Dynamic microphone sounds dull.

I can't hear anything above 13K! However - that's plenty high enough for things to still sound good, and perfectly good enough to tell dull from bright. I'm not sure what these 'pros' actually are any more? I note this month in Sound on Sound (the only magazine I've trusted for 30 odd years) super-dooper microphone reviews, and kit maybe these pros might consider essential. The kinds of engineer/producer pros I follow do NOT seem to be following the boutique special preamps, but others certainly are. Gonzo - when you say the 'character for a proper vocal take' I read that as you need to change the sound of a mic, to be acceptable? If that was the meaning, I can't go with that - these preamps that colour the sound are processing in addition to amplification. All I want is the mic sound. I suspect I take the warmth, distortion, coloration, whatever it's called as a negative, not a positive.

I've always liked clean and accurate, and when others were getting concerned about the digital chain being 'bad', and analogue chain good, and tube distortion excellent - I was so happy getting rid of hiss, and distortion. I'd like to think that this is equally valid within a professional category. For me, anything with tubes in will be avoided. I am trying to use the SM7B more, and tried one today on a client - a female voice, and it did pretty well. My interface is perfectly capable of getting low noise performance out of it. My aim is a clean path into the machine. There's a review of the Focusrite Clarett+8Pre in SoS and that's the kind of interface that has a noise figure improvement - EIN of -129dBu, A-weighted, over my interfaces (-125dBu on the Tascam and Presonus) It's about £900, so is that 4dB a killer? No - not for me, it's a gnat's whisker on the gain knob. The other interface I have is -120dBu for the EIN spec, so worse again. I tried to look up a few tube preamps costing lots of money, but oddly, they don't seem to mention EIN making comparision difficult.

I've no beef with people wanting to go down this road, but I won't be joining them!
 
LazerBeakShiek said:
I totally disagree. Tubes. Tubes. More tubes please...I totally hear a difference. How can you not?

For preamp colors, they need to be turned up. Cranked.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a difference, the dispute is over whether the difference is good or not.

Guitar amps, tunes good
Mic preamps, tunes not great.
 
My gear is limited for the mic preamp category. The rack preamp I use is an Aphex 107 tubesence preamp, with a 320A Compellor, 105 gate, and 109 tube parametric. They are transformerless, and together the set bonuses add up for extra clarity. Does instrument, +4 line, and +8 broadcasting. Not sure it counts as a true tube preamp example. As a complete Aphex channel I would recommend it. Probably get the whole thing for $100 bucks on Ebay. Well not that cheap.

Then I use an Apollo USB. That has a bunch of unison models it came with. Avalons, UA's, 1176's, API, Neve..They sound great, but never used the real things to compare.

The Aphex has tubes and sounds amazing!
 
Last edited:
I suspect a lot of people are using preamps like guitar players use Tubescreamers. Saturation seems to be the big "fix it" now. Sweetwater has 458 OD/Distortion/Boost pedals listed. Likewise, they have 35 different tube preamps listed.

Anyone sense a pattern? Once a circuit design is out there, it's not terribly difficult to clone it, have circuit boards made and stuff them into cases.

I understand how a mic might not mate well with some preamps if the load isn't properly matched. The same thing happens with guitar pickups, different preamp loading can change the response of a pickup, but most inputs seem to be designed to a decent medium.
 
rob aylestone said:
What comes out should not need modifying by the preamp in my book. Annoyingly, the SM7B is probably not the mic I have in the top go to mics in my collection.
Click to expand...
I get both sides of this debate but keep in mind it's entirely possible that budget preamps are doing the modifying, and the more expensive ones are not.

I was really disappointed with the 7b when I first got it, using it with the preamps built in to a Digi 003.
Some time later I got a different interface and outboard preamps (nothing fancy) and all of a sudden the 7b sounded much more usable.
Since then it's been goto for vocals.

I totally agree a 7b, or any dynamic, is likely to sound dull compared to pretty much any capacitor microphone,
but it can also sound dull compared to a 7b, and the preamp is most often the culprit.
 
Wouldn't be so bad if the person in that video improved his voice - I'd prefer his before - the after one sounds like the old 70s over compressed mega loud jingles we had on commercial radio - certainly not something to emulate unless you want to sound like a sports commentator talking over racing cars.
 
GONZO-X said:
i bet you can't hear anything above 15k.

preamps can provide the character you really need in a proper vocal take.
that's why pros use the really nice ones, typically. they are looking for that character.
Click to expand...
A lot of popular records sound the way they do because of the character added by outboard gear. The SM7b is a great mic and a staple. It was used for vox on Thriller and many other amazing records. Even before a good preamp, an inline mic amp, like a cloudlifter, will go a long way to getting the most out of the 7b. It gives you clean gain to get a much more practical level going in without increasing the noise floor on your preamp. It's not surprising that anyone using the 7b without a mic activator would underestimate its capabilities. This is a common practice with low level dynamic and ribbon mics. I highly recommend the 7b for anyone recording vocals in an untreated room. It is much more practical than a sensitive condensor and more forgiving.
 
This thread takes me back! I totally get where you're coming from; a dull-sounding microphone can be really frustrating, especially if you're working on voice projects that require crisp and clear audio.

