ve had experience of, especially if the experience runs against the usual flow. I fear so much we read and even hear is audio hearsay, with a good dose of misinformation thrown in.

if you were AKG, and designed a microphone that coukd be powered by phantom or batteries, could be cardioid or hyper cardioid what would you feel like when the entire audio world says it’s rubbish, even to extent that it makes a better hammer than a microphone. I’ve wondered this for years and in my old exam world heard hundreds of truly awful sound recordings made with them. BUT…. So often recordings were also attached to photos and they showed exactly why these mics did such a bad job. They needed very careful placement and alignment, because some people were able to get good results from them. That is not very different from many mics. You can wave a Shure 57 vaguely in the direction of a sound source and it is hard to get a truly bad result. As I’ve discovered with my U87, it does not guarantee a good sound on everything. We also do video work, and used to do lots outside, so we have all sorts of shotgun mics laying around. Short, medium and stupidly long ones. On video forums, their universal advice is never use them inside, but this I believe is simply because it’s easy to get bad results, but if you put them in the right place, they can be pretty good.

I’m thinking about maybe a video might work for demonstrating mics. ive got a SM7b setup at the moment, but if I swap it for another mic, for comparison, it wont be in the right/optimum place, so comparisons get confusing. What I could do would be to set up a swivel chair, and set up a mic for each camera location, so maybe even use the shotguns too, then when the thing is edited, you hear the mic matched to what you see, with each one at the best place, for the design. Sitting a U87 next to a 57, next to an AKG etc just gives you the frequency response curve you can google? Siting them at the best distance for each mic might let some shine, and maybe reveal those that are sort of bland, or difficult. I can’t find any YouTube videos that take placement very seriously. I’ve done myself mic comparisons that made them all sound very similar, and maybe we’re missing the point.

we all look at videos and say that mic is too far away, that one is too close, etc i‘ve got a couple of days to experiment as the job starting Monday is pretty well set up, and the studio is empty over the weekend.
One point that you seem to have skipped is the room. I would say add a description or a few stills to each vid showing the room or space clearly. My 2c
 
If everyone had an identical mic collection - would we all have the same favourite?
Back in the old days, most studios would have had a collection of similar mics - a U87, maybe a U47, C414's, C451's MD421's, SM57's and maybe SM58's would have been the core with a few others thrown in. Older studios would have had a collection of valve mics but they would still be from the well established manufacturers and (in my experience) not a million miles from their transistor equivalents. Some years ago I compared a valve U47 with the FET version that I own and, while they were different, it was easy to eq out the differences by just adding a little high frequency boost to the FET mic. The capsule design is the really important thing here.

If you look at old studio films from the 70's you would think that the U87 was the only mic to be found in a recording studio - they're everywhere. There's a good reason too - they just work in everything and instantly give you "that" sound - the sound of a record.
 
Good video. You keep this up and your videos will be just like the infamous SOS preamp test where an ART Pro MPAII preamp and Mackie VLZ pro scored higher in some cases than Neve and API preamps! The audio Illuminati will find some excuse for why you're wrong.

One thing that I do with mics is to play a tambourine. It's a bit like the shaking keys test. It really shows me the differences in high frequency response and clarity. I suspect a good cymbal would tell me similar things, but the tambourine makes it more obvious. Piano is great for showing how the mic records the body of the instrument. Acoustic guitar does too, but you have a smaller window before the sound changes because of positioning. The double bass would be cool too.
 
The question of testing different instruments with the SM7B and 57 makes me wonder something else—what makes the 57 different from a cheap dynamic karaoke mic? Barring durability, etc—purely focused on the recorded sound.

I feel like an answer to that question, in conjunction with testing those two Shure mics across different instruments and sound sources, rooms, etc, might help answer the larger research question of “what, if anything, creates a difference in electrical signal output between the SM7B and 57 that you can’t be eliminated with EQ?”

I rarely see technical discussions that are this productive and thoughtful on forums. I am Definitely enjoying the read!
 
Max,

A dynamic mic is much like a speaker, except in reverse. It's a coil moving in a magnetic field. The way the coil is wound, how the diaphragm is designed and how it is set in the magnet, plus how the mic chamber is designed will all have some effect on the sound. If you have ever compared different speakers, like in a guitar amp, you know that they vary drastically in their sound. Just because it's a 12" speaker doesn't mean that a Jensen sounds like a Celestion or an Eminence.

I have several dynamics, SM57, Senn 835 and 935, and CAD TSM411. They sound quite different. My preference is the Sennheiser for doing live vocal work, although they can all work.

You might want to spend time reading this Sticky thread in Microphones. Harvey Gerst did a lot of explaining of different mic properties, and how they work.
Diaphragm and polar pattern thread.
 
Ive watched the promos and the interviews. They dont just say pay me and ill give you some tech tips. They sell their plug-ins and classes with the promo " get this plug-in and your bass will thump like Lord Alge", and so you do.

Hey man, I get what you're saying. But isn't this advertising thing...the selling of the sizzle, not the steak, basically universal, across the board and common to basically all advertising? Essentially this is what advertising is. Overwhelmingly they don't sell a product they sell you an idea...an idea that you then turn over and over in your mind...building it up...it's the idea they sell. Your foolish (let's say) imagination does the rest. This is key advertising strategy.

Yeah it's sad to see audio going that way. But when you have a few bucks and you start hiring these ad agencies...they know how to butter the bread. They know how to sell right into your imagination. It is sleazy in many ways. It's dishonest and immoral. But the world has gone that way at great pace since WW2. I mean I don't wanna get into it. But...yeah...you're right...the sale...the pitch...it is always designed to get into your mind and imagination. From that point it's YOU who sells it to yourself...based on, kind of, the weakness of your logical mind.

If you're still around... old stager, I want to ask you a question. You said you'd offer advice if anyone wanted to ask.
 
Hmm good points. I like the idea of the room component. The video yesterday was shot in the video area it’s a 9ft ceiling height which is a bit low and I bang my head on the lights, but the only sound treatment are the various cloths hanging on the edges. There are thin, sheet like cloths in green, white and blue, and black, and some heavy Bolton twill blacks. They’re all permanently hanging and just the order gets changed so on the three sides you can see there is at least two layers on each wall. Floor is hard as is ceiling. The area behind the cameras continues for about 10m to the office area. So apart from those drapes, no proper treatment at all.behind the drapes on the far wall is a 6ft gap full of flight cases floor to ceiling across the width.

I’ll see if I can record a voice clip here with a 7B in two areas of the studio, one treated, and one with nasty hard walls I stuck in for a green screen project before we had the new building, it has a curve which sounds very odd, so maybe that would be a good test? So same voice, same mic and different spaces? I could do a 414 too as thee is one of those at both places. I’ll give it a go.

ive attached a couple of pictures that might make sense. You can also see that my primary work mode is untidy.
 

Attachments

  • 77785726-077A-4A61-B449-FC1F9E23DDB9.png
    77785726-077A-4A61-B449-FC1F9E23DDB9.png
    7 MB · Views: 5
  • 97621FEF-01D0-4FA1-AC39-9E142A31DB24.png
    97621FEF-01D0-4FA1-AC39-9E142A31DB24.png
    6.7 MB · Views: 5
The results were not as prominent as I expected. three mics - 414,SM7B, TLM103 recorded in the deader end and in the green screen end of the studio I have at home. You'll see the very odd arrangement I have but it works really well for me, so while it breaks lots of the rules, has no bass traps, and a curved reflective wall - it does the job. I've attached the files as recorded. no EQ or anything other than normalisation. Interface here is a presonus firepod - and the SM7B did NOT have a cloudlifter - just direct in.

Listening back - if you cut out the bit where I say "this is the XXX" could you pick between them? It's certainly reinforcing my opinion that we are talking about small differences.
I'll attach some pics of the space to let you see what you might be hearing. These are warts and all recordings - a rambling really.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0778.jpg
    IMG_0778.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 4
  • IMG_0779.jpg
    IMG_0779.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 4
  • IMG_0780.jpg
    IMG_0780.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 4
  • IMG_0782.jpg
    IMG_0782.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 4
  • sm7b-103-414 test.mp3
    20.5 MB
Last edited:
The question of testing different instruments with the SM7B and 57 makes me wonder something else—what makes the 57 different from a cheap dynamic karaoke mic? Barring durability, etc—purely focused on the recorded sound.
I spent quite a bit of time (and money) in my younger days optimistically buying cheaper mics in the hope that they would sound as good as they looked. I was lucky with the Beyer M300 which worked well on vocals but then it wasn't that much cheaper than a 58. The Altai 58 lookalike sounded nothing like a 58 - no bass and no treble, just a rather honky midrange.

I understand that things have improved since then and one of the SOS forum members has done a few fairly thorough tests on some of the budget alternatives...

 
Looking forward to going through everything in this thread, Rob, nice work on what you have done so far. I'll definitely check it all out as soon as I can. I saw some of your video but I ran out of time

You own the U87, surely you would rather use that mic for a bedroom production given a choice? (assuming 1 mic throughout the whole production of a typical song) Does it have good low mids and smooth highs like I am led to believe? Something which even if you was to EQ all of the cheaper mics such as the 57 etc to very accurately shape the frequency response the same as the U87, you would still not get close to matching the sound because of the transient response, grit, character etc? I am sure the off axis response will vary wildly but lets just assume we are miking up on axis for everything. Do you think a 57 would be a strong competitor with careful EQ? Maybe a 57 would be a bad example, how about an MD421? I know the 57 can suck for low end below 200, could be difficult to compensate for that with EQ
 
Back
Top