You mentioned that your current mic is the cheapest dynamic one available. While it's tempting to think that all dynamic mics are the same, there can be substantial differences in quality. You might be interested to know that even within the realm of ASMR Microphones, the differences can be night and day. They discuss various factors like frequency response, polar patterns, and even the electrical components that can affect sound quality.
 
Last edited:
I used an SE V7 on a track recently and loved it. It's a dynamic stage vocal mic, built like a tank, and is not dull at all. I think I paid $100 for it. Worth every penny.

If you can afford it, a Rhode NT1 is a good option for studio recording on a budget. I see them used all the time for under $200 and they are excellent value at that price point. If you only have $100, check out the SE X1 or the V7 handheld.
 
Brad_Pit said:
What can you recommend ? I record my voice on a dynamic microphone and it sounds very dull.

PS This is the cheapest dynamic microphone you can buy in the store. But I do not think that the more expensive dynamic microphone will sound differently.
Click to expand...
Some people sound better with a condenser vs. dynamic mic and there is cheap mics on ebay that work just fine.
There are very few dynamics I would record with, but I wouldn't use an SM7 unless it was modified with a dynamic mic transformer, because they were not designed for capacitor coupled mic preamps which most pro audio mic preamps are.

As far as a dynamic mic, the E835 is one of the better dynamic mics to record with. Vocals and guitar. SM57 is a garbage mic even for stage.
 
drtechno said:
Some people sound better with a condenser vs. dynamic mic and there is cheap mics on ebay that work just fine.
There are very few dynamics I would record with, but I wouldn't use an SM7 unless it was modified with a dynamic mic transformer, because they were not designed for capacitor coupled mic preamps which most pro audio mic preamps are.

As far as a dynamic mic, the E835 is one of the better dynamic mics to record with. Vocals and guitar. SM57 is a garbage mic even for stage.
Click to expand...
A Shure SM7 wasn't designed to be used with professional mic preamps???!!!
 
What on earth is a dynamic mic transformer? They're already the correct impedance for most modern interfaces and 'capacitor coupled' make me cringe - Even Shure know the SM7B is a bit low in output for anything other than lips on foam use, hence why cloudlifters are now available fitted internally. These, though are amplifiers, with low noise and good distortion figures - they are not transformers. Even stranger - Sennheiser E835s are pretty well known for being a bit dull sounding - duller than a 57, for example. The 855 is brighter - and the 845 to my ears is pretty nice. I really cannot agree that 57's are garbage - clearly, their popularity and almost rule book use on snares proves it - plus many people loved the sound for singing into. I have two SM7Bs and for years I did not like the sound - far too radio and warm, but then I tried one at a greater distance and I'm a convert now. I'm struggling to hear what you're hearing. I'm lucky enough to have a very large mic collection and there are few dogs - just shades of 'goodness'. My SM7Bs work well in every interface I have tried them on.
 
I got my SM57 almost 20 yrs ago, Then I tried the 835. I now have 3 of them. My E835s are distinctly brighter than my SM57. I've also got an e935, but it's in the same neighborhood as the 835 sound wise. I keep the SM57 for guitar work, and the Sennheisers go straight on stands for live vocal mics. I've had two other fellows tell me that they prefer the e835/935 for vocals over the SM57 and 58s.
 
I've always thought the 835 and 845 were smoother - I've got some 835's on radio mics and they're OK - but I've always found the 57 brighter? That's at odds with Rich's conclusions with his. I'm going to have to listen again? Maybe it will be like the C1000 - that I was certain was horrible and it really isn't. Memory? Age? probably!
 
rob aylestone said:
I've always thought the 835 and 845 were smoother - I've got some 835's on radio mics and they're OK - but I've always found the 57 brighter? That's at odds with Rich's conclusions with his. I'm going to have to listen again? Maybe it will be like the C1000 - that I was certain was horrible and it really isn't. Memory? Age? probably!
Click to expand...
It actually has more guitar range capturing than a 57. Better low mids and good bass roll off. Its great either alone or paired with a e609

I would be surprised if no one else hasn't noticed this about them.

C1000 is touchy with mic placement, but older recording interfaces screwed with top end response with a lot of microphones. I gave a person who was learning how to do recording a couple of slightly modded $35 ebay condensers for their portastidio after I tweaked them to blast through the low pass filter they have in them.
 
Farview said:
A Shure SM7 wasn't designed to be used with professional mic preamps???!!!
Click to expand...
That is why I modified mine about 20 years ago by bypassing the fake presence boost filter and stuck a TAB sm58 transformer. Works like a champ and sounds good on any mic pre and mixing board I plugged it into.
 
Hey Brad,
There are some decent large diaphragm condensers that are fairly cheap. And would be a step up from what you're using now. I don't know what your budget is or financial status. The MXL 990 mic is inexpensive and in my experience works fine for a budget mic. The more experienced guys in here would likely frown upon it but it was my first condenser and got great results with it. Used it live for vocals in my acoustic shows. And others in the MXL line are reasonable as well. I've gotten some decent deals at pawn shops for condensers too. So that may be an option. You can always move up to something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